brick33308 wrote:
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 Hawk's?
I have the Voigtlander VM-E Helicoid and the TAP. Since putting the ZM and other lenses on the TAP, I haven't used the VM-E or any of my other Leica M to FE adapters.
The ZM35 1.4 is a floating element design so requires a proper adapter thickness. As Fred notes, the Hawkes can be fine tuned. If you use one of the autofocus adapters with this lens you will get sub-optimal results since the floating element will not be properly positioned.
Personally I use a Novoflex that happens to nail focus on my Kolari v3 modified A7.
Michael
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.
It was weird. When changing aperture it would display from f/2 to f/22 in-camera even though the aperture ring would be changed from f/2 to f/2.2. This would happen with a few other aperture combinations as well.
Zeiss could not figure this one out and sent me a replacement which is perfect now.
Aztatlan wrote:
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?
mdemeyer wrote:
The ZM35 1.4 is a floating element design so requires a proper adapter thickness. As Fred notes, the Hawkes can be fine tuned. If you use one of the autofocus adapters with this lens you will get sub-optimal results since the floating element will not be properly positioned.
Are you saying that the TAP will not accurately and optimally focus the ZM35 1.4??
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.
I have one Hawk's and one Voigtlander VM-E, and I think that they are equally good. However, a second Hawk's had a wobbly connection with a ZM 85/4. I returned it. Perhaps that copy was a total fluke, but it raised some doubt in my mind about their QA.
Regarding sharpness, does this lens perform the same or better on an unmodified a7R II than the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm F1.4 ZA at all apertures and focal distances?
I've been looking through the front filter thread (painfully) and it's worrisome to see the DIY filter thing along with removing shims (yikes!) in an elaborate effort to get optimal results from the lens, but if none of that is needed to already outperform the FE 35mm, then I'm all in on this one. The size/weight savings alone makes the higher price worth it imo.
Correct. That design, and others with floating elements, require the lens to be focused with the focusing ring for the floating element(s) to be properly positioned for the subject distance. Any focusing technique that varies the lens mount distance will not do this. I believe that's how the TAP works, right?
Michael
brick33308 wrote:
Are you saying that the TAP will not accurately and optimally focus the ZM35 1.4??
mdemeyer wrote:
Correct. That design, and others with floating elements, require the lens to be focused with the focusing ring for the floating element(s) to be properly positioned for the subject distance. Any focusing technique that varies the lens punt distance will not do this. I believe that's how the TAP works, right?
Michael
WOW, if that's true then I wonder what good the TAP is for other than using it as a lens mount adapter while operating the ZM35 in manual mode. And if that's all the TAP is good for, then I'd rather have a lighter, smaller adapter. I just sent my defective TAP back to B&H yesterday and asked them for a replacement. Now I'm thinking I should cancel the replacement and get the Hawks instead?
I can't speak for the Sony lens as I don't own it, but in my experience and other careful testing the ZM35 1.4 does not perform optimally on a stock Sony. It's designed for the thinner filter stack of the Leica M cameras.
I use mine on a Kolari thin filter modified A7 which works very well. It is one of my favorite lenses on that camera. It is not a great performer away from center In my experience on an unmodified Sony until stopped down significantly.
Michael
darbo wrote:
Regarding sharpness, does this lens perform the same or better on an unmodified a7R II than the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm F1.4 ZA at all apertures and focal distances?
I've been looking through the front filter thread (painfully) and it's worrisome to see the DIY filter thing along with removing shims (yikes!) in an elaborate effort to get optimal results from the lens, but if none of that is needed to already outperform the FE 35mm, then I'm all in on this one. The size/weight savings alone makes the higher price worth it imo.
mdemeyer wrote:
I can't speak for the Sony lens as I don't own it, but in my experience and other careful testing the ZM35 1.4 does not perform optimally on a stock Sony. It's designed for the thinner filter stack of the Leica M cameras.
I'm confused and would like to clarify exactly what you mean by "perform optimally", i.e., are we talking about resolving ability at certain f stops or inability to focus?
If we're talking about inability to focus, then that to me is a serious problem. Are you saying the ZM 35/1.4 on the A7Rii can't be fully and properly focused in MF mode?
Or if you're talking about the fact that the lens won't shine in terms of resolution until stopped down, then I see that as a lesser issue. Someone earlier in this thread (Fred?) said that the ZM 35/1.4 on the A7Rii is his go to 35mm when it's stopped down at or greater than f5.6. In my own case on a recent trip to Europe, I thought the images stopped down like that were, to my admittedly untrained eyes, just fine. But the main purpose for my using the ZM 35/1.4 was to shoot it wide or close to wide open to achieve the punchy foreground against the creamy/dreamy background, almost for a 3D effect. Below are some pics showing how I met both of those objectives.
But again, most important, can you clarify what you mean by "perform optimally", thanks!
You still need an adapter, which have existed way before the TAP came along. It is simply a "dumb" adapter. A piece of metal and plastic that creates the necessary connection between the Leica M mount and Sony E mount.
brick33308 wrote:
I'm confused and would like to clarify exactly what you mean by "perform optimally", i.e., are we talking about resolving ability at certain f stops or inability to focus?
If we're talking about inability to focus, then that to me is a serious problem. Are you saying the ZM 35/1.4 on the A7Rii can't be fully and properly focused in MF mode?
Or if you're talking about the fact that the lens won't shine in terms of resolution until stopped down, then I see that as a lesser issue. Someone earlier in this thread (Fred?) said that the ZM 35/1.4 on the A7Rii is his go to 35mm when it's stopped down at or greater than f5.6. But the main purpose for my using the ZM 35/1.4 was to shoot it wide or close to wide open to achieve the punchy foreground against the creamy/dreamy background, almost for a 3D effect.
Perform optimally to me means getting the performance I paid for. And that's substantial (both performance and cost) with this lens. ;-)
Seriously though, you will lose sharpness across the frame, and especially away from the center, on a stock Sony, with the problem being worse at larger (more open) f-stops. This is thoroughly covered in the various thread on the Kolari mods so I'll not rehash here. You will also see different field curvature from what was designed. In the case of the ZM35, which is very good in this regard, I consider that worse.
Incorrectly adjusting the floating element eliminates the benefits that Zeiss put it there for. I don't think I can quantify that, but floating elements are generally used to improve sharpness and reduce aberrations. If the lens is not properly focused (meaning the distance indicated on the focus ring does not match the actual focus distance) these corrections are not properly applied.
Of course, if you are shooting subjects in the center of the field at f1.4 and the edges are a lovely blur, then edge sharpness isn't an issue. Similarly, if you are going to shoot at f8, why pay for and carry a lens like this since you can probably get acceptable performance from much lighter and less expensive lenses. My sub-$400 M-Rokkor 40mm does quite well at f8 or f11. And it's small and light.
In the end there are not simple answers to these questions. We all shoot differently and have different expectations and preferences. For me, but maybe not for you, paying $2000 for a lens means I want to get what it's capable of. That generally means applying it as close to its design parameters as possible.
Michael
brick33308 wrote:
I'm confused and would like to clarify exactly what you mean by "perform optimally", i.e., are we talking about resolving ability at certain f stops or inability to focus?
If we're talking about inability to focus, then that to me is a serious problem. Are you saying the ZM 35/1.4 on the A7Rii can't be fully and properly focused in MF mode?
Or if you're talking about the fact that the lens won't shine in terms of resolution until stopped down, then I see that as a lesser issue. Someone earlier in this thread (Fred?) said that the ZM 35/1.4 on the A7Rii is his go to 35mm when it's stopped down at or greater than f5.6. In my own case on a recent trip to Europe, I thought the images stopped down like that were, to my admittedly untrained eyes, just fine. But the main purpose for my using the ZM 35/1.4 was to shoot it wide or close to wide open to achieve the punchy foreground against the creamy/dreamy background, almost for a 3D effect. Below are some pics showing how I met both of those objectives.
But again, most important, can you clarify what you mean by "perform optimally", thanks!
mdemeyer wrote:
Incorrectly adjusting the floating element eliminates the benefits that Zeiss put it there for. I don't think I can quantify that, but floating elements are generally used to improve sharpness and reduce aberrations. If the lens is not properly focused (meaning the distance indicated on the focus ring does not match the actual focus distance) these corrections are not properly applied.
Thanks for that detailed response, much appreciated!
My last question is whether I can achieve full and proper focus with the ZM35 on my A7Rii by using focus peaking and zoom, or are you saying that the nature of elements in the lens design versus the physical characteristics of the A7Rii will prevent me from achieving full and proper focus?
The biggest problem I have with the ZM35 Distagon on a stock a7RII is the induced field curvature towards the edges and corners. The Kolari modded a7 I had, did wonders to correct this issue, but I decided not to dedicate a camera to just this one lens.
But, I will acknowledge the ZM 35/1.4 infinity focused landscape IQ when stopped down about 4 stops on the stock a7RII. The corners are sharp. And most of the time close focused scenes do give nice out of focus backgrounds even into the corners. But, when the focused area is a little farther out, at wide apertures, the field curvature distorts the scene.
For example, in this photo, it looks like the red hat is the focus point on the right part of the frame. Look at how sharp the tree branches and the street light is on the upper left corner. That is field curvature bending focus out away from the camera. The sharpness of the top right corner pulls your eye away from the subject of interest, the red hat.
Another example: The chairs are in focus centrally in the frame with the infinity distance nicely out of focus. Look at how sharp the infinity part is on the left side of the frame compared to the center infinity.
