Steve Spencer wrote:
Excellent review showing the lens strengths and weaknesses and what needs to be done to get the most out of the lens. I hate to nitpick a great review, but here are a few comments. First, you might mention for those who care (and that doesn't include me) that you can get autofocus with the TAP. Second, I think you could say a bit about the odd shapes in the corners of the bokeh. It shows in your first bokeh image. This doesn't bother me much, but it might some. It is a bit more than cat's eye bokeh that is more typical. Third, in comparison to the CV 35 f/1.7 I think one of the critical issues in microcontrast. Especially if you do a comparison you might want to mention that....Show more →
Thank you for your feedback!
I am a bit resilient recommending the TAP for this lens, as it has internal focusing and won't work too well because of this (Fred just mentioned that as well, I think in this thread a few pages down the road).
But I might nevertheless add a note (of caution) regarding the TAP.
The shape of the light circles I am not yet sure about. In most of the shots I didn't notice anything unusual (see cityscape or close up of glasses), but I will further investigate this.
Microcontrast is sometimes hard to pin down, but pretty much the reason I sold my Nikon lenses and I am now using mostly Zeiss.
So if we do that comparison we will try to take a closer look at this.
I really don't find any issues with the TAP. I do adjust the focus ring though when I get close to subject sometimes. But I do bounce around between AF/MF as well. To me the CV 35 1.7 which I had twice now just has a little too much field curvature. It really has to get to F8 to even start to get corners the ZM it starts at 5.6 and really gets great at F8. I actually like both lenses.
In all honesty I put a lot of time and money in trying every dang 35 lens out there and the balance between look and tech I like the ZM the best. The TAP is dedicated to this lens as that's what makes it fun to use. At least for me
GMPhotography wrote:
I really don't find any issues with the TAP. I do adjust the focus ring though when I get close to subject sometimes. But I do bounce around between AF/MF as well. To me the CV 35 1.7 which I had twice now just has a little too much field curvature. It really has to get to F8 to even start to get corners the ZM it starts at 5.6 and really gets great at F8. I actually like both lenses.
In all honesty I put a lot of time and money in trying every dang 35 lens out there and the balance between look and tech I like the ZM the best. The TAP is dedicated to this lens as that's what makes it fun to use. At least for me...Show more →
Ditto here. TAP with with this lens is really not that different with any lens. As you get closer to MFD, you may need to adjust. As you move the focal point toward the edges, AF confirmation gets harder. This is the case with most lenses that I've used (Leica mount, Canon FD, Minolta, Contax). This is a general limitation of the TAP for now.
Though I really like my 35/2.8 Sony for travel, there are times when something faster than f/2.8 would be great and much better sun stars, etc. are in order.
The Voigt 35/1.7 and Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM are the contenders (Loxia 35/2 waay too disappointing) and I need to get a second business going to pay for trying out all these 35mm's!
John the are both very good the ZM and VC. I would tend to say the ZM is better and reason being its going to have more pop to it , more micro contrast. Center will be sharper more wide open and the corners come to life better sooner on the ZM. Now the CV just has a softer feel to it , maybe more gradual type of feel but and the corners are not there until F8 and you need to focus before infinity with it. Big price difference though and the CV is a really nice lens but I think most folks may like the ZM better even though its bokeh is a little strange sometimes and the CV is very pleasant. I would say from me that the CV is a little harder to work with as you have to keep the more field curvature in consideration when shooting. Again I like them both but I feel after having the CV twice now the ZM just fits Guy better.
GMPhotography wrote:
John the are both very good the ZM and VC. I would tend to say the ZM is better and reason being its going to have more pop to it , more micro contrast. Center will be sharper more wide open and the corners come to life better sooner on the ZM. Now the CV just has a softer feel to it , maybe more gradual type of feel but and the corners are not there until F8 and you need to focus before infinity with it. Big price difference though and the CV is a really nice lens but I think most folks may like the ZM better even though its bokeh is a little strange sometimes and the CV is very pleasant. I would say from me that the CV is a little harder to work with as you have to keep the more field curvature in consideration when shooting. Again I like them both but I feel after having the CV twice now the ZM just fits Guy better.
Agreed. I will say I enjoyed MF better on the CV, seems like it places nicer with A7x MF aids. And almost 200g does constitute a noticable weight/bulk difference. I like the subtler CV rendering, but the ZM really knocks your socks off...
Before writing a final conclusion I will keep using the lens some more time,
but until then you can already have a look at some sample shots and/or a few rather technical charts, as you prefer
Very well done Bastian! Loving your objective reviews. A breath of fresh air.
For infinity distances, the plane of focus pretty much flattens out at f/7.1.
At f/5.6, I usually focus on the mid-field area and get consistently sharp center and corners. Optimally at f/6.3.
This is my favorite 35mm for the A7RII.
Best,
Fred
Nov 29, 2016 at 01:51 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Agreed. I will say I enjoyed MF better on the CV, seems like it places nicer with A7x MF aids. And almost 200g does constitute a noticable weight/bulk difference. I like the subtler CV rendering, but the ZM really knocks your socks off...
The ZM 35 f/1.4 only weighs 51g more than the CV 35 f/1.7. The ZM is bigger, but not all that much bigger.
BTW: I might sound like a broken record, but what still continues to surprise me is how many people say this lens has smooth bokeh and then show close up shots with mostly bokeh in it. Such thin DOF isn't that big of a challenge. Look for example at photos with subjects at mid distance. The bokeh can be so harsh (double-lined) that I just don't understand that people hardly mention it. The complete opposite of what I consider to be smooth bokeh, even though it's quite normal for highly corrected lenses. If it wasn't for this nervous bokeh I would've bought this lens without any doubt, because the colors and "presence" can be really nice.
Regarding the FE 35/1.4. Yes it has onion rings. Yes they are ugly. However, those only affect the highlights. This lens offers much smoother bokeh than the ZM. Especially when stopping down slightly.
*edit: it's a private link. I'm talking about the ice cream van in this post
The distant edges are in focus and make a nervous transition to the OOF center.
I just weighted my Loxia 21/2.8 without any caps and it's 371g
The ZM 35/1.4 (without caps) is 385g and it's an adapter is 430g.
They are both my mostly used lenses for landscape right now. For ultra wide I am using the CV 12/5.6.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
You use the ZM 35 over the Rx1rii for landscape?
They are very similar at infinity distance starting at f/6.3 and smaller. l see a slightly higher resolution/contrast with the ZM 35/1.4 at the mid-field area. (1:1) -- but it's almost imperceptible.
I like the ZM sunstars much better and it's also more flare resistant. It will also work with more advanced and higher MP sensors in the future. The RX1RII is more flat-field at wider apertures.
The advantage of the RX1RII at all distances is much better mid and edge performance from f/2 until f/5.6 when compared to the ZM.
However, I would not hesitate to use either one for landscapes.
Fred Miranda wrote:
They are very similar at infinity distance starting at f/6.3 and smaller. l see a slightly higher resolution/contrast with the ZM 35/1.4 at the mid-field area. (1:1) -- but it's almost imperceptible.
I like the ZM sunstars much better and it's also more flare resistant. It will also work with more advanced and higher MP sensors in the future. The RX1RII is more flat-field at wider apertures.
The advantage of the RX1RII at all distances is much better mid and edge performance from f/2 until f/5.6 when compared to the ZM.
However, I would not hesitate to use either one for landscapes.
Makes sense--I found the RX1 spectacular of landscape, and very good even WO. Stopped down I can see where they would be essentially equal. To me the RX1 is spectacular in it's smoothness, contrast and sharpness at essentially all apertures at near, mid or far. That sonnar is so consistent it amazes me.
Nov 29, 2016 at 04:30 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
BTW: I might sound like a broken record, but what still continues to surprise me is how many people say this lens has smooth bokeh and then show close up shots with mostly bokeh in it. Such thin DOF isn't that big of a challenge. Look for example at photos with subjects at mid distance. The bokeh can be so harsh (double-lined) that I just don't understand that people hardly mention it. The complete opposite of what I consider to be smooth bokeh, even though it's quite normal for highly corrected lenses. If it wasn't for this nervous bokeh I would've bought this lens without any doubt, because the colors and "presence" can be really nice.
Regarding the FE 35/1.4. Yes it has onion rings. Yes they are ugly. However, those only affect the highlights. This lens offers much smoother bokeh than the ZM. Especially when stopping down slightly.
Also: the field curvature can give you really weird results. Look at this recent shot from OleAndre for example:
*edit: it's a private link. I'm talking about the ice cream van in this post
The distant edges are in focus and make a nervous transition to the OOF center. ...Show more →
But, IMO, that shot is just dying to be croped to 4 X 5 just cutting out the man and the yellow crane on the left and the people in the background on the right. With such a crop you would have zero problems. For me it is all about knowing how the lens performs and shooting for that. This shot would work wonderfully, IMO, if you understood the lens and worked within its limitations. I do agree about the bokeh, however. I think mid distance with a close background needs to be avoided, but my choice to supplement the ZM 35 f/1.4 is the ZF.2 35 f/1.4. It too has very nice bokeh, in my view and the onion rings are much less noticeable. I think the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 can be another quality supplement as well.
Steve Spencer wrote:
But, IMO, that shot is just dying to be croped to 4 X 5 just cutting out the man and the yellow crane on the left and the people in the background on the right. With such a crop you would have zero problems. For me it is all about knowing how the lens performs and shooting for that. This shot would work wonderfully, IMO, if you understood the lens and worked within its limitations. I do agree about the bokeh, however. I think mid distance with a close background needs to be avoided, but my choice to supplement the ZM 35 f/1.4 is the ZF.2 35 f/1.4. It too has very nice bokeh, in my view and the onion rings are much less noticeable. I think the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 can be another quality supplement as well....Show more →
Do you prefer the ZF 35 over the CY? the ZF is the only Zeiss 35 I'd still like to try. It's main draw seems to be the bokeh and color. How do you compare it against the other 35s?
Nov 29, 2016 at 04:56 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Do you prefer the ZF 35 over the CY? the ZF is the only Zeiss 35 I'd still like to try. It's main draw seems to be the bokeh and color. How do you compare it against the other 35s?
I really like how the ZF 35 renders for portraits. I do think it is better than the C/Y, but that is just my take. Many people disagree. The ZF is bigger (about 800 grams), but is sharp enough for me wide open even pretty close up. I also think he bokeh is very nice. I wish it were smaller, but I love the results. Here are some of my favourite portraits with the lens.
Below is a link to some snaps around the house taken with my new 35 1.4 ZM and TAC on my A7Rii. All were shot at f/1.4, with no adjustment other than minor exposure, cropping and other normal RAW processing. I initially though "wow the TAP really underexposes!", but was relieved to realize (dumb me!) that the exposure comp dial which I literally never use was set to -1.5. So if you see some noise it's because I had to lift shadows. The vignetting of the lens is somewhat pronounced although it doesn't bother me and I assume it lessens as the lens is stopped down (plus it's easily correctable in post). What I like (as do others) is the micro contrast, lush colors, center sharpness when wide open, and most of all, the bokeh. I can see there are quirks in focusing that I'll need to get up to speed with in order to nail focus where I want it. Bottom line: my initial reaction to this lens is highly favorable.
Whenever I travel I tend to take only one lens because I subscribe to the "make it work" philosophy. We're leaving in a couple of weeks for a cruise up the Danube, and while normally I'd take just my Batis 25, it's staying at home this trip and the 35 1.4 ZM is coming along!
