ecarlino wrote:
The "playtpod" seems like it would be difficult to use on anything other than a very flat surface.
That RRS mini-pod is regularly on my 'wish list' - Guy, do you use your own head or the RRS BH-25 that they make for it?
The Platypod (the original) has 3 screw spikes (with sharp ends and rubber at the other end) that can be used to adjust for height and for some angle on surfaces including rocks and the Platypod Max offers 4 screw spikes (with sharp ends and rubber at the other end) and greater stability. The Platypods can also be clamped, strapped. nailed to, etc. to trees, poles, ladders, walls, ceilings, etc.
naturephoto1 wrote:
The Platypod (the original) has 3 screw spikes (with sharp ends and rubber at the other end) that can be used to adjust for height and for some angle on surfaces including rocks and the Platypod Max offers 4 screw spikes (with sharp ends and rubber at the other end) and greater stability. The Platypods can also be clamped, strapped. nailed to, etc. to trees, poles, ladders, walls, ceilings, etc.
Rich
yes, 4 spikes which give about 1.5" of clearance from an 8" long plate is still not going to accommodate that much variance from a level surface. it seems like a neat thing for certain applications but it's just not very versatile, IMO.
rscheffler wrote:
Compared to the 35/1.2, my impression was that the ZM was surprisingly lighter and felt a bit 'hollow' in comparison, but not in a bad way. I generally agree with your assessment and it's the mid-distance bokeh/rendering that made me hesitate getting it. That and the price at release. Well... at PPE+ 2014 Zeiss was quoting ~$2000 and it landed at $2300. Meanwhile its retail price in Japan was $1750 (back when the JPY was weaker)... Factor in the CAD and I shelved the idea and got the CV35/1.7 instead. I dislike the CV's ergonomics, but image quality is very good. I shot it briefly in comparison to the ZM and it was difficult to tell the difference. At infinity, with the copy of each I had, I preferred the CV (on a Leica).
Interesting to read your impressions of the 35/1.4 ZM vs the CV 35/1.7 Ultron. I believe that Guy has owned the Ultron twice, but did not bond with it. I use it on an A7ii and like it very much, definitely more than the Loxia 35. To get the most from the Ultron on my camera, I use CornerFix to correct vignetting and color shifting, and I'm very pleased with the results. My sense is that these issues are less significant on an A7Rii. For me, the ZM is simply too expensive and too big for whatever advantage it may provide over the CV. No doubt, both are great lenses.
GMPhotography wrote:
I got the Leica mid ball but have to say Novoflex has a 30 that I really liked. Have to look it up
i think my acra swiss p0 will be on the big side of acceptable on that RRS table-top, i should just get the tripod and figure out the head later.
btw, Guy, i'm bummed you finally found your 35 b/c my good-copy FE 35/1.4 is hitting the B/S board this wkend (after being my lenscap for the past 2 yrs, i think i'm going to try the new 50 as my main lens and build a kit around that now). Then again, i know you haven't told her yet, but we all know you're only dating her! I'm sure you'll break up before Christmas :-)
I really like the 50 and had thoughts of selling it but changed my mind. I like having 1 lens that is a freaking laser and that lens is it. I may buy a ZM 50 1.5 or a VC 50 1.5 nokton to add to my fun kit. I think I want the ZM and may rent it to try it out . But unless something earth shattering comes out of Photokinia I'm staying pat.
That's a nice update Guy, the original that I own doesn't have adjustable leg angles and I've found it to be limiting enough that it rarely sees use. My best recent buy from them was this:
Definitely get the flat surface adapters as well. I used it a lot in Rio as I didn't want to be a mark with a tripod, and there often isn't room to set one up. But there are plenty of railings and posts to attach it to. I also bring it golfing and just clamp it to the cart. Heck, I bring it everywhere as it is pretty flat in one dimension and can slide into side pockets of most bags. Best part is you can get away with the micro-ball with a smaller lens, or you can slap on a small ballhead as there are threaded holes on both sides that accept bushings. I use a BH-25.
My ZM 85 F4 is here another laser lens. This one for sure is a landscape lens. My last one that Fred has beat the GM 85 and that's hard to do. This one looks to be outstanding also.
For landscape small kit. I can do VC15, Loxia 21, ZM 35 and 85. For my one big lens I can take the new Sony 50 1.4. Everything is really small except the 50. Or I can take the GM 24-70 instead of the 50
For anyone who is interested, here's my current thinking on the ZM 35 for my needs (yours may be similar, but then maybe not.
Currently I run three 35s.
(1)The ZA 1.4/35 for portraits,
(2) the Loxia 2/35 for landscape and similar,
(3) the ZA 2.8/35 as a pancake on hiking trips for use while hiking (the other hiking lenses stay in the pack for use in the best light before and after walking).
The ZM 1.4/35 has potential to replace all three.
(1) Combined with the Techart it should do well for wide portraiture.
(2) It is, (thanks Fred for the samples) a bit better in the corners than the Loxia stopped down, while having otherwise a very similar look: super contrasty with great ten pointed sunstars, performing well against the light (though I haven't seen samples of the sunstar)
(3) Not sure it really can replace the ZA pancake as the "adds no weight to the hiking kit" lens: it's a lot heavier adapted that the ZA, and native AF is a good thing to have on the move. But it might.
Of these advantages, I'm pretty sure that (2) is the real deal. It's an even better Loxia with two more stops of aperture, and much nicer at the shared wide ones - especially f2.
Problem is, for my needs I'm not convinced about (1) and (3). The bokeh on the ZA FE 1.4/35 is just drop dead gorgeous. Nicer than I've ever seen elsewhere. My copy is plenty sharp in a fairly wide central area, and sharp enough wide open for portrait subjects into the periphery. I haven't seen exact a/b comparisons, but while i think the ZM might be sharper centrally, it's mid distance bokeh I frankly don't like (you might not mind however this is a matter of taste after all!). The ZA is big; but I never take it hiking.
And I'm not sure that the ZM can play the hiking role (3) above.
So that leaves me thinking that if I got one, it'd be essentially a Loxia replacement. Yes it's better. But I'm not sure it's a thousand dollars and the hassle of adapters better. I'm getting stunning results from the Lox. I can see changing to a Lox version of the ZM (or if I got a windfall). Or an FE mount version of the CV 1.7 with less field curvature. But that's for the future.
So in sum, I guess for the while I'm sitting on my hands. I can only justify the ZM if it replaced everything, and I'm not sure it could (and I also think that selling off a centred ZA 1.4/35 is asking for trouble).
Of course your mileage *will* vary, but maybe these thoughts might help anyone in a similar position. And of course I know that all of this is not super relevant to getting great images.!
It's replaced everything for me and all those situations but I have a GM 24-70 in my back pocket. This gives me the green light to go play around with my primes. The Loxia can't compare wide open and it's not good centerally until 2.8. The ZM kills it at 1.4. The FE 35 I think it's better by far , remember the FE 35 has horrifying onion rings it's why I won't be buying a 5th one. Bugs the crap out of me and at 1.4 the Zeiss has more micro contrast and pop. I could actually see keeping the 35 2.8 around if you really have a AF shoot that may need the speed to AF. The ZM is also easy to focus in low light on manual as well. The TechArt is a wanted option but it is a option. You can still manually focus this lens really well. Honestly I had everything on the market in 35. I like this the best. It's got mojo and the rest are more ho hum in a way. The FE 35 is nice don't get me wrong but for me it's not worth the weight and size . The GMs are and the new 50 1.4 but the FE I still question its quality. Okay I had 4 bad copies so I'm kind of not that positive on it. I lost a lot of time and money on it so I may have some negative feelings. This lens just gives me more character and having the 24-70 in my back pocket I can go after several character lenses now. The GM in my mind at 35 is better than all three you mentioned. Even at 2.8 it has nice bokeh.
But again that's my needs not necessarily anyone else's . The two GM and 50 are my workhorse lenses everything else either supports them or stands on there own.
DavidBM wrote:
For anyone who is interested, here's my current thinking on the ZM 35 for my needs (yours may be similar, but then maybe not.
Currently I run three 35s.
(1)The ZA 1.4/35 for portraits,
(2) the Loxia 2/35 for landscape and similar,
(3) the ZA 2.8/35 as a pancake on hiking trips for use while hiking (the other hiking lenses stay in the pack for use in the best light before and after walking).
The ZM 1.4/35 has potential to replace all three.
(1) Combined with the Techart it should do well for wide portraiture.
(2) It is, (thanks Fred for the samples) a bit better in the corners than the Loxia stopped down, while having otherwise a very similar look: super contrasty with great ten pointed sunstars, performing well against the light (though I haven't seen samples of the sunstar)
(3) Not sure it really can replace the ZA pancake as the "adds no weight to the hiking kit" lens: it's a lot heavier adapted that the ZA, and native AF is a good thing to have on the move. But it might.
Of these advantages, I'm pretty sure that (2) is the real deal. It's an even better Loxia with two more stops of aperture, and much nicer at the shared wide ones - especially f2.
Problem is, for my needs I'm not convinced about (1) and (3). The bokeh on the ZA FE 1.4/35 is just drop dead gorgeous. Nicer than I've ever seen elsewhere. My copy is plenty sharp in a fairly wide central area, and sharp enough wide open for portrait subjects into the periphery. I haven't seen exact a/b comparisons, but while i think the ZM might be sharper centrally, it's mid distance bokeh I frankly don't like (you might not mind however this is a matter of taste after all!). The ZA is big; but I never take it hiking.
And I'm not sure that the ZA can play the hiking role (3) above.
So that leaves me thinking that if I got one, it'd be essentially a Loxia replacement. Yes it's better. But I'm not sure it's a thousand dollars and the hassle of adapters better. I'm getting stunning results from the Lox. I can see changing to a Lox version of the ZM (or if I got a windfall). Or an FE mount version of the CV 1.7 with less field curvature. But that's for the future.
So in sum, I guess for the while I'm sitting on my hands. I can only justify the ZM if it replaced everything, and I'm not sure it could (and I also think that selling off a centred ZA 1.4/35 is asking for trouble).
Of course your mileage *will* vary, but maybe these thoughts might help anyone in a similar position. And of course I know that all of this is not super relevant to getting great images.!
Isn't it something that the ZM 35/1.4 is not even designed/optimized for the Sony sensor and we are considering replacing all our 35mm natives for it?
Right now my 35mm primes are ZM 35/1.4 and RX1RII. However, the latter has not seeing much use after I started shooting with the ZM+TAP combo.
GMPhotography wrote:
The FE 35 I think it's better by far , remember the FE 35 has horrifying onion rings it's why I won't be buying a 5th one. Bugs the crap out of me and at 1.4 the Zeiss has more micro contrast and pop.
.
I can see how playing the FE 1.4/35 lottery would put you off. I got lucky first off.
Yes it has onion rings. But other than that, the bokeh is the most beautiful I've ever seen on something wider than normal. It's remarkable. The ZM does seem to have more contrast wide open, but at the expense of a less smooth bokeh.
How much the onion rings bug you depends on whether you have use cases in mind: if no specular highlights then of course there is no problem. And if there are specular highlights, people vary how much they care about onion rings. I don't mind them too much, and if it's a really special image, I don't mind cleaning them up.
Here's an image (selfie I'm afraid) which illustrates the creamy bokeh wide open at f1.4
Thank you so much Guy and Fred The testing and results are amazing and very counter intuitive
I would have never considered the ZM 35/1.4. I was keenly looking at the Techart adapter as it opens so many lenses!
I agree with David, if you have a great copy of the FE 35/1.4, for portraits it is a superb lens.
The difference in specs:
ZM 35/1.4 + Techart: 514gms 63mm x 85mm
FE 35/1.4 630gms 78mm x 112mm
This will now be a difficult choice for those don't have the FE 35/1.4. I cannot understand why the FE 35/1.4 has to be so long in length though!
Still for portraits this is definitely one of my all time favourite lenses. Normally I am a 50mm shooter.
Has anyone compared the ZM 35/1.4 with the CV 35/1.2? Seems like there may be similar advantages (and disadvantage of weight), but I suspect the Zeiss has more pop at larger apertures, though the CV has a lovely character too. I wonder, however, if there is an appreciable difference between the two stopped down for landscape to say F5.6 or F8? I have not had an opportunity to do much real shooting, but the Techart adapter seems to work well with the CV 35/1.2. Course you guys have me wondering about the ZM. Sigh.....
The testing and results are amazing and very counter intuitive 
