Jonas B wrote:
Hey Fred, let me know if you decide to sell the RX1RII...
NEVER!!
For landscape shooters, both lenses (RX1 and ZM 35/1.4) are very similar at smaller apertures starting at f/6.3.
There is a difference in sunstar rendering (which I much prefer the ZM 10-point star) and flare resistance, which I also give the edge to the ZM. That's why usually shoot landscapes with the ZM instead of the RX1RII even though they are equality outstanding.
So it looks like most got it wrong as out of century of 35mm spawned lenses the 2.0 focused by wire Sonnar permanently welded to RX series camera is the answer?
Jonas B numerously rejected the ZM35D lens due to his own standards, which is given and accepted right of his.
For the rest of the world daring to accept output of ZM 35D with its bokeh, corner performance, field curvature - Allhelluja
Been using the 35mm ZMD for the last few months on the 7r2. It really is a fantastic lens. Here are a couple taken last night at the rainbow bridge in Tokyo..
At smaller apertures (after f/5.6) it yields crispy corners already (See comparison to Loxia 35/2 here) -- but I'm curious to see how it performs at wider apertures with a 5m PCX filter.
lostinjapan wrote:
I went a long time debating on whether or not I should buy the lens mainly due to the cost. In short it's worth every penny.
Ryan
I think the big (and very subjective) question is whether it's worth the premium over the Loxia 35 or the 35 2 Sonnar on an rx1r. A used Loxia costs less than half of a used ZM, and a used rx1r also is more affordable than the 35 1.4 (and this calculation doesn't even include the TAP). Needless to say, the answer depends on one's personal preferences, budget and intended usage. I'm still not sure it'd be worth the money for me.
Chris_88 wrote:
I think the big (and very subjective) question is whether it's worth the premium over the Loxia 35 or the 35 2 Sonnar on an rx1r. A used Loxia costs less than half of a used ZM, and a used rx1r also is more affordable than the 35 1.4 (and this calculation doesn't even include the TAP). Needless to say, the answer depends on one's personal preferences, budget and intended usage. I'm still not sure it'd be worth the money for me.
Hi Chris,
Consider the fact that the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM Distagon is one stop faster than the Loxia 35 as well as the 35mm f2 Sonnar on an RX1r. If you could find a used 35mm f1.4 MZM that would save money but these are very hard to come by. Also when looking at the 35mm 1.4 ZM if it is used on an A7r or an A7rII the cameras are either 36 or 42 MP cameras while the RX1r is a 24 MP camera. If you really want to make the comparison, compare the lens to the RX1R II which is a 42 MP camera. In that case, if you already have an A7r or an A7rII the lens is substantially less expensive than an RX1R II.
Consider the fact that the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM Distagon is one stop faster than the Loxia 35 as well as the 35mm f2 Sonnar on an RX1r. If you could find a used 35mm f1.4 MZM that would save money but these are very hard to come by. Also when looking at the 35mm 1.4 ZM if it is used on an A7r or an A7rII the cameras are either 36 or 42 MP cameras while the RX1r is a 24 MP camera. If you really want to make the comparison, compare the lens to the RX1R II which is a 42 MP camera. In that case, if you already have an A7r or an A7rII the lens is substantially less expensive than an RX1R II.
All legitimate points, Rich. At least here in Japan, you don't save that much, even if you find a used ZM.
For me, the difference between f1.4 and f2 is less significant than for many others. And with the rx1rii, you get a second camera for quite a bit more money.
From what I've seen, the flare resistance and sunstars are nicer on the ZM than the Sonnar, though.
Chris_88 wrote:
All legitimate points, Rich. At least here in Japan, you don't save that much, even if you find a used ZM.
For me, the difference between f1.4 and f2 is less significant than for many others. And with the rx1rii, you get a second camera for quite a bit more money.
From what I've seen, the flare resistance and sunstars are nicer on the ZM than the Sonnar, though.
That's the achilles' heel of the Sonnar 35/2 (RX1 series): flare resistance and sunstar rendering.
There is also a significant difference in background blur between f/1.4 and f/2 and in the case of the ZM vs Loxia, they weight about the same!
Something else to consider it that the 35/1.4 ZM can be used on TAP and the Loxia 35/2 is MF only.
Chris_88 wrote:
All legitimate points, Rich. At least here in Japan, you don't save that much, even if you find a used ZM.
For me, the difference between f1.4 and f2 is less significant than for many others. And with the rx1rii, you get a second camera for quite a bit more money.
From what I've seen, the flare resistance and sunstars are nicer on the ZM than the Sonnar, though.
I did some comparison shots yesterday between my ZM 35 and my Loxia 35, recently returned from a service with Zeiss Germany, and which I had been considering selling. Wide open at close distances, the Loxia shows a lot more dreamy style of blur, more purple fringing around high contrast edges, and possibly a small degree of focus shift, although that probably won't matter unless you focus wide open on a tripod and then stop down. Infinity results were similar to what Fred has demonstrated. While my Loxia is now performing impeccably, IMHO the ZM on a TAP is clearly ahead on all fronts, except for the exif recording of aperture, a common filter size, a degree of curvature at intermediate distances, and price. I thought I would not want to sell it, but after my direct head to head comparison, I feel like I can easily let it go. And I might get enough for it to justify a different Loxia newly arrived on the scene.
My new 35mm/1.4 ZM just arrived last week but the TAP is still missing. I have also no other adapter... :-(
Just a short question. Do you hear also a very quiet short klick when turning the focus-ring back and forth? In my case its always in the beginning of the last 3rd of the range. It is really no big issue but I thought to ask if others have the same experience.
Mirror wrote:
My new 35mm/1.4 ZM just arrived last week but the TAP is still missing. I have also no other adapter... :-(
Just a short question. Do you hear also a very quiet short klick when turning the focus-ring back and forth? In my case its always in the beginning of the last 3rd of the range. It is really no big issue but I thought to ask if others have the same experience.
If it's very minor i't likely to do with the distribution of the lubricant in the helicoid.
Use it a bit; if that's the issue it will go away with use. If it doesn't go away, you might want to investigate further.
I've used and sold two copies of the ZM; both times I ended up going back to Leica (R35/1.4 and Summilux M asph pre-Fle), first on M9 and A7ii and A7R and then on the M240.
The ZM was optically better than both in every respect--distortion, resolution, vignetting, coma. But I found its rendition too cold for my taste. The colors seemed more subdued. when I did a three way comparison it wasn't so easy to see the difference, but in use it was quite obvious. Subjectively I felt that the Leicas would be overwhelmed (esp the older R) by certain kinds of light in beautiful ways, whereas the ZM always had mastery over every scene.
I had a similar feeling with the planar 50 M and Ptus 55.
Maybe it's just a general house style thing. Someone here made the distinctions between fascination (more Zeiss) vs emotional engagement (more Leica), and between looking at (Zeiss) and through (Leica). A few years ago I used and loved Contax Zeiss and Contax G. I still use ZE lenses for videography. But for photo I have preferred Leicas even though the ZM's manifest optical quality impressed and tempted me.
I wonder if the above resonates at all with you guys with experience with both the ZM and leicas. I can see how the relative objectivity and "coldness" I am ascribing to the ZM are preferable to others, but I wonder if you'd even agree with this assessment.
