Hood I buy cheap metal hoods on eBay from a seller named heavystar. Just search 46mm screw inch metal hoods . They are cheap and work great. I have the Zeiss one that came with my lens and I actually do like it but man it's crazy pricing 150 dollars.
GMPhotography wrote:
Hood I buy cheap metal hoods on eBay from a seller named heavystar. Just search 46mm screw inch metal hoods . They are cheap and work great. I have the Zeiss one that came with my lens and I actually do like it but man it's crazy pricing 150 dollars.
Thx. I assume you mean 49mm as the filter three size is 49mm, I think...
Luvwine wrote:
Thx. I assume you mean 49mm as the filter three size is 49mm, I think...
Yes 49mm. If you really care about keeping your lens as compact as possible, I would try finding the original one for less money. I found one on Ebay for $100 (brand new) and already thought was way overpriced. However, this hood is very well made and works really well with this lens. It may be worth it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes 49mm. If you really care about keeping your lens as compact as possible, I would try finding the original one for less money. I found one on Ebay for $100 (brand new) and already thought was way overpriced. However, this hood is very well made and works really well with this lens. It may be worth it.
Thx for the info. I did buy the original hood for my CV 35/1.2 so I guess I will buy this one too. It just annoys me to be so expensive as I suspect the markup is obscene. I am looking forward to comparing this lens with the CV. I bet the Zeiss is better wide open, but will be interested in how they compare at smaller apertures.
The original Zeiss hood is particularly nice and it bayonetts into place with a decided click. It also allows you to use the included Zeiss lens cap and it is also easy to remove. Like Fred, I purchased mine on eBay for about $100, but unfortunately at present none are listed for that price on eBay.
charles.K wrote:
...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!
I have an excellent copy of the Distagon FE 35/1.4 that I never use mainly because of its size but also its weight. I haven't been able to bring myself to sell it though because good copies seem to be hard to find. But this ZM 35/1.4 has certainly attracted my attention.
Guy wrote about his pictures of the steel horse sculptures on page 3 of this thread: "Another round of Bokeh but not so sure the vignetting is that serious here. Maybe the other series but this looks cleaner. Maybe its me."
It's not just that the vignetting is reduced in these pictures taken at a closer distance than the other test shots but also that the bottom right corner (closest to the camera) looks acceptably sharp even at f/1.4.
Is it true then that the weak corners and vignetting at wider apertures are much worse at mid-range and infinity? The reason I ask is that, because I rarely photograph anything further away than 3 meters (~10 feet), "my infinity" is 5 meters (~16 feet).
If the deficiencies of the ZM 35/1.4 on the Sony A7R II are not so evident at close distances, then it would be a no brainer to swap the Zony FE 35/1.4 for the ZM 35/1.4 (I already have a Techart PRO on order).
genji wrote:
I have an excellent copy of the Distagon FE 35/1.4 that I never use mainly because of its size but also its weight. I haven't been able to bring myself to sell it though because good copies seem to be hard to find. But this ZM 35/1.4 has certainly attracted my attention.
Guy wrote about his pictures of the steel horse sculptures on page 3 of this thread: "Another round of Bokeh but not so sure the vignetting is that serious here. Maybe the other series but this looks cleaner. Maybe its me."
It's not just that the vignetting is reduced in these pictures taken at a closer distance than the other test shots but also that the bottom right corner (closest to the camera) looks acceptably sharp even at f/1.4.
Is it true then that the weak corners and vignetting at wider apertures are much worse at mid-range and infinity? The reason I ask is that, because I rarely photograph anything further away than 3 meters (~10 feet), "my infinity" is 5 meters (~16 feet).
If the deficiencies of the ZM 35/1.4 on the Sony A7R II are not so evident at close distances, then it would be a no brainer to swap the Zony FE 35/1.4 for the ZM 35/1.4 (I already have a Techart PRO on order)....Show more →
If you are choosing between the ZM and FE ZA distagons for portrait distance use wide open, I don't think you should be concerned with border or corner sharpness. They are both good over the parts of the field you will use. Instead I think it comes down to bokeh (ZA smoother as far as I can tell except inside bokeh balls) and contrast and pop (ZM better).
I wonder how the ZM 35 compares to the rx1rm2? Other than the Zeiss being f1.4 and the ZM's nicer rendering of sunstars, are they any other things that might make me rationalize switching 35's yet again ?
DavidBM wrote:
If you are choosing between the ZM and FE ZA distagons for portrait distance use wide open, I don't think you should be concerned with border or corner sharpness. They are both good over the parts of the field you will use. Instead I think it comes down to bokeh (ZA smoother as far as I can tell except inside bokeh balls) and contrast and pop (ZM better).
It's not that I'm choosing based on portrait distance use wide open; if that were the case, I'd switch to the ZM without hesitation. Rather, I'm looking at the ZM as a general purpose lens, similar but different to how Fred has described his use: wide open as a character/portrait lens, stopped down for landscape. In my case, I'd like to use the ZM wide open for portraits, but stopped down to between f/2.8 and f/5.6 for still life subjects where decent sharpness across the entire frame is desirable.
Your observation about bokeh is very helpful. I might be better off sticking with the RX1R II for the still life pictures, particularly since the leaf shutter allows me to use fill flash in almost any situation. It's just that that the contrast and pop of the ZM are so darn sexy.
genji wrote:
It's not that I'm choosing based on portrait distance use wide open; if that were the case, I'd switch to the ZM without hesitation. Rather, I'm looking at the ZM as a general purpose lens, similar but different to how Fred has described his use: wide open as a character/portrait lens, stopped down for landscape. In my case, I'd like to use the ZM wide open for portraits, but stopped down to between f/2.8 and f/5.6 for still life subjects where decent sharpness across the entire frame is desirable.
Your observation about bokeh is very helpful. I might be better off sticking with the RX1R II for the still life pictures, particularly since the leaf shutter allows me to use fill flash in almost any situation. It's just that that the contrast and pop of the ZM are so darn sexy....Show more →
Ah, I misunderstood. If you are looking for a general purpose lens then the ZM is indeed attractive. If I had to have just one 35 I think it'd be the ZM based on what I'm seeing here (as long as the TAP works well for portrait work - even then I think I'd miss eye AF). I'm instead using the ZA for portrait work, the Loxia for landscape, and the 2.8 FE as a hiking pancake. But I think the ZM is better than the Loxia (a real gem though the Loxia is for stopped down work) and importantly, for me, preserves the Lox ten bladed iris for my favourite sunstars. Fred says the Rx1rII is a bit better even than Lox, and in the ballpark with ZM stopped down. So you are set there (though I do love the Lox/ZM sunstars.....). When in doubt don't change gear: it costs money inevitably, you lose images getting used to the new setup, and, well, there can be only one Guy!
Very helpful observations, thank you! And indeed there can be only one Guy. After all, Sony named the GM lens series after him.
DavidBM wrote:
Ah, I misunderstood. If you are looking for a general purpose lens then the ZM is indeed attractive. If I had to have just one 35 I think it'd be the ZM based on what I'm seeing here (as long as the TAP works well for portrait work - even then I think I'd miss eye AF). I'm instead using the ZA for portrait work, the Loxia for landscape, and the 2.8 FE as a hiking pancake. But I think the ZM is better than the Loxia (a real gem though the Loxia is for stopped down work) and importantly, for me, preserves the Lox ten bladed iris for my favourite sunstars. Fred says the Rx1rII is a bit better even than Lox, and in the ballpark with ZM stopped down. So you are set there (though I do love the Lox/ZM sunstars.....). When in doubt don't change gear: it costs money inevitably, you lose images getting used to the new setup, and, well, there can be only one Guy!
