Fred Miranda wrote:
Last week I was deciding which 35mm lens I use the most: RX1RII or Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM?
The answer was RX1RII because it's a much lighter system with superb IQ and I tend to have it always with me.
Although I find the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM spectacular on the A7RII, especially considering its size, it's no secret that it was not designed for the Sony's sensor stack. Still, it's superb wide open in the center and just as sharp, if not sharper than the RX1RII at f/6.3 and smaller apertures. (landscapes)
However, in a moment of weakness, trying to simplify my system, I decided to sell my 35 ZM and use the RX1RII exclusively for this FL. So, I went ahead and placed the ad on the buy and sell board... luckily got no initial bites. (Only trade offers, etc.)
To avoid any seller's remorse, I decided to spend a few hours with the lens mainly taking some candids and seascapes. (I mainly use this lens at f/1.4 and f/8!). After checking the LCD every other shot, I quickly realized it would be crazy to sell this ZM. I am drawn to the very high micro-contrast and rendering. It's now back to my bag next to my RX1RII. There is plenty room for both. ...Show more →
But you still need room for the 24-70 GM in your bag, Fred .
Fun aside, assuming you managed to get a good copy of the zoom would you prefer that over the ZM?
Chris_88 wrote:
But you still need room for the 24-70 GM in your bag, Fred .
Fun aside, assuming you managed to get a good copy of the zoom would you prefer that over the ZM?
It took me a while to discover favorite focal lengths for landscapes. It's all scene dependent but in average I'm very comfortable with 20mm. My lens of choice is the Loxia 21.
If the background is close to the foreground, I usually want to shoot as wide as possible and decided I much prefer 12mm instead of 15mm. My choice is the Voigtlander 12mm. So, I don't mind having a huge gap: 12 to 21mm.
For the longer range I have struggled to find a good set. Having 35mm only is somehow limiting to me. I prefer having at least 28, 35 and 50 and that's 3 lenses. I have found that the RX1RII (33mm) and Loxia 50 did the job well but sometimes I want wider than 33mm and a bit wider than 50mm. The 24-70GM zoom is a great alternative. It's big and takes a different set of filters but I'm confident that it does a superb prime-like job from 24-35mm and it's also very good at 50mm. I very rarely shoot above 50mm but when I do, it's longer than 70mm anyways.
I found that 85mm is a great FL for me and right now I'm deciding between the Zeiss 85 ZM and Loxia 85mm. I always bring a long tele as well and to me there is nothing better than the Vario-Sonnar 100-300.
So, right now I'm very comfortable with a few set-ups.
Luvwine wrote:
In fairness to the CV 35/1.2, it does landscapes arguably as well as the ZM 35/1.4, assuming one is stopping down. The CV lacks the sharpness and pop of the ZM at large apertures in the center. The CV sort of has a split personality and has a more painterly feel with great bokeh for portraits at close range from wide open, but get extremely sharp when stopped down.
After some recent testing of the CV 35/1.2 stopped down on the Kolari, I am thinking you are right here.
I'd love to see a head to ZM35/1.4 vs CV 35/1.2 either version
CV 35/1.2 at F/4 full Here
and at 5.6: Here
and for that matter, check out 1.4. I'm not sure I have many lenses at this level at 1.4: Here
You see these as low as 600 bucks now. The ZM 35/1.4 is really a steal too, used around 1500. It is quite a bit smaller and lighter.
As to RX1rii vs ZM 35/1.4, another interesting comparison would be f/11, where I often am surprised by variations in performance, and it's a critical aperture on the ground.
Alway interesting to hear how what everyone decides goes in the bag. My set varies alot, but a few rules seem to apply: I never take both 28 and 35, or 18 and 21, or 50 and 75. Those seem to be mutually exclusive
Wait...that's a lie: Low light, I often have 50/1.1 and 75/1.4, but outdoors never 50 and 75.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It took me a while to discover favorite focal lengths for landscapes. It's all scene dependent but in average I'm very comfortable with 20mm. My lens of choice is the Loxia 21.
If the background is close to the foreground, I usually want to shoot as wide as possible and decided I much prefer 12mm instead of 15mm. My choice is the Voigtlander 12mm. So, I don't mind having a huge gap: 12 to 21mm.
For the longer range I have struggled to find a good set. Having 35mm only is somehow limiting to me. I prefer having at least 28, 35 and 50 and that's 3 lenses. I have found that the RX1RII (33mm) and Loxia 50 did the job well but sometimes I want wider than 33mm and a bit wider than 50mm. The 24-70GM zoom is a great alternative. It's big and takes a different set of filters but I'm confident that it does a superb prime-like job from 24-35mm and it's also very good at 50mm. I very rarely shoot above 50mm but when I do, it's longer than 70mm anyways.
I found that 85mm is a great FL for me and right now I'm deciding between the Zeiss 85 ZM and Loxia 85mm. I always bring a long tele as well and to me there is nothing better than the Vario-Sonnar 100-300.
So, right now I'm very comfortable with a few set-ups.
I can hear you, Fred. The Loxia 21 has quickly become one of my favorite lenses. Zeiss really hit a home run with this compact beauty. I'm still struggling with 35 and 50mm. At 50mm, I'm set with the 55 1.8, but as much as I like that lens, I have realized that I like the 35mm FL better. Unfortunately, there is no "do it all" 35mm (yet?), which complicates the equation. I have to find some time to give the GM a serious workout and see whether I want to keep that or consider a 35mm prime again.
Nov 20, 2016 at 03:53 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nampramos wrote:
I know I am crazy to think about this lens...
Not really. As you see, based on many posts and opinions, ZM35D can save you funds & weight by consolidating all 35mm [FL] needs into one sexy package.
I wasn't able to answer this question and ended up with both. To my eyes, the RX1RII has smoother bokeh at mid distances while the ZM's is more structured. I get less LoCA and more micro-contrast with the ZM at similar apertures.
They are both very sharp at f/2 and very similar at f/8. (ZM slightly ahead towards the edges. Yes, that's surprising)
One good reason to get the ZM is that it could be used with future more advanced sensors. Another is the "f/1.4" aperture which will translate to more background blur.
Regarding weight: The RX1RII is about half the weight when compared to A7RII+35ZM+adapter but it's a stop slower.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I wasn't able to answer this question and ended up with both. To my eyes, the RX1RII has smoother bokeh at mid distances while the ZM's is more structured. I get less LoCA and more micro-contrast with the ZM at similar apertures.
They are both very sharp at f/2 and very similar at f/8. (ZM slightly ahead towards the edges. Yes, that's surprising)
One good reason to get the ZM is that it could be used with future more advanced sensors. Another is the "f/1.4" aperture which will translate to more background blur.
Regarding weight: The RX1RII is about half the weight when compared to A7RII+35ZM+adapter but it's a stop slower....Show more →
Good points by Fred...I am going through the same question myself. I own an rx1 and rx1r, cy 35 1.4 and owned a cv 35 1.7--all those lenses are wonderful in their own way--and I am pretty harsh on lenses generally. Being intimately familiar with the RX1, I ultimately decided against the RX1rII (at least till it drops south of 2k). I'll either stick with the CY 35 1.4 + CV 35 1.7, or just get a ZM 35. Between the ZM 35 and RX1rII:
- Not only do you get an extra stop with the zm 35, you get IBIS of the camera body, a stop of DOF, but 2-3 for light gathering. Big for me as I often shoot in low light.
- The ZM is mechanically focusing and with mechanical aperture control--the fly-by-wire on the RX1 series stinks (IMO). The RX1rII AF is better that the RX1, but still a bit slower as the multiple lens elements have to move to acquire AF.
- As Fred said, ZM is more future proof with new Sony bodies.
- I also think we'll see different FF mirrorless producer in the next couple years (hopefully with a thinner sensor stack!), so the ZM 35 will add versatility that way.
- The shooting experience of the A7 series is much better (VF, battery, grip, buttons, etc).
- The rx2rii is more expensive right now (about an 1g more than a zm 35 or cy + cv 35)
I shot the RX1 consistently for about a year, and I absolutely love that Sonnar, but I nearly never took just the rx1...nearly always 2 or 3 FL (21, 35, 50/85). I am very sure I'll miss that smoothness and contrast of the sonnar lens (as I have purchased 3 rx1's always thinking I'll find a replacement!), and there's truly nothing that small on the market with that IQ, but the drawback above there pushed me to acquire the ZM 35--chrome version has been purchased. I have a cy 35 1.4, so I'll compare them again each other and make my final decision. Good times for us in 35mm land...
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Good points by Fred...I am going through the same question myself. I own an rx1 and rx1r, cy 35 1.4 and owned a cv 35 1.7--all those lenses are wonderful in their own way--and I am pretty harsh on lenses generally. Being intimately familiar with the RX1, I ultimately decided against the RX1rII (at least till it drops south of 2k). I'll either stick with the CY 35 1.4 + CV 35 1.7, or just get a ZM 35. Between the ZM 35 and RX1rII:
- Not only do you get an extra stop with the zm 35, you get IBIS of the camera body, a stop of DOF, but 2-3 for light gathering. Big for me as I often shoot in low light.
- The ZM is mechanically focusing and with mechanical aperture control--the fly-by-wire on the RX1 series stinks (IMO). The RX1rII AF is better that the RX1, but still a bit slower as the multiple lens elements have to move to acquire AF.
- As Fred said, ZM is more future proof with new Sony bodies.
- I also think we'll see different FF mirrorless producer in the next couple years (hopefully with a thinner sensor stack!), so the ZM 35 will add versatility that way.
- The shooting experience of the A7 series is much better (VF, battery, grip, buttons, etc).
- The rx2rii is more expensive right now (about an 1g more than a zm 35 or cy + cv 35)
I shot the RX1 consistently for about a year, and I absolutely love that Sonnar, but I nearly never took just the rx1...nearly always 2 or 3 FL (21, 35, 50/85). I am very sure I'll miss that smoothness and contrast of the sonnar lens (as I have purchased 3 rx1's always thinking I'll find a replacement!), and there's truly nothing that small on the market with that IQ, but the drawback above there pushed me to acquire the ZM 35--chrome version has been purchased. I have a cy 35 1.4, so I'll compare them again each other and make my final decision. Good times for us in 35mm land... ...Show more →
Forgot about IBIS. That's another big one in favor of the ZM.
There is no comparison in manual focus precision and feeling as you mentioned. It's night and day between these two lenses.
It's worth mentioning close-focusing ability (macro) which is a big feature for the RX1RII. You can also use the ZM with TAP which let's you focus closer...but not that close.
At the end for me, the main reason to own the RX1RII (Or prior RX1 models) is very high IQ in a small size.
I have the RX1rII and recently acquired a TAP and ZM 35mm 1.4 for my A7R2 after seeing this and many other forums on its look and feel. I absolutely love the ZM 35mm 1.4. Its already turned out some amazing work and has paid for itself.
Ive used most of the very best lenses for most systems as I work in the pro sales industry, and the ZM continues to amaze me. But.... I absolutely adore my RX1rII :-) I had the original which too was really nice but the Mark II fixes a lot I didnt quite like with that camera and the results are stunning. :-)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Good points by Fred...I am going through the same question myself. I own an rx1 and rx1r, cy 35 1.4 and owned a cv 35 1.7--all those lenses are wonderful in their own way--and I am pretty harsh on lenses generally. Being intimately familiar with the RX1, I ultimately decided against the RX1rII (at least till it drops south of 2k). I'll either stick with the CY 35 1.4 + CV 35 1.7, or just get a ZM 35. Between the ZM 35 and RX1rII:
- Not only do you get an extra stop with the zm 35, you get IBIS of the camera body, a stop of DOF, but 2-3 for light gathering. Big for me as I often shoot in low light.
- The ZM is mechanically focusing and with mechanical aperture control--the fly-by-wire on the RX1 series stinks (IMO). The RX1rII AF is better that the RX1, but still a bit slower as the multiple lens elements have to move to acquire AF.
- As Fred said, ZM is more future proof with new Sony bodies.
- I also think we'll see different FF mirrorless producer in the next couple years (hopefully with a thinner sensor stack!), so the ZM 35 will add versatility that way.
- The shooting experience of the A7 series is much better (VF, battery, grip, buttons, etc).
- The rx2rii is more expensive right now (about an 1g more than a zm 35 or cy + cv 35)
I shot the RX1 consistently for about a year, and I absolutely love that Sonnar, but I nearly never took just the rx1...nearly always 2 or 3 FL (21, 35, 50/85). I am very sure I'll miss that smoothness and contrast of the sonnar lens (as I have purchased 3 rx1's always thinking I'll find a replacement!), and there's truly nothing that small on the market with that IQ, but the drawback above there pushed me to acquire the ZM 35--chrome version has been purchased. I have a cy 35 1.4, so I'll compare them again each other and make my final decision. Good times for us in 35mm land... ...Show more →
.
