Luvwine wrote:
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.....
I haven't compared them directly, but I have used the cv 1.2. It's a lot of fun, and it's super fast - but the central area of sharpness at wide apertures is much more limited than the ZA, and it has 'character' bokeh that you may or may not like.
Stopped down the cv 1.2 isn't a patch on the Loxia. Which means, if the ZM is better again as it seems to be....(the new version of cv 1.7 on the other hand is wonderful stopped down, but the field curvature on Sony sensors even stopped down can be hard to work around)
Aug 28, 2016 at 12:11 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
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 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.!
David, I am in a similar situation and I am happy I ordered the ZM 35 f/1.4. I have the ZF.2 35 f/1.4 and I love the bokeh that lens produces. I think it is an excellent portrait lens, but it is more than twice as big as the ZM. I also have the FE 35 f/2.8 when I want to go super small. Still I fully expect that the ZM will be in my bag almost all the time. I will use the ZF.2 if I am shooting in studio or for videography, but otherwise it will be the ZM with the FE only used if small size is absolutely needed. My primary preference for lenses is fairly small fast aperture lenses that are good all arounders.
I agree the ZM could have better midrange bokeh, but I think it too (like the onion rings on the FE 35 f/1.4) can be something you can work with. For me, the kicker is the ZM is beautiful both close up and for landscape work. I shoot both those types a lot and it pretty much wipes the floor with any thing else for those purposes. If I want beautiful bokeh, I will reach for the ZF.2 35 f/1.4 or the Leica R 35 f/2 vII (which also has very nice bokeh), but for pretty much anything else I will want the ZM.
Steve Spencer wrote:
David, I am in a similar situation and I am happy I ordered the ZM 35 f/1.4. I have the ZF.2 35 f/1.4 and I love the bokeh that lens produces. I think it is an excellent portrait lens, but it is more than twice as big as the ZM. I also have the FE 35 f/2.8 when I want to go super small. Still I fully expect that the ZM will be in my bag almost all the time. I will use the ZF.2 if I am shooting in studio or for videography, but otherwise it will be the ZM with the FE only used if small size is absolutely needed. My primary preference for lenses is fairly small fast aperture lenses that are good all arounders.
I agree the ZM could have better midrange bokeh, but I think it too (like the onion rings on the FE 35 f/1.4) can be something you can work with. For me, the kicker is the ZM is beautiful both close up and for landscape work. I shoot both those types a lot and it pretty much wipes the floor with any thing else for those purposes. If I want beautiful bokeh, I will reach for the ZF.2 35 f/1.4 or the Leica R 35 f/2 vII (which also has very nice bokeh), but for pretty much anything else I will want the ZM....Show more →
I'm sure you'll love it Steve; it's a sharper and contrastier than the ZE/F so that'll be nice, and if you can afford to keep that for bokeh and the 2.8 for super small you'll be all set.
But that's exactly my problem. I don't think I want give up the ZA or the 2.8. If I could afford it I'd probably keep them and switch out the Loxia for the ZM. So, on balance, I think I'll keep my three lens solution - I don't often find myself in situations where I feel I have the wrong 35 with me.
But as Fred says, it's astonishing that a lens designed for a different sensor can be such an amazing all rounder, making a good case for being the only 35 you'll need.
DavidBM wrote:
I haven't compared them directly, but I have used the cv 1.2. It's a lot of fun, and it's super fast - but the central area of sharpness at wide apertures is much more limited than the ZA, and it has 'character' bokeh that you may or may not like.
Stopped down the cv 1.2 isn't a patch on the Loxia. Which means, if the ZM is better again as it seems to be....(the new version of cv 1.7 on the other hand is wonderful stopped down, but the field curvature on Sony sensors even stopped down can be hard to work around)...Show more →
I am very surprised to read this. I have generally understood the Loxia to be inferior for landscape use due to field curvature and such to the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8, which I own, though I could be wrong about this, of course. I have compared the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 to the CV 35/1.2 and found the CV fully the equal of the native Sony at infinity at F5.6-F8 or smaller. At its largest apertures, the CV is poor at infinity, but good for portrait distances. The reason the CV does not find its way into the bag as often is due to weight. The Sony Zeiss is just a featherweight and does better at infinity at larger apertures, so there is little to recommend the CV over the Sony for landscape use. For portraiture/low light, the CV is the better choice.
What I really dislike about the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 is the poor build quality. I have had to glue the hood back together, for example, as its adhesive fails. The idea of "one 35 to rule them all" that is of reasonable size, however, has got my attention. I just wish the ZM were lighter (and cheaper) but I may still try it when I feel flush....
Luvwine wrote:
I am very surprised to read this. I have generally understood the Loxia to be inferior for landscape use due to field curvature and such to the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8, which I own, though I could be wrong about this, of course. I have compared the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 to the CV 35/1.2 and found the CV fully the equal of the native Sony at infinity at F5.6-F8 or smaller. At its largest apertures, the CV is poor at infinity, but good for portrait distances. The reason the CV does not find its way into the bag as often is due to weight. The Sony Zeiss is just a featherweight and does better at infinity at larger apertures, so there is little to recommend the CV over the Sony for landscape use. For portraiture/low light, the CV is the better choice.
What I really dislike about the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 is the poor build quality. I have had to glue the hood back together, for example, as its adhesive fails. The idea of "one 35 to rule them all" that is of reasonable size, however, has got my attention. I just wish the ZM were lighter (and cheaper) but I may still try it when I feel flush.... ...Show more →
Well I can only go by own copies, but stopped down to f8 my Loxia is a little better in the corners that the FE (which is great at f2.8 for 2.8, but never improves) much better in the mid to outer zones, and about the same in the centre - but all with nicer contrast, especially against the light (this is at infinity)
I only had the Cv 1.2 briefly, but my impression is with you was that it was similar to the FE 2.8 stopped down.
I'm a bid fan of the Loxia stopped down. I think the ZM is likely even better stopped down (and much better at wide apertures) - Fred's samples here show that, especially in the corners. But for an all round package of stopped down contrast, sunstars and across the field resolution in a small body I think the Loxia is terrific (though of course not as even a performer as the other two loxias) At f2 it is a bit of an effects lens though it does have a usable area of central sharpness, and the FE 2.8 is indeed sharper across the field at 2.8, though the centre is great on the lox and I like the look. There's a recent thread where I talk about the lox for stopped down use with samples...
I think if anything the CV 35 1.7 would be more like the ZM as it is pretty sharp wide open and has nice micro contrast but the ZM is still better here wide open. The CV also has a lot of field curvature so infinity for corners you have to back off focus. It's kind of a pain to keep that in mind shooting it but it does have nice character and is not a bad choice and with the TAP would be a cheaper alternative but it has its quirks.most 1.4 lenses and 1.2 lenses and I said this with regards to the new Sony 50 is very few lenses have a 1.4 that have the sharpness, contrast and saturation right at 1.4 and really the new 50 and the ZM actually have those qualities right at 1.4. Even the GM 85 as good as it is and it's a fantastic lens at 1.4 it's a little lower micro contrast than at 1.7 let's say . The ZM and 50 are actually better at the 1.4 setting and you do get more improvement at 1.7 but it's not as dramatic a change like the 85. The ZM and 50 are really good out of the gate. I think the bigger thing here with the ZM is the 3D pop it's right on it at 1.4. Almost every shot has that separation or pop to it. Which is maybe more reason I like it so much. It just jumps at you. We honestly can't say that about too many 1.4 lenses although many are good , there is just something about this lens wide open I like a lot. But that's my take on it. I think if you go back to the beginning of this thread and even as mundane as some of the shots I have taken with it you can really see the images jumping at you. That excites me a great deal.
Now if you go back to the big bronco wall test and for me it's easy to pick up since I do this test all the time but if you look closely at the center crops at 1.4 vs 1.6 or 1.7 there is a very very slight change . Than if you go back look at the GM 85 wall test there is a much bigger change between 1.4 and 1.6 or 1.7. The new 50 is like the ZM also a little change and if you really put your spy glasses on the ZM has the least amount. Now this is getting extremely nit picky and maybe even over the top in a way. We may never see this in real world but it is interesting between the three lenses which are tops in class in their focal lengths. Honestly if you can rent it before you buy one I think it's a good thing to do. It's worth the rental fee. I may rent the ZM 50 1.5 myself as I think that lens is worth the rental fee also.
GMPhotography wrote:
Now if you go back to the big bronco wall test and for me it's easy to pick up since I do this test all the time but if you look closely at the center crops at 1.4 vs 1.6 or 1.7 there is a very very slight change . Than if you go back look at the GM 85 wall test there is a much bigger change between 1.4 and 1.6 or 1.7. The new 50 is like the ZM also a little change and if you really put your spy glasses on the ZM has the least amount. Now this is getting extremely nit picky and maybe even over the top in a way. We may never see this in real world but it is interesting between the three lenses which are tops in class in their focal lengths. Honestly if you can rent it before you buy one I think it's a good thing to do. It's worth the rental fee. I may rent the ZM 50 1.5 myself as I think that lens is worth the rental fee also. ...Show more →
Guy, I agree with your findings about the GM 85 and FE 50. I use the GM85 at 1.7. The FE 50 F1.4 sings at F1.4. My copy of the FE 35 F1.4 starts hitting its stride at F1.7 which is why I've hesitated on the 35 ZM discussed in this thread. However, my finger has hovered over the 35 ZM buy button a few times so not sure I can trust myself but so far my FE 35 1.4 more than suffices at F1.7. Now if I didn't already own the FE 35 F1.4, the 35 ZM would already be in my possession.
LBJ2 wrote:
Guy, I agree with your findings about the GM 85 and FE 50. I use the GM85 at 1.7. The FE 50 F1.4 sings at F1.4. My copy of the FE 35 F1.4 starts hitting its stride at F1.7 which is why I've hesitated on the 35 ZM discussed in this thread. However, my finger has hovered over the 35 ZM buy button a few times so not sure I can trust myself but so far my FE 35 1.4 more than suffices at F1.7. Now if I didn't already own the FE 35 F1.4, the 35 ZM would already be in my possession. ...Show more →
I don't think there is really any disagreement about the facts and the trade-offs here in this thread. It's just that we may weight those things differently. I too have had my finger hovering - and if I was comfortable with keeping my other 35s as well it would have ceased hovering a while back. Indeed when it first came out I was tempted.
DavidBM wrote:
I don't think there is really any disagreement about the facts and the trade-offs here in this thread. It's just that we may weight those things differently. I too have had my finger hovering - and if I was comfortable with keeping my other 35s as well it would have ceased hovering a while back. Indeed when it first came out I was tempted.
Let's see who gives in first All I need is for the next Zeiss Batis lens to be announced and my attention will be quickly diverted.
I think if you had a great copy of the FE 35 in hand than it would be a hard call. Last thing I need is another big lens . I got 3 now and do not want 4 . Lol
Now if you have a Loxia 35 than I can truly say this smokes it on just about every level. The ZM gets great in the corners even at 5.6 the Loxia f8. Wide open there just is no contest . The ZM at F2 on center cuts your eyes out. Loxia has coma wide open. If it was me than the loxia would go. Having a AF lens in 35 is nice to have the TAP is great but it is limited by speed. That may change with firmware. Okay back to yard work, have my maintenance hat on or better said honey do helmet on. Lol
DavidBM wrote:
Well I can only go by own copies, but stopped down to f8 my Loxia is a little better in the corners that the FE (which is great at f2.8 for 2.8, but never improves) much better in the mid to outer zones, and about the same in the centre - but all with nicer contrast, especially against the light (this is at infinity)
I only had the Cv 1.2 briefly, but my impression is with you was that it was similar to the FE 2.8 stopped down.
I'm a bid fan of the Loxia stopped down. I think the ZM is likely even better stopped down (and much better at wide apertures) - Fred's samples here show that, especially in the corners. But for an all round package of stopped down contrast, sunstars and across the field resolution in a small body I think the Loxia is terrific (though of course not as even a performer as the other two loxias) At f2 it is a bit of an effects lens though it does have a usable area of central sharpness, and the FE 2.8 is indeed sharper across the field at 2.8, though the centre is great on the lox and I like the look. There's a recent thread where I talk about the lox for stopped down use with samples...
I have tested at least four copies of the Loxia 35/2 and they performed very similarly. It really needs f/9 or f/10 to get rid of astigmatism towards the edges, although f/8 is very decent.
This Loxia 35/2 does not performs best at f/4 or f/5.6 for the edges, but it's brilliant center and mid-field although field curvature is something to consider at these apertures. At f/9, FC is pretty much masked and it's better than the FE 35/2.8 everywhere on the frame but it's no match for the RX1RII or ZM 35/1.4. I posted some infinity crops at f/8 and f/9 here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1445981/4#13690612
Something to watch out with the ZM 35/1.4: The thicker sensor stack induces field curvature (inwards) and astigmatism towards the edges, therefore I recommend stopping down to at least f/5.6, f/6.3 and focus at mid-field for infinity distance landscapes. See here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1392833/12#13694441
This is the same recommendation I would give for the Loxia 21/2.8 and Loxia 35/2 for their field curvature even though the curvature has a difference shape (outwards)
The induced field curvature also affects wide open images, so keep in mind that focusing in the center could make OOF longer distance structures in the background appear sharper toward the edges.
For landscapes at f/5.6 or smaller, field curvature and astigmatism are pretty much a non-issue though.
GMPhotography wrote:
I think if you had a great copy of the FE 35 in hand than it would be a hard call. Last thing I need is another big lens . I got 3 now and do not want 4 . Lol
Mine (good copy FE 35/1.4) hit the B/S board this morning if anyone is interested. It's been my lenscap for 2yrs but just to change things up, i'm going to adopt the 50/1.4 as my lenscap for the next yr or two.....
I had a good copy last yr and unwittingly got rid of it and finally found another good copy but the new 50 is getting all of my attention now.
The new 50 is just flat out outstanding . I don't even have one negative word for it. It's worth the size and weight. I do wish it had a focus hold button though
Yeah, I borrowed the new 50 from a friend while I was shooting events around a local comedy festival this weekend and it is amazing. I'm strongly considering giving up the 35LII for it. The focal length worked out a little better in clubs and for cityscape stuff, I can either reorient myself when possible or do a quick two-shot pano when I can't. It's the first native mount FE lens that made me want to work around FBW. At least it's got a manual aperture ring.
Threw the ZM35D on the A7R and it works quite well. Not bitingly sharp into the corners but very good for most situations. Will give it a go on the A7RII when I get a chance.
GMPhotography wrote:
The new 50 is just flat out outstanding . I don't even have one negative word for it. It's worth the size and weight. I do wish it had a focus hold button though
I am right there with you Guy on this one. The FE 50 F1.4 is THE FE lens to own in 2016 if superb wide open performance is a priority.
freaklikeme wrote:
Yeah, I borrowed the new 50 from a friend while I was shooting events around a local comedy festival this weekend and it is amazing. I'm strongly considering giving up the 35LII for it. The focal length worked out a little better in clubs and for cityscape stuff, I can either reorient myself when possible or do a quick two-shot pano when I can't. It's the first native mount FE lens that made me want to work around FBW. At least it's got a manual aperture ring.
The FE 50 F1.4 is the only lens I trust to capture dancing, swirling, jumping subjects at 1.4.
All I need is for the next Zeiss Batis lens to be announced and my attention will be quickly diverted. 
