Been chomping at the bit for the past several days. I've been following all the discussion but haven't been able to post anything till I got home . . . which is now. Here's a few from my visit to San Diego area and my first real chance to play with this lens. All images taken with the Techart Pro Adapter. All are WO except the last which is f/8
Looking at the images on my big screen, it's pure love!
i know, it seems clear from the photos that it has more pop than any other 35mm lens so far. i've been planning to get one to replace my recently sold c/y 35/1.4 (though the rx1rii has had me questioning that allocation of funds a bit)...
rji2goleez wrote:
Been chomping at the bit for the past several days. I've been following all the discussion but haven't been able to post anything till I got home . . . which is now. Here's a few from my visit to San Diego area and my first real chance to play with this lens. All images taken with the Techart Pro Adapter. All are WO except the last which is f/8
Looking at the images on my big screen, it's pure love!
sebboh wrote:
i know, it seems clear from the photos that it has more pop than any other 35mm lens so far. i've been planning to get one to replace my recently sold c/y 35/1.4 (though the rx1rii has had me questioning that allocation of funds a bit)...
I love my RX1RII but after getting the ZM 35/1.4 + TAP, I have not used it all that much...
The C/Y 35/1.4 is another killer lens but it's bigger and heavier...I don't remember it being as sharp wide-open compared to the ZM, although the pop is definitely there as well.
GMPhotography wrote:
Looks great Bob. Love the look of them
Much more to come over the next couple of days. I enjoy shooting this lens at f/8 as much as wide open. And the TAP makes it even more fun. That last image of the skyline was MF but still with the TAP between body and lens. A simple toggle of the AM/FM switch works perfectly for when MF is needed.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I love my RX1RII but after getting the ZM 35/1.4 + TAP, I have not used it all that much...
The C/Y 35/1.4 is another killer lens but it's bigger and heavier...I don't remember it being as sharp wide-open compared to the ZM, although the pop is definitely there as well.
the c/y is definitely not as sharp, but plenty sharp for my taste/needs for portraits (even looking at 1:1 on the a7rii it looks sharp). too big though for me these days.
my plan was originally to sell the rx1 and c/y to fund the zm, but the rx2 offers 3 big advantages for me: much smaller size, silent shutter, and better bokeh for wide open long focus distance shooting (and other troublesome situations). it's a tough call for me as the manual focus of the zm would be much better for my use in portraits as would the extra pop (and the better landscape performance wouldn't hurt)...
sebboh wrote:
the c/y is definitely not as sharp, but plenty sharp for my taste/needs for portraits (even looking at 1:1 on the a7rii it looks sharp). too big though for me these days.
my plan was originally to sell the rx1 and c/y to fund the zm, but the rx2 offers 3 big advantages for me: much smaller size, silent shutter, and better bokeh for wide open long focus distance shooting (and other troublesome situations). it's a tough call for me as the manual focus of the zm would be much better for my use in portraits as would the extra pop (and the better landscape performance wouldn't hurt)...
I knew it would be a tough call. The RX1 is a special little camera, and I think the variable AA filter in the vII is another point in its favor. From what I've seen, it makes a significant difference when going between portraits (hi or standard) and landscape (standard or off). The recent price hike, though, makes me glad I hate the body style and the focus system.
freaklikeme wrote:
I knew it would be a tough call. The RX1 is a special little camera, and I think the variable AA filter in the vII is another point in its favor. From what I've seen, it makes a significant difference when going between portraits (hi or standard) and landscape (standard or off). The recent price hike, though, makes me glad I hate the body style and the focus system.
the rx1 manual focus is really the strongest point pushing me to the zm. i think i'll pickup an extra rx1 lens and see if it's possible to convert it to real manual focus. if it is i'll save up for an rx2.
Id still like to get a couple of Raws off the A7rII + ZM 35mmm 1.4 combo if anyone can help out? Id like a shot of something mid distance at 1.4 and something stopped down focused at infinity.
Hope someone can help out.... Ive got the RX1rII but there looks to be something quite unique with this wee Zeiss :-) Thanks in advance..
If you mostly shoot at f/2, the RX2 is hard to beat, but I agree, MF is a little 'sandy' for the lack of better words. Rendering is always smooth but as expected you get quite a bit more blur with the ZM wide open. With the ZM, I find myself mostly shooting at f/1.4, f/5.6 and f/8. It's a tough call but the ZM used is a cheaper proposition designed for manual focus, which is important to you.
sebboh wrote:
the rx1 manual focus is really the strongest point pushing me to the zm. i think i'll pickup an extra rx1 lens and see if it's possible to convert it to real manual focus. if it is i'll save up for an rx2.
With the TAP you can go from AF to manual on the fly with the AF/MF toggle setting on a custom function very easily and quickly. Really like how you can switch like that without affecting the TAP settings. I actually use my drive button . Left dial push although been thinking about custom button 2 since custom 1 is magnify. They are together like that.
OT I'm going to try a extension tube today on my ZM 85 . Have a product shoot tommorrow . Just to see if it works. I may not need it since the TAP really does great close focusing now
Yes, with my CV 15/4.5 III, I can get so close, the subject almost hits the built in hood!
It works nice with the 85ZM as well. It's like a built in extension tube.
GMPhotography wrote:
With the TAP you can go from AF to manual on the fly with the AF/MF toggle setting on a custom function very easily and quickly. Really like how you can switch like that without affecting the TAP settings. I actually use my drive button . Left dial push although been thinking about custom button 2 since custom 1 is magnify. They are together like that.
OT I'm going to try a extension tube today on my ZM 85 . Have a product shoot tommorrow . Just to see if it works. I may not need it since the TAP really does great close focusing now...Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, with my CV 15/4.5 III, I can get so close, the subject almost hits the built in hood!
You can much closer with the 85ZM as well.
It's interesting how close you can get and is dependent on the lens. For the zm35/1.4 it's about a foot which is one roughly one one half of the stated 0.7m. But getting that close with the CV15 is just crazy close.
It really helps with the ZM 35 because without the TAP close focus is just to far away with lens only. I actually love to get close with a 35mm so this TAP is totally the answer
The Kolari modification will change the color output of the camera. I can not say how the colors change for skin tones since I use my cameras for nature, landscape and wildlife. After the modification to my A7r camera I purchased and used the X-rite ColorChecker and software to make new profiles for my camera. These profiles were saved directly into my Adobe Software into Lightroom 6. I have had good success with these but with time I may wish to go back and to run additional checks on the color. When I process my files though, I still rely on the color profiles and continue to adjust the output to my liking and have never based my finished work on the out of camera RAW files.
GMPhotography wrote:
It really helps with the ZM 35 because without the TAP close focus is just to far away with lens only. I actually love to get close with a 35mm so this TAP is totally the answer
Of course any of the close focus adapters like the Voigtlander or Hawks will accomplish the same, but it is great to have that functionality built into the TAP! My only worry about the TAP is how robust its build is as it was not cheap and I hope to use it for some time.
Got my ZM 35 today! Could not wait to do some testing so I just did some indoors. Will need to wait at least a couple of days before I will have time to do some landcape/infinity shooting, but it was really interesting to see how it performs. I compared CV 35/1.2, FE 35/2.8 and ZM 35/1.4 briefly. So far, ZM seems to me be at least as well corrected on OOF highlights as the CV and the FE 35/2.8--probably better than the latter. Both CV and ZM have nicer sunstars than FE. The 35/1.2 has a bit "dreamier" bokeh and look wide open, but the ZM has more contrast and sharpness on the subject at wide apertures. Stopping down, the CV does catch up to the ZM, however, at least in the center but if picking nits, I think it may be ever so slightly better overall through F8 but it is really close. Comparing with the FE 35/2.8, the FE is sharp into the corners way earlier and it takes until F8 for the ZM to fully catch the FE in the extreme corners tho F 5.6 is pretty close (did not compare at 6.3--that may be the best compromise). However, the ZM seems to be better in the center region at all comparable apertures to the FE. Unlike the CV, which catches up to the ZM in the center, the FE never does tho admittedly the differences are not huge, but they are present.
Anyway, so far, it looks like the ZM may be a keeper for me though I need to do a good bit more shooting and comparing. Am looking forward to seeing how these lenses compare at infinity. If the ZM does as well at infinity as the other two lenses, then I suspect it will stay and I will sell the CV and maybe keep the FE for times when portability is at a premium.
So far at short range in my very quick testing, ZM has more sharpness and contrast than CV from wide open through 2.8 in the center and gets close at F4 (ZM a hair better in center but worse on periphery) without a lot to distinguish between them smaller than F4. FE better overall than both at 2.8 across the frame but losing in the center and at F 5.6 overall worse than both CV and ZM.
