mdemeyer wrote:
Perform optimally to me means getting the performance I paid for. And that's substantial (both performance and cost) with this lens. ;-)
I appreciate that. On the other hand, put it in relative terms: what is the best performing 35mm lens on an unmodified a7R II sensor? I want that lens - especially if it weighs a fraction of the huge FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA - even if it might be a bit sub-optimal.
I'm not going to screw up the performance of my native Batis lenses by getting my sensor modified, and I'm not going to buy a separate camera with a modified sensor just so I can use the 35mm f/1.4 ZM. There is going to be a compromise in some way and I'd rather have a somewhat-compromised lens if it means that it still performs as good or better than any other 35mm lens on an unmodified a7R II sensor.
There are a lot of platitudes being stated about the 35 ZM in this thread, and it seems justified from the looks of things. But, I want to know if someone has tested it on a stock a7R II against the FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA and can confirm that it is - on the whole - a superior optical performer regarding sharpness, contrast, and CA. The ZA probably wins the bokeh contest, so I don't include that in my question.
If no one has compared them in any way, then I guess I'll have to buy both to find out in my own experience, and return the worst performing lens. Would rather buy smarter (knowing the answer before buying).
darbo wrote:
I can appreciate that to an extent. However, put it in relative terms. What is the best performing 35mm lens on an unmodified a7R II sensor? I want that lens - especially if it weighs a fraction of the huge FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA - even if it might be a bit sub-optimal.
I'm not going to screw up the performance of my native Batis lenses by getting my sensor modified, and I'm not going to buy a separate camera with a modified sensor just so I can use the 35mm f/1.4 ZM. There is going to be a compromise in some way and I'd rather have a somewhat-compromised lens if it means that it still performs as good or better than any other 35mm lens on an unmodified a7R II sensor.
There are a lot of platitudes being stated about the 35 ZM in this thread, and it seems justified from the looks of things. But, I want to know if someone has tested it on a stock a7R II against the FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA and can confirm that it is - on the whole - a superior optical performer regarding sharpness, contrast, and CA. The ZA probably wins the bokeh contest, so I don't include that in my question.
If no one has compared them in any way, then I guess I'll have to buy both to find out in my own experience, and return the worst performing lens. Would rather buy smarter (knowing the answer before buying). ...Show more →
I can't answer your question, although perhaps Guy will weigh in. What I can say is that I have the 35ZM that I use on my unmodified A7Rii, and I'm happy with its performance (although not the fact that apparently TAP, even when TAP is working correctly, will give proper focus due to issues in the lens construction versus that of the camera). I've resigned myself to using this lens manually. See my pictures posted here. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1445981/34#13865740
JimBuchanan wrote:
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. https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/672/31689210876_945216dd0a_h.jpg
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.
brick33308 wrote:
I can't answer your question, although perhaps Guy will weigh in. What I can say is that I have the 35ZM that I use on my unmodified A7Rii, and I'm happy with its performance (although not the fact that apparently TAP, even when TAP is working correctly, will give proper focus due to issues in the lens construction versus that of the camera). I've resigned myself to using this lens manually. See my pictures posted here. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1445981/34#13865740
Personally I would not modify my camera just for the ZM 35mm as that will affect any FE lens you may use. As shown there is improvement with the ZM 35 on a Kolari modification but it seems we have discovered some better corner performance more wide open with a lens filter which a nice thread thats going on right now. I actually have a filter coming but even without this filter correction you still get excellent corners on a unmodified A7rII starting at F6.3 which too many, kind of a surprise that we can use this for landscapes and with the correction filter maybe even by F4 a test that needs to be done by myself to be sure. But others are getting nice results with a front filter.
GMPhotography wrote:
Personally I would not modify my camera just for the ZM 35mm as that will affect any FE lens you may use. As shown there is improvement with the ZM 35 on a Kolari modification but it seems we have discovered some better corner performance more wide open with a lens filter which a nice thread thats going on right now. I actually have a filter coming but even without this filter correction you still get excellent corners on a unmodified A7rII starting at F6.3 which too many, kind of a surprise that we can use this for landscapes and with the correction filter maybe even by F4 a test that needs to be done by myself to be sure. But others are getting nice results with a front filter. ...Show more →
Thanks Guy.
Regarding the TAP, there's been discussion that even when the focusing mechanism on it is working properly, that it won't focus the ZM35 as well or accurately as can be done manually. Do you agree with that?
I actually have not noticed anything but I have sometimes focused manually and taken it off infinity so that may have some bearing. I had the Hawk adapter and iMHO the best manual adapter as you can set the infinity on it. So if your not using TAP get the Hawk
GMPhotography wrote:
I actually have not noticed anything but I have sometimes focused manually and taken it off infinity so that may have some bearing. I had the Hawk adapter and iMHO the best manual adapter as you can set the infinity on it. So if your not using TAP get the Hawk
thanks, I'm going to call B&H now and change the order.
I actually got used to and enjoyed manually focusing the ZM35, although on moving subjects in candid street portraits I need to get my focusing speed up. I have manual set to focus peek in yellow and the center button of the wheel set to zoom.
I may be an oddball, but I don't use TAP for infinity focus almost ever. I use TAP when I am wanting to shoot either more casually--at a party or wandering around hand held--or in a museum where I am focusing at fairly near subjects. I used TAP with a 28/1.4 and 75/2 recently on vacation and it worked great. However, for landscapes, I usually have time to manually focus either hand held or on tripod. The fact is, with lenses that have floating elements, manually focusing (or at least pre-focusing) will yield at least theoretically better results.
Luvwine wrote:
I may be an oddball, but I don't use TAP for infinity focus almost ever. I use TAP when I am wanting to shoot either more casually--at a party or wandering around hand held--or in a museum where I am focusing at fairly near subjects. I used TAP with a 28/1.4 and 75/2 recently on vacation and it worked great. However, for landscapes, I usually have time to manually focus either hand held or on tripod. The fact is, with lenses that have floating elements, manually focusing (or at least pre-focusing) will yield at least theoretically better results.
I love the ZM with TAP. If I'm handholding the camera, I'm almost always using AF with TAP. However, if I'm on a tripod, I turn off AF and use manual focus with the ZM still TAP mounted. No complaints here . . .
rji2goleez wrote:
I love the ZM with TAP. If I'm handhold the camera, I'm almost always using AF with TAP. However, if I'm on a tripod, I turn off AF and use manual focus with the ZM still TAP mounted. No complaints here . . .
rji2goleez wrote:
I love the ZM with TAP. If I'm handholding the camera, I'm almost always using AF with TAP. However, if I'm on a tripod, I turn off AF and use manual focus with the ZM still TAP mounted. No complaints here . . .
I think for a lot of folks that is the case. If I'm on a tripod I'm in manual focus mode.
Got the 35 ZM and the TAP but something forces me to use the A7RII with this lens manually. Don't know why but the construction and solid feel of the lens just brings up this feeling. I wonder if you folks have experience with the Novoflex NEX/Leica Adapter. The total weight would also come down a bit.
Also when using such an adapter, could I program on C2 for example that the focus loupe pops up in the viewfinder?
Mirror wrote:
Got the 35 ZM and the TAP but something forces me to use the A7RII with this lens manually. Don't know why but the construction and solid feel of the lens just brings up this feeling. I wonder if you folks have experience with the Novoflex NEX/Leica Adapter. The total weight would also come down a bit.
Also when using such an adapter, could I program on C2 for example that the focus loupe pops up in the viewfinder?
Novoflex makes excellent adapters. However, for M lenses, I prefer either the Hawks Family or the Voigtlander adapters as they are "helicoid" adapters and allow closer focusing (similar to TAP) distances than does a fixed adapter like the Novoflex.
As for manual focus assist, of course you can use that with a manual adapter and magnify to achieve critical focus. Not being a native lens, you will not get an automatic magnify when turning the focus ring as happens with a Loxia for example, but that is not a bit deal--just takes an extra button press.
Luvwine wrote:
Novoflex makes excellent adapters. However, for M lenses, I prefer either the Hawks Family or the Voigtlander adapters as they are "helicoid" adapters and allow closer focusing (similar to TAP) distances than does a fixed adapter like the Novoflex.
As for manual focus assist, of course you can use that with a manual adapter and magnify to achieve critical focus. Not being a native lens, you will not get an automatic magnify when turning the focus ring as happens with a Loxia for example, but that is not a bit deal--just takes an extra button press.
I had a defective TAP that I returned to B&H for refund. Instead of getting a replacement, I decided to go with the Voigtlander close focus adapter, also because focusing manually with the ZM35 really grew on me when I wasn't able to get the TAP to focus.
Mirror wrote:
Thanks both of you, how much closer will I come with the helicoid versions vs. a standard adapter?
30 cm instead of 70 cm.
Maximum magnification: 1:5.7 (measured) instead of 1:16.9.
Mirror wrote:
Thanks, it would be interesting to know how many use this combo manually.
I use a lens manually on Voightlander Close Focus adapter. I generally don't shoot me things that move so the lack of autofocus is not an issue for me.
