p.2 #1 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
uhoh7 wrote:
What do you think of the secondary CA issue Steve DK mentions with the ZM 35/1.4, which gets worse as it stops down?
I PMed Steve to come and explain it to us.
i'm guessing what he is referring to is just typical defocused CA, what people usually mean when they say loCA. pretty much every highly corrected lens that isn't a good APO shows this more than less corrected lenses because of the higher contrast. the FE 55 and the new milvus 50/1.4 have kinda been panned for this as well. i don't think it should have a big impact on Rich's shots since he typically seems to try to keep things in focus all the way to infinity with that focal length (from what i've seen of his work).
Nov 09, 2015 at 08:33 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
p.2 #3 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
sebboh wrote:
i'm guessing what he is referring to is just typical defocused CA, what people usually mean when they say loCA. pretty much every highly corrected lens that isn't a good APO shows this more than less corrected lenses because of the higher contrast. the FE 55 and the new milvus 50/1.4 have kinda been panned for this as well. i don't think it should have a big impact on Rich's shots since he typically seems to try to keep things in focus all the way to infinity with that focal length (from what i've seen of his work).
Hi Derek,
With such a fast lens, I may do some work with much shallower DOF as a possibility so though it might not normally be an issues with much of my work, it could potentially become an issue with which I may need to deal. I do tend to use a lot of DOF as you say. Since my 40mm focal length has now become my go to focal length for much of what I have I have been using, my new 35mm lenght lens is going to become one of my most used lenses.
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Derek,
With such a fast lens, I may do a some work with much shallower DOF as a possibility so though it might not normally be an issues with much of my work, it could potentially become an issue with which I may need to deal. I do tend to use a lot of DOF as you say. Since my 40mm focal length has now become my go to focal length for much of what I have I have been using, my new 35mm lenght lens is going to become one of my most used lenses.
Rich
Rich the CA outside of the focal plane will diminish quickly as you stop down. You will see it wide open on the lens quite strongly, but by f/2.8 it will be almost all gone and all gone shortly after that, and with a helicoid adapter you can focus quite close with the lens. It ought to do well with shallow DOF work, just if the CA bothers you then stop down a couple stops. I don't think this is a differentiator between the lenses, however, as both should be free of this aberration at about the same time and both have a problem with it wide open. The ZM probably maintains sharpness and contrast better at close focus as it has a floating element and the CV does not.
As Derek says I think the primary tradeoff, however, is a bit better micro contrast (i.e., bite) and I believe a flatter field with the ZM versus a smaller size and bit smoother bokeh with the CV. Both could be good choices depending on which characteristics you value most.
p.2 #5 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Hi Rich,
I do find I will bump contrast and saturation in Ultron images more often than with Leica M glass. Color is a bit more muted than Leica. Zeiss lenses seem to be inherently higher contrast which will influence color vibrancy and saturation. But I don't necessarily find the characteristics of the Ultron lacking. Just a bit different.
I guess one of the arguments often made about Zeiss rendering is that the inherent micro contrast isn't something that can be reproduced in images made with 'lesser' lenses by increasing contrast and clarity in post.
It's definitely a sharp lens and I think if you're specifically thinking of stopped down landscape work, there likely will be minimal sharpness differences between it and the ZM, assuming both behave similarly on modded Sony. On Leica M the Ultron seems to have a quite flat plane of focus. I'm not sure how well it translates to modded Sony, but should be very similar based on how other RF lenses have become quite usable after the modification.
At least for my needs, the Ultron has pretty much eliminated my desire for the ZM 35/1.4. But that's not to say there isn't argument in favor of the ZM, which I think is more relevant to some wide open and near distance situations.
p.2 #6 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
naturephoto1 wrote:
Of course the smaller size and weight of the Ultorn as compared to the Zeiss 1.4 ZM Distagon as well as the price differences are a plus. As I recall there is about a 5 ounce difference in weight between the lenses.
Rich
238 grams for the black ultron (silver might be heavier) 381 for the ZM 35/1.4
I did not realize the ultron was that light, which is very nice. As to the "look", while my new Leica lenses are somewhat consistent with color palette, the CV lenses are all over the place
That said, it certainly looked fine in both Phillip's and Ron's shots.
sebboh wrote:
i'm guessing what he is referring to is just typical defocused CA, what people usually mean when they say loCA. pretty much every highly corrected lens that isn't a good APO shows this more than less corrected lenses because of the higher contrast. the FE 55 and the new milvus 50/1.4 have kinda been panned for this as well. i don't think it should have a big impact on Rich's shots since he typically seems to try to keep things in focus all the way to infinity with that focal length (from what i've seen of his work).
This is interesting and makes some sense. Something which might well come up in zone focused street shooting. I would love to see some samples which contrast this trait between the C-biogon and the Distagon.
rscheffler wrote:
At least for my needs, the Ultron has pretty much eliminated my desire for the ZM 35/1.4. But that's not to say there isn't argument in favor of the ZM, which I think is more relevant to some wide open and near distance situations.
Wow, very strong praise for the ultron, Ron
To me the ZM35/1.4 "tests" from Jako and Pascal on the unmodified Sonys are not impressive, but to be fair, very great care must be taken to show the best possible result, and central focus is the great enemy. Jako's shot is clearly center focused.
Jako, at least has a high vantage, but still few seem to bother to frame a shot which has the corners at a similar distance as the centers, or even turn the camera diagonally if they don't.
Philip has gotten "up" but would be nice to see something besides grass in the corner. He is very good at the focus though.
It's not hard to see why there is so much confusion, for example on just how well the ZM 35/1.4 can potentially do on the stock cameras.
Nov 10, 2015 at 12:11 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It could simply be that Steve DK referred to the wrong technical form of aberration he is seeing (most likely I suppose). Since I have not used the lens, I don't know how it behaves in tricky lighting stopped down. Maybe if Edward sees this, he will comment.
I would love to hear what Edward says as well, but the only CA that doesn't decrease dramatically when stopped down is lateral CA and that isn't seen in the bokeh and by all accounts the ZM 35 f/1.4 is quite well corrected for lateral CA. No CA get worse when stopped down, although lateral CA is sometimes hidden by other aberrations (notably spherical aberrations, i.e., the image is so blurry you don't notice the CA). It would be interesting to see how these two lenses (ZM 35 f/1.4 and CV 35 f/1.7) perform stopped down and with tricky light. I don't expect much difference, but a comparison would be interesting.
p.2 #8 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
“Corners at a similar distance as the centers”, “turn the camera diagonally”, “test”? Charlie, the image I posted on previous page is an example of why I have cameras in the first place; to take family and holiday photos.
If I post images for pixel peeping evaluation, they are labeled as such.
You’re also incorrect about the center focusing point. See, by now each of my M-mount lenses is using its own, dedicated, high quality M-->E adapter that was adjusted/shimmed for hard stop at infinity (WO adjustment for the best across the frame compromise, based on field curvature)
ZM35D works just fine adjusted for A7RM2 and from my limited first hand experience definitely better than on stock A7. Kolari modded A7x gives the best results thou.
p.2 #9 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve, what is tricky light?
My findings with the CV are that it is not the greatest at handling backlit flare situations. Sometimes veiling flare can add a nice effect, such as for lifestyle/people photos. But sometimes it's not desirable. I'm not sure how the ZM compares. Like pretty much every fast CV lens I've used, the Ultron will purple fringe in high contrast situations, like branches against a bright sky. Seems to need stopping down to f/4-5.6 to pretty much eliminate this. Of course, one can 'defringe' in post to varying degrees of success. There is lateral CA, too, but not more than I see in many Leica lenses and cleans up easily. LoCA is there too, such as green fringing in background bokeh and specular highlight edges (assuming this is LoCA), but this doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother others.
uhoh7 wrote:
Wow, very strong praise for the ultron, Ron
Charlie, I had two criteria for this lens (either the ZM or CV):
1) Excellent stopped down across-frame sharpness, say by f/5.6, for typical landscape use, which generally shouldn't be difficult for a modern lens. Even my Canon 35/2 LTM is great by this point. Both deliver this, even by f/4. IMO, the CV is better than the ZM 35/2 here in the extreme corners.
2) Pleasing near distance wide aperture rendering, particularly background rendering. Primarily for people photos. Again, both lenses seem to be fairly similar, but IMO, I slightly prefer the CV. I don't like the clipped specular highlights that appear with the ZM towards the frame edges at certain camera to subject to background distances. At medium distances, both seem to have somewhat nervous bokeh when there isn't a lot of background separation. In other words, the RX1's Sonnar is still the overall 35mm champion.
2B) After some unexpected major car repair costs, I wasn't in the mood to spend nearly 3000 CAD for the ZM (though I could save over $500 buying it from the EU or Japan). The CV at about $625-650 US was a lot more attractive.
Here are a couple recent examples of the CV's flare handling:
This is one of a worst case scenario, where I shot wide open with the sun somewhat outside the frame, but still shining on the lens (using the stock non-vented hood). I did this intentionally to see what kind of flare I could provoke:
Here is a situation shot wide open where I was hoping to get some flare to add mood to the image. With the CV if the sun is in the frame, often it smears in this odd vertical shape (at least with the M240). There is some veiling flare across part of the middle of the frame. Note the red ghosts at bottom right. The second image is obviously out of focus and included to better show the flare effects...
From what I recall of the ZM 35/2.8, it seems to handle backlit flare better. Someday I will compare it against the Ultron...
p.2 #11 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Name me another 35/1.4 that can do this at WO? Heck you can shoot landscape with it at 1.4. Many lenses would have that extreme corners even at f/4 or 5.6.
p.2 #13 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
The 35mm/1.4 Distagon ZM is pretty well corrected for bokeh color fringing (secondary longitudinal chromatic aberration), but not perfectly, as an Apo lens would be. Its other aberrations are very well corrected and essentially absent by useful landscape photography apertures of f/5.6-f/11. But slightly behind plane of focus branches of trees silhouetted against the sky do show some cyan-blue color cast fringing aberration, even at f/8-f/11 on my Leica M-P, and it can be distracting. The effect is less obvious when things are more out of focus either due to distance or use of wider apertures, simply because the blurring dilutes the SLOCA color errors. Similar scenes with C-Biogon 35mm/2.8 don't show such obvious color fringing, and well stopped down, SLOCA is not so obvious with that lens. I have not done side by side tests, but I can post an example or two when I get back from lunch to my Lightroom Raw Files disc.
p.2 #15 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
taran wrote:
A used RX1r will destroy either, for landscapes, and costs less than the ZM.
Unfortunately to get the resolution of 36MP (A7r) or 42MP (A7rII) you need to get an RX1RII that costs $3300. Also, the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM is 1 stop faster than the lens on the RX1 series cameras and the Voigtlander is about 1/2 stop faster than the lens on the RX1 series cameras. Additionally, if I needed to carry the RX1RII for the 35mm lens in addition to an assortment of other glass that would force me to carry 2 or 3 cameras instead of 1 or 2 as well trying to work the differences in the controls of all of the different camera bodies. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
I don't see any obvious colour fringing in that shot, but I don't have a flikr account, so maybe I am not looking at it at the largest size. Could you post a 100% crop of what you feel in the problem area?
p.2 #17 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
1:1 Detail, upper left corner, F/8. This sort of effect is also prominent in my 28mm/1.8g AFS Nikkor, probably a bit worse. From what I've read and seen on diglloyd.com lot of fast lenses that are not Apochromatic (by Zeiss' stringent definition) show this color bokeh effect due to SLOCA, even some Leica Apo ASPH designated f/2 lenses like the 75mm/2 Apo Summicron ASPH. Slower f/2.8 lenses have less of this aberration to begin with, and it virtually disappears when well stopped down with those lenses.
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Rich,
Have you considered a Leica M 35 Summarit? It would be small and light and you it should produce colours very similar to your other Leica lenses. It also has an MTF very much like your Leica R 28 f/2.8 v. II, so very good performance stopped down to f/5.6 or narrower. It should be a very good option on a modified camera.
p.2 #20 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
Rich,
Have you considered a Leica M 35 Summarit? It would be small and light and you it should produce colours very similar to your other Leica lenses. It also has an MTF very much like your Leica R 28 f/2.8 v. II, so very good performance stopped down to f/5.6 or narrower. It should be a very good option on a modified camera.
Hi Steve,
After reading some of the additional threads, I looked up the 35mm f2.5 Summarit on ebay. I would have to check more sources as well as find a good price. But, it is probably a good mate with my 90mm Summarit, is quite small, and may do the trick. My R 35mm Summicron is up for sale in the Buy/Sell portion of the FM site. I have paid for the Kolari Vision thin sensor modification earlier this morning and the camera is boxed. I am just about to drop it off at the Post Office. Since I am in eastern Pennsylvania and the camera is only going to Raritan, New Jersey near New Brunswick the camera could arrive tomorrow via Priority mail.
