Fred Miranda wrote:
With manual lenses that connect electronically with the camera, like the Loxia line, there is more risk of something going wrong.
My Loxia 50/2 aperture communication with the camera broke last week. I had to send the lens in for repair.
This is not an issue with the ZM line.
I am curious what happened with the lens when the electronic communication broke? Could you still shoot it and just not get EXIF etc or was it a total brick? I would have thought it would work like an adapted dumb lens but maybe not?
I know that this thread is about the 35/1.4 ZM, but how do the other 35mm ZM lenses stack up for those of us that don't need f/1.4, but want excellent corner-to-corner sharpness and low flare/ghosting + great sun stars for landscape work?
jhinkey wrote:
I know that this thread is about the 35/1.4 ZM, but how do the other 35mm ZM lenses stack up for those of us that don't need f/1.4, but want excellent corner-to-corner sharpness and low flare/ghosting + great sun stars for landscape work?
How are the:
35mm f/2 Biogon
35mm f/2.8 C Biogon
for use on the A7RII?
That is exactly my need for a 35 as well. The 35 ZM, great as it looks, is way overpriced for me considering I don't need f1.4.
My head is currently sitting with the 2/35 Milvus; I plan on renting a copy next month to use in DV and Yosemite and if all goes well I will probably buy it. The Sigma 35 is another good choice from an IQ perspective however it's extremely large and heavy and unnecessarily so for landscape work.
I could be wrong but I think the 32 f2 Biogon was the design the 35 Loxia was based on so I would expect it to perform the same or worse. No idea about the 2.8.
jhinkey wrote:
I know that this thread is about the 35/1.4 ZM, but how do the other 35mm ZM lenses stack up for those of us that don't need f/1.4, but want excellent corner-to-corner sharpness and low flare/ghosting + great sun stars for landscape work?
How are the:
35mm f/2 Biogon
35mm f/2.8 C Biogon
for use on the A7RII?
The 2/35 Biogon is basically the same lens as the Loxia 2/35; my guess is (and it's only a guess!) that Zeiss own optical compensation for the filter stack when the computed the Loxia version is going to give a better result than a front filter. So if you are tempted by this lens (excellent stopped down, low flare and ghosting, possibly a tad less even than the 1.4/35 which is otherwise a bit better though pricier) I'd go with the Loxia version.
The C Biogon, for all that it has "C" in it's name which sometimes suggests classic rendering rather than technical excellence, seems to have very similar MTF to the 1.4/35 stopped down! If there's a front filter solution for it, it could be a VERY tempting compact landscape solution.
EDIT I realised that this thread has not had much discussion of front filters; so it's worth noting that neither of these two lenses performs well on Sony without compensation of some kind. The 1.4/35 does very well stopped down, but there are issues of field curvature and bokeh (mild enough not to worry about in most circs) at wider apertures. But the two biogons are mush in the corners without compensation; the f2 version is best compensated for likely by buying the Loxia, which is a compensated version. See the thread about front filters for the possibility of compensating the C-Biogon.
Aztatlan wrote:
That is exactly my need for a 35 as well. The 35 ZM, great as it looks, is way overpriced for me considering I don't need f1.4.
My head is currently sitting with the 2/35 Milvus; I plan on renting a copy next month to use in DV and Yosemite and if all goes well I will probably buy it. The Sigma 35 is another good choice from an IQ perspective however it's extremely large and heavy and unnecessarily so for landscape work.
I could be wrong but I think the 32 f2 Biogon was the design the 35 Loxia was based on so I would expect it to perform the same or worse. No idea about the 2.8....Show more →
I have used both Loxia and the classic ZE which is the same optically as Milvus, and prefer the Loxia.
Looking at the MTFs for the Milvus and the Loxia, stopped down the Loxia is noticeably better in the centre and mid field, the Milvus might be just ahead in the corners. That pretty much matches my experience.
Wide open, the Milvus is well ahead in most of the field, though the Lox is a touch sharper dead in the centre. But for landscape that may not matter much.
Aztatlan wrote:
That is exactly my need for a 35 as well. The 35 ZM, great as it looks, is way overpriced for me considering I don't need f1.4.
My head is currently sitting with the 2/35 Milvus; I plan on renting a copy next month to use in DV and Yosemite and if all goes well I will probably buy it. The Sigma 35 is another good choice from an IQ perspective however it's extremely large and heavy and unnecessarily so for landscape work.
I could be wrong but I think the 32 f2 Biogon was the design the 35 Loxia was based on so I would expect it to perform the same or worse. No idea about the 2.8....Show more →
Yes, I've tried to like the Loxia, but it's just too poor wide open off center and only gets OK off in the borders/corners way stopped down. Not what I want to plunk that many $$ down on (Zeiss could and should have done better). Went with the 35/2.8 Sony, which is sharp enough, but has not nearly as good flare/ghosting as the Lox and poor sun stars as well.
Somebody please make an excellent 35/2 M or E mount that's compact, pretty sharp wide open, super sharp stopped down, and can be pointed into the sun with impunity!
Back to our regularly-scheduled 35/1.4 ZM talk . . .
jhinkey wrote:
Yes, I've tried to like the Loxia, but it's just too poor wide open off center and only gets OK off in the borders/corners way stopped down. Not what I want to plunk that many $$ down on (Zeiss could and should have done better). Went with the 35/2.8 Sony, which is sharp enough, but has not nearly as good flare/ghosting as the Lox and poor sun stars as well.
Somebody please make an excellent 35/2 M or E mount that's compact, pretty sharp wide open, super sharp stopped down, and can be pointed into the sun with impunity!
Back to our regularly-scheduled 35/1.4 ZM talk . . . ...Show more →
Agree with the complaints about the Loxia, but I still think it's likely the best stopped down landscape against the light off the shelf solution (The 1.4 is a little better, but even more expensive, and less off-the-shelf). Agree too about the FE 2.8/35; if that lens had better flare control, contrast, and sunstars I would still own it. (Actually I only sold mine - at a discount - because it was a bit tilted. While some against the light landscape shots were a bit meh because of it, it's a very handy lens to have on your body for snapshots while you are hiking - as opposed to when you have stopped hiking to take photography seriously)
I agree though (as do many!) that it's amazing that there isn't a better 35mm solution!
You might consider the C-Biogon if someone figures out a filter solution for it. If it can be successfully corrected it's even better than the Loxia stopped down, it's got great contrast and sunstars, it's about as good as the 1.4 stopped down, and it's much smaller and cheaper than either the 1.4 or the Loxia.
But for goodness sake can someone make a good no compromise 35! I would love 2.8 that wasn't optimised for small or cheap, but optimised for AMAZING. And, being 2.8, being amazing would likely make it no bigger than the f2 versions. But I don't hold out hope. I think our best hope is an f2. likely with AF, from Batis, or maybe Sigma (they say they will make FE lenses, and it's an obvious commercial gap) or even Tokina Firin....
jhinkey wrote:
Yes, I've tried to like the Loxia, but it's just too poor wide open off center and only gets OK off in the borders/corners way stopped down. Not what I want to plunk that many $$ down on (Zeiss could and should have done better). Went with the 35/2.8 Sony, which is sharp enough, but has not nearly as good flare/ghosting as the Lox and poor sun stars as well.
Somebody please make an excellent 35/2 M or E mount that's compact, pretty sharp wide open, super sharp stopped down, and can be pointed into the sun with impunity!
Back to our regularly-scheduled 35/1.4 ZM talk . . . ...Show more →
IMO, the best 35mm lens for the A7RII currently is the ZM 35/1.4. It's outstanding from center to corners at f/6.3 and smaller, has great flare control and renders pretty sunstars. If you care for these features, there is nothing else to try.
The RX1RII comes close as far as contrast/resolution but does not have the same flare performance and sunstar rendering.
The issue with field curvature is only at mid distances (2.5m and longer) combined with wide apertures. This will probably be fixed with the 5m PCX front filter. (I will get it on Jan 10th and try it out). The filter could also improve the corners at infinity when shooting wide open.
Fred - yep the ZM 35/1.4 is the ticket, but sometimes I won't want to lug it around the mountains, hence a smaller/slower option would be great. It just may not exist.
Tried the 40/1.4 MC in VM and it was just OK with not particularly good flare/ghosting and sun stars (just sold it the other day).
jhinkey wrote:
Fred - yep the ZM 35/1.4 is the ticket, but sometimes I won't want to lug it around the mountains, hence a smaller/slower option would be great. It just may not exist.
Tried the 40/1.4 MC in VM and it was just OK with not particularly good flare/ghosting and sun stars (just sold it the other day).
My second choice would be the Loxia 35/2. You would get great MF focus, sunstar rendering and excellent micro-contrast/resolution across the frame at smaller apertures.
There is some copy variation with this lens. (I have tested many)
Starting at f/4 you get amazing center and mid-field resolution/contrat but the lens need stopping down to at least f/9 for the corners.
It's lighter and not as expensive but the very corners will never look as good as the ZM 35/1.4. Definitely worth second look.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My second choice would be the Loxia 35/2. You would get great MF focus, sunstar rendering and excellent micro-contrast/resolution across the frame at smaller apertures.
There is some copy variation with this lens. (I have tested many)
Starting at f/4 you get amazing center and mid-field resolution/contrat but the lens need stopping down to at least f/9 for the corners.
It's lighter and not as expensive but the very corners will never look as good as the ZM 35/1.4. Definitely worth second look.
Don't forget the Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ultron! It has a different rendering and I always found this to be a very pleasing landscape lens. Less expensive than the Zeiss 35/1.4ZM so less of a costly risk in the mountains. Of course, even less costly is the "do everything well but nothing great" Sony 35/2.8.
I am still traveling, but have been following this conversation. And after having used the ZM 35/1, I will tell you that I have fallen in love with this lens – even with the wonky AF performance of the TAP. In fact, I have gotten so used to manually focusing this lens, that I switch off auto focus as soon as the camera goes on. Is there another adapter that simply fits this lens to tha A7Rii without having auto focus? If so, and it weighs less than the TAP I may consider it. But again, the lens itself is an absolute delight, especially wide-open.
brick33308 wrote:
I am still traveling, but have been following this conversation. And after having used the ZM 35/1, I will tell you that I have fallen in love with this lens – even with the wonky AF performance of the TAP. In fact, I have gotten so used to manually focusing this lens, that I switch off auto focus as soon as the camera goes on. Is there another adapter that simply fits this lens to tha A7Rii without having auto focus? If so, and it weighs less than the TAP I may consider it. But again, the lens itself is an absolute delight, especially wide-open. ...Show more →
Any M to E adapter will do. Basic ones can weigh as little as 20g. I'd get a helicoid adapter though, so as to be able to focus closer. The top of the line is the Voigtlander VM-E. But there are some very well made copies around for a third of the price. I've been very happy withe Yeenon, and Leicaist make a good one. People speak well of a helicoid adapter called Hawjes Factory, but I have not tried it myself.
I returned Wednesday night from Budapest, Prague, and points between as we cruised on a river boat up the Danube River. Here's a link to 3 pages of pictures - about 80% or more shot with the 35 ZM. I ended up shooting manual focus most of the time because regrettably the TAP more often than not refused to focus. Overall I'm pleased with the rendering of this lens, but for shooting quickly moving candid street portraits, I'll need my Batis 85 (the only other lens I brought) unless I get the TAP to work properly or learn to focus faster in manual mode.
brick33308 wrote:
I returned Wednesday night from Budapest, Prague, and points between as we cruised on a river boat up the Danube River. Here's a link to 3 pages of pictures - about 80% or more shot with the 35 ZM. I ended up shooting manual focus most of the time because regrettably the TAP more often than not refused to focus. Overall I'm pleased with the rendering of this lens, but for shooting quickly moving candid street portraits, I'll need my Batis 85 (the only other lens I brought) unless I get the TAP to work properly or learn to focus faster in manual mode.
DavidBM wrote:
Any M to E adapter will do. Basic ones can weigh as little as 20g. I'd get a helicoid adapter though, so as to be able to focus closer. The top of the line is the Voigtlander VM-E. But there are some very well made copies around for a third of the price. I've been very happy withe Yeenon, and Leicaist make a good one. People speak well of a helicoid adapter called Hawjes Factory, but I have not tried it myself.
I've tried many adapters and I really like the Hawk's the best. It's a helicoid that weights 48 grams and has very tight tolerance. I never tested a tilted copy. As a plus, the infinity hard stop can be adjustable.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've tried many adapters and I really like the Hawk's the best. It's a helicoid that weights 48 grams and has very tight tolerance. I never tested a tilted copy. As a plus, the infinity hard stop can be adjustable.
certainly that's a noticeable weight difference compared to TAP. That said, are you satisfied with the TAP autofocus of the 35/1.4 ZM such that you prefer the TAP over the Hawks?
l
