p.9 #1 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
DavidBM wrote:
If by "smokes" you mean noticeably less astigmatism in the extreme corners viewed at 1:1, and marginally greater contrast overall. Of course what counts as "smokes" is subjective - but people do tend to assume that the smoked thing can't produce results of a superb calibre - and I don't think that's true of the Loxia.
Agreed. One can produce great images with all sorts of lenses. One of my favorite images was produced with a Canon Rebel (film) and a lousy Tamron 28-200 lens. Still, this is a hardware forum and we tend to obsess over small differences. I used "smokes" to describe what I saw as obvious and easily noticeable differences. Sometimes the differences between lenses is more subtle than that and thus I used a term that in real life, for practical purposes, no doubt overstates the difference. No offense intended.
p.9 #2 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
I tend to compare lenses side-by-side at 1:2 and even 1:3 and try detecting significant differences between them. Posting crops at 1:1 sometimes gives the wrong impression for a lens and I'm guilty as charged. However, if I would post 1:3 crops, all these higher end primes would look very similar...
The Loxia 35/2 for example, suffers from astigmatism even at small apertures but when viewing the image at 1:3, the center and mid-field are very strong and extreme edge issue is usually not that noticeable when looking at the overall image. I also tend to compare contrast between lenses using LR "Fit" magnification. If images were captured during the exact same light, exposure and WB, it's possible to see differences in contrast and color rendering between lenses.
As I wrote, most of these primes do well at infinity distances and I believe the FE 35/2.8 is very good at f/4 (better than many lenses). Edges are not that sharp but very acceptable. However, stopping down further does not improve the mid or edges where other lenses see a big bump.
p.9 #3 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Fred Miranda wrote:
I tend to compare lenses side-by-side at 1:2 and even 1:3 and try detecting significant differences between lenses. Posting crops at 1:1 sometimes gives the wrong impression for a lens and I'm guilty as charged. However, if I would post 1:3 crops, all these higher end primes would look very similar...
The Loxia 35/2 for example, suffers from astigmatism even at small apertures but when viewing the image at 1:3, the center and mid-field are very strong and extreme edge issue is usually not that noticeable when looking at the overall image. I also tend to compare contrast between lenses using LR "Fit" magnification. If images were captured during the exact same light, exposure and WB, it's possible to see differences in contrast and color rendering between lenses.
As I wrote, most of these primes do well at infinity distances and I believe the FE 35/2.8 is very good at f/4 (better than many lenses). Edges are not that sharp but very acceptable. However, stopping down further does not improve the mid or edges where other lenses see a big bump....Show more →
Yes that all matches my testing. My comment before about "smoking" was not a complaint about 1:1 or even 2:1 comparisons: they certainly give you the best way to see differences. Rather it was that I thought the poster I was replying too thought that being a little worse in such demanding conditions was a decisive mark against a lens, rather than another data point in decision.
p.9 #4 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Luvwine wrote:
Agreed. One can produce great images with all sorts of lenses. One of my favorite images was produced with a Canon Rebel (film) and a lousy Tamron 28-200 lens. Still, this is a hardware forum and we tend to obsess over small differences. I used "smokes" to describe what I saw as obvious and easily noticeable differences. Sometimes the differences between lenses is more subtle than that and thus I used a term that in real life, for practical purposes, no doubt overstates the difference. No offense intended.
Goodness, non taken of course! But I guess my point wasn't the point that one can make great images with technically poor lenses - very very true though that is. Rather, it was that some of the differences that are easily noticeable at 1:1 (and that folks like us naturally care about) are not necessarily differences between technically poor and technically great - rather they are small differences among the technically great, to be weighed against other differneces.
p.9 #5 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
DavidBM wrote:
Goodness, non taken of course! But I guess my point wasn't the point that one can make great images with technically poor lenses - very very true though that is. Rather, it was that some of the differences that are easily noticeable at 1:1 (and that folks like us naturally care about) are not necessarily differences between technically poor and technically great - rather they are small differences among the technically great, to be weighed against other differneces.
I agree, but I have read enough about the 35mm Loxia personally not to be interested. The additional "data point" really did not influence me against the Loxia as my decision against it was already made. It is doubtless a fine optic but is "quirky" enough to use optimally with its characteristic field curvature that I have decided not to go that route. It is too bad as the Loxia 21 and 50 are excellent by all accounts. Like many, I have been struggling with the 35mm focal length. Seeing the Zeiss ZM is better (albeit slightly) at infinity than the Loxia 35 makes me more optimistic about it. Maybe the Zeiss ZM will be a good choice for me, and I am looking forward to finding out.
One query: the "dearsusan" comparison with the FE 35/2.8 has the FE "winning" at infinity versus the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 tho she likes the Zeiss ZM better overall. Is this representative of what others are seeing? If not, can the difference be explained by Dearsusan using the A7r instead of the A7r2? In other words, does the A7r2 perform better with the Zeiss ZM at infinity for some reason than the A7r?
p.9 #6 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Luvwine wrote:
I agree, but I have read enough about the 35mm Loxia personally not to be interested. The additional "data point" really did not influence me against the Loxia as my decision against it was already made. It is doubtless a fine optic but is "quirky" enough to use optimally with its characteristic field curvature that I have decided not to go that route. It is too bad as the Loxia 21 and 50 are excellent by all accounts. Like many, I have been struggling with the 35mm focal length. Seeing the Zeiss ZM is better (albeit slightly) at infinity than the Loxia 35 makes me more optimistic about it. Maybe the Zeiss ZM will be a good choice for me, and I am looking forward to finding out.
One query: the "dearsusan" comparison with the FE 35/2.8 has the FE "winning" at infinity versus the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 tho she likes the Zeiss ZM better overall. Is this representative of what others are seeing? If not, can the difference be explained by Dearsusan using the A7r instead of the A7r2? In other words, does the A7r2 perform better with the Zeiss ZM at infinity for some reason than the A7r?...Show more →
Sure, yep L 35 is quirky. Quite agree that there is no perfect 35, and since for a lot of us 35 is the most important FL we are going to optimise differently.
But as for the test on dearSusan (by the way, it's all men who post on that site - the name comes from letters to Susan Sontag, I seem to recall) in which he found the FE 2.8 preferable to ZM 1.4, if he means stopped down I'm mystified. (EDIT: Pascal says in the comparison that the FE 2.8 is preferable in the edges at infinity across the comparison. Well, not true of the two copies of the FE 2.8 I've had is all I can say. But variation...for all these lenses. And adapter issues for his ZM?)
According to my tests the FE 2.8 is considerably better than the Loxia at f 2.8 and f4 at infinity at the edges and corners. But by f 5.6 its a wash and at f8 and 11 its reversed: the Loxia is preferable across the whole field. Now I've seem Fred's tests of the ZM 1.4 against the Loxia, and they show the ZM as better at f8 and 11 than the Loxia at infinity across the field.
So that means that the ZM should be clearly preferable to the FE 2.8 stopped down. It wouldn't surprise me though if the FE 2.8 did better at 2.8 in the corners than the ZM at infinity though. But I have no direct evidence of that. And, of course, there's sample variation to consider (which in the case of the FE 2.8 is substantial)
p.9 #7 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Maybe I've relayed this before, but I directly compared the Loxia 35/2 and Sony 35/2.8 on my A7RII and found:
Wide Open:
- Loxia was excellent in the center and really poor in the edges/corners/boarders. Lots and lots of SA
- Sony was very very good in the center and the borders/corners/edges much better than the Loxia
Stopped down to f/8 or so:
- Loxia still has some slight residual SA in the far corners and was excellent elsewhere
- Sony was very very good across the whole frame
- Toss-up overall
So my conclusion was that both are too expensive for what you get:
- Loxia should be way better wide open and I shouldn't have to stop down to f/8 to get decent off-center performance. Build quality is excellent. Sun stars excellent.
- Sony has very very good overall optical performance, even wide open, but the build quality is not the greatest. Sunstars were meh . . .
If the Loxia has the same optical performance at f/2.8 that the Sony has I would have bought it, but having to stop it way down to get it to be decent across the frame is just not worth it.
The usual caveats apply - particularly that I tested one copy of each and could have gotten a below average Loxia and an above average Sony. However, the Sony 35/2.8 that I ended up buying (different from what I tested) did behave about the same though, so I don't think copy variation was at play for the Sony at least.
p.9 #8 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
As a follow-up, I ended up getting the Sony, even though I think it's over-priced, mainly for the good optics, compact/light weight, and AF for a walk-around lens on my A7RII.
For dedicated landscape work I'm interested in something better and the 35/1.7 might be it and when I get the time will likely grab one to try out.
p.9 #9 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
I recently compared both the CV and ZM on a Leica M240, shooting an infinity scene, and actually felt the CV was the better lens by a hair, in respect to across-frame sharpness across the range of apertures settings I tested. However, most here shoot Sony so the results might not be of much interest.
p.9 #11 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
The VC 35 1.7 is really nice my biggest issue with it was backing off focus at infinity. You have to adjust focus for the field curvature . My first big bronco wall test was horrible. I thought it was defective than I redid it with backing off the focus a touch and it was quite good. You just have to learn the lens. I think it's a little lower micro contrast than the ZM and may not have that pop but still a great lens.
p.9 #12 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Gary Clennan wrote:
I really have to try out that CV one day. It looks to be so good (and small)....
I went ahead and and bought Greggf's copy. Looking forward to trying it out! Like a lot of folks here, I'd really like to find a fast 35mm (brighter than f/2.8) that works as a general purpose lens. I just tried the CV 40/1.4, which was fun but full of gotchas that made working with the lens tricky. Wasn't a big fan of the focus tab, though maybe I could get used to it. Just so used to grabbing somewhere on the barrel.
I started selling lenses with the intent to get the Loxia 35mm f/2, but in the end changed my mind. If there was less SA wide open and/or a little cheaper used, I would have probably gone with the Loxia. Not a perfect lens, but one I find it appealing nonetheless.
p.9 #13 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
So from reading this thread it seems the ZM 35/1.7 pro's compared to the CV 35/1.7 are...
1. half a stop faster
2. higher contrast and richer colors
whereas the CV's pro's are
1. nicer bokeh
2. a bit sharper?
3. better corrected LoCA and better flare resistance
4. better sunstars
5. much cheaper
6. smaller and lighter
So unless I prioritize the Zeiss 3D pop over everything else, the CV seems like the superior choice. Or am I missing something?
p.9 #14 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
I really love the cv 35 1.7 (judging by the photos on the web), but I think the field curvature, when used on Sony cameras, is a big issue. I hope voigtlander will release the 28 f2, 35 1.7 and 50 1.5 for the e mount with tweaked optical formula. Until that day, i will wait.
p.9 #15 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Well, the current version of the Ultron 35 was released only last year, so it's quite unlikely that they release a new optical design anytime soon ( if ever ). Also, according to Cameraquest, this last version has an aspherical lens and "it's corrected for digital sensors and digital color shift". Whether they mean tweaked for Leica sensors or Sony or something in between, isn't clear..
Sep 01, 2016 at 04:05 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #16 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Zony_user wrote:
So from reading this thread it seems the ZM 35/1.7 pro's compared to the CV 35/1.7 are...
1. half a stop faster
2. higher contrast and richer colors
whereas the CV's pro's are
1. nicer bokeh
2. a bit sharper?
3. better corrected LoCA and better flare resistance
4. better sunstars
5. much cheaper
6. smaller and lighter
So unless I prioritize the Zeiss 3D pop over everything else, the CV seems like the superior choice. Or am I missing something?
I don't think this list is quite right. IMO, I would describe it this way:
ZM 35 f/1.4 Pros:
1) half a stop faster
2) higher micro contrast and 'pop'
3) sharper centre at wide apertures
4) perhaps a bit less field curvature
CV 35 f/1.7 Pros:
1) Perhaps a bit better bokeh (subjective)
2) cheaper
3) smaller and lighter
They both have 10 aperture blades and should have very similar sunstars, so that isn't an advantage for either. I also think there is no clear advantage in LoCA or flare resistance for the CV. Again I think the lenses perform similarly from what I have seen and I would have to see side by side tests to make this determination. I haven't seen such tests. I don't think there is really any evidence the CV is sharper. Certainly not in the centre at wide apertures--here the ZM is fantastic and being a half stop faster will outperform the CV and stopped down to f/5.6 or 6.3 the ZM is very sharp across the frame. I don't think the CV has an advantage there, but the ZM very well might--in Guy's tests it seems to. So if anything it would be more fair to say the ZM is sharper, which isn't a big criticism of the CV. In the centre at wide apertures almost no lenses are as sharp as the ZM.
p.9 #17 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think this list is quite right. IMO, I would describe it this way:
ZM 35 f/1.4 Pros:
1) half a stop faster
2) higher micro contrast and 'pop'
3) sharper centre at wide apertures
4) perhaps a bit less field curvature
CV 35 f/1.7 Pros:
1) Perhaps a bit better bokeh (subjective)
2) cheaper
3) smaller and lighter
They both have 10 aperture blades and should have very similar sunstars, so that isn't an advantage for either. I also think there is no clear advantage in LoCA or flare resistance for the CV. Again I think the lenses perform similarly from what I have seen and I would have to see side by side tests to make this determination. I haven't seen such tests. I don't think there is really any evidence the CV is sharper. Certainly not in the centre at wide apertures--here the ZM is fantastic and being a half stop faster will outperform the CV and stopped down to f/5.6 or 6.3 the ZM is very sharp across the frame. I don't think the CV has an advantage there, but the ZM very well might--in Guy's tests it seems to. So if anything it would be more fair to say the ZM is sharper, which isn't a big criticism of the CV. In the centre at wide apertures almost no lenses are as sharp as the ZM. ...Show more →
I do not have the CV 35 f1.7 Ultron, but others have commented regarding the size and position, size, and feel of the focusing and aperture rings and that they were not as much to their liking as other M mount lens or were a bit awkward for operation. The Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM Distagon is quite straight forward for feel (focus is extremely smooth and well damped) and operation though it is relatively large as an M mount lens. However, compared to SLR/DSLR lenses it is small and relatively light. The lens balances well on my A7rM V3 camera with my RRS L bracket so it should balance well on A7 series cameras including the newer A7II and A7rII cameras.
p.9 #18 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think this list is quite right. IMO, I would describe it this way:
ZM 35 f/1.4 Pros:
1) half a stop faster
2) higher micro contrast and 'pop'
3) sharper centre at wide apertures
4) perhaps a bit less field curvature
CV 35 f/1.7 Pros:
1) Perhaps a bit better bokeh (subjective)
2) cheaper
3) smaller and lighter
They both have 10 aperture blades and should have very similar sunstars, so that isn't an advantage for either. I also think there is no clear advantage in LoCA or flare resistance for the CV. Again I think the lenses perform similarly from what I have seen and I would have to see side by side tests to make this determination. I haven't seen such tests. I don't think there is really any evidence the CV is sharper. Certainly not in the centre at wide apertures--here the ZM is fantastic and being a half stop faster will outperform the CV and stopped down to f/5.6 or 6.3 the ZM is very sharp across the frame. I don't think the CV has an advantage there, but the ZM very well might--in Guy's tests it seems to. So if anything it would be more fair to say the ZM is sharper, which isn't a big criticism of the CV. In the centre at wide apertures almost no lenses are as sharp as the ZM. ...Show more →
Thanks, I thought I read somewhere that the ZM exhibited a noticable amount of CA and LoCA? Perhaps I misread. As for sharpness and bokeh, I guess there's no way to tell for certain, unless we see a side-by-side comparison. I'd like to see the difference in color and rendering as well, because the CV looks no less impressive than the ZM from the samples I've seen.
p.9 #19 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Zony_user wrote:
Thanks, I thought I read somewhere that the ZM exhibited a noticable amount of CA and LoCA? Perhaps I misread. As for sharpness and bokeh, I guess there's no way to tell for certain, unless we see a side-by-side comparison. I'd like to see the difference in color and rendering as well, because the CV looks no less impressive than the ZM from the samples I've seen.
I think you might be confusing the ZM for the ZA? The ZA 1.4, whose bokeh I prefer despite the onion rings, nevertheless exhibits more noticeable (though correctible with care) LoCA than the ZM. Neither has noticeable LaCA as far as I can see...
p.9 #20 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Perhaps that may be the case. For Sony users the ZM seems to be the best overall RF lens. The CV, while exhibiting a bit more field curvature, is a great alternative for less than half the price.
For M users though, the size of the ZM is a major turn off, and the 35 FLE and CV leaps ahead.
However, if I would post 1:3 crops, all these higher end primes would look very similar...