Well, in my real world comparisons of the ZM 35/1.4 and the Loxia 35 for landscape on an unmodded A7RII, its a no contest with the ZM sharper than the Loxia centrally, and considerably sharper in the corners. The difference is so significant that I found I had to back off my standard sharpening routines when using the ZM...
navmannz wrote:
Well, in my real world comparisons of the ZM 35/1.4 and the Loxia 35 for landscape, its a no contest with the ZM sharper than the Loxia centrally, and considerably sharper in the corners. The difference is so significant that I found I had to back off my standard sharpening routines when using the ZM...
-John
Wait until you place the 5m PCX front lens in front of it. It will be sharp to the edges even wide open.
I'm still going to a new mod, but I don't shoot any natives. I can see if you like natives, it might be worth the trouble to fiddle as you guys are with PCX.
Jan 23, 2017 at 08:25 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
uhoh7 wrote:
What I said is Lloyd tested ZM 35/2 and ZM35/1.4 on M240 and Biogon won for landscape, according to him. That probably at least F/5.6
That is a fact. I did not intend to say anything else. Apologies if I wasn't clear.
Obviously it won't win on any A7, well maybe on my new supremod.......
I still am skeptical the RX1rii will loose for landscape at f/8 or F/11 to ZM35/1.4 on A7rii, and I'd also think the Loxia would beat the ZM35/1.4 at those apertures.
But I have no idea what is the real case, of course.
My money is on the RX1rii in a very careful test. Copy variation could easily swing it, though. The Rx1rii cameras supposedly have sensors aligned by copy by technicians. But some sake the night before....or a impact....And the ZM 35/1.4 is made by Cosina, which has also, like Solms as well, put out some varied copies.
But if you extrapolate to F/8 I think Lloyd may well be right. Not a given. But the Biogon lines are very smooth and you expect the edges to come well up. The 1.4 has mid zone drop and far edge crash. More to fix, but not impossible.
The RX1(r2) on paper though looks like it's great for landscape any my few shots bear that out. Once you find infinity, which is PITA on all Sonys, but especially terrible with focus by wire.
Where the POF is I have no idea, but I was impressed
Despite my efforts to learn and lots of help, my results with the camera were too unpredictable in daily use. It gave me some fantastic shots and missed some no-brainers even after weeks of practice. M9 was a great relief to return to, but I still have the RX1rii at the house.
Skiing I take the M9 over this or A7. I can trust it with low number of frames. I don't like the extra weight, but I take small lenses. ...Show more →
Charlie the ZM 35 f/1.4 MTFs are clearly better than the ZM 35 f/2 MTFs. We don't really know.about the Rx1rII those are theoretical MTFs not measured ones. Fred has done careful testing of the ZM 35 f/1.4, the Loxia 35, and the Rx1RII at infinity and he rates them ZM 35 f/1.4 the best followed closely by the RX1rII, followed by the Loxia 35 which gets close to the others at F11, but isn't quite as good.That is on the A7rII. You can look up the tests, but he has said this may times.
By the way Zeiss reports the ZM 35 f/1.4 at f/4 and the ZM 35 f/2 at f/5.6 because these are the respective best apertures as they see it. They won't be the best across the frame and Zeiss seems to emphasize centre sharpness in making this decisions. Lloyd actually has MTFs for all the apertures on his site. I paid once, but decided it wasn't worth the money, but the graphs are there.
I'm still going to a new mod, but I don't shoot any natives. I can see if you like natives, it might be worth the trouble to fiddle as you guys are with PCX.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Charlie the ZM 35 f/1.4 MTFs are clearly better than the ZM 35 f/2 MTFs.
only at f/4. You have no idea what they are further down. You honestly think either lens is sharpest at f/4 across the frame, which is basic landscape criteria? The 35/2 is way above the 35/1.4 mid frame even at f/4. Then the 1.5 pops up briefly, and both drop at the edge. VERY different lenses.
I don't pay for lloyd either, maybe somebody will go in and see his review again. By the way Zeiss reports the ZM 35 f/1.4 at f/4 and the ZM 35 f/2 at f/5.6.
No, the loxia is reported at 5.6 though this is sometimes mixed up and mislabeled. The ZM 35/2 is at f/4 from the zeiss site, today.
But I'd love to see a link to the posts comparing the Sony and the ZM 35/1.4 with samples. Fred's tests of the 35/1.4 look very good and well done
If I have it wrong it should be right there. His site is such a labyrinth but he did compare to the old distagon 35/2 also, so there is the possibility of confusion. Denoir knows the 35/2 really well, and by his account it does not hit full stride till 5.6 and f/8 especially.
uhoh7 wrote:
only at f/4. You have no idea what they are further down. You honestly think either lens is sharpest at f/4 across the frame, which is basic landscape criteria? The 35/2 is way above the 35/1.4 mid frame even at f/4. Then the 1.5 pops up briefly, and both drop at the edge. VERY different lenses.
both lenses get weaker in the center after f/4 and better at the corners. the f/1.4 has better corners at f/4 so it seems reasonable to expect that it continues to have better corners, which all the tests i've seen bear out. the 35/2 is not way above the 35/1.4 mid frame, it just looks like the 35/1.4 is lower than it is there because it's mtf is so much better everywhere else. if you plot the average between sag and tan lines for both they are very close mid frame between the 35/2 and 35/1.4.
The Biogon 35/2 ZM is a poor performer towards the edges on the A7RII just like the Loxia 35/2. (Sorry guys, just keeping it real)
Comparing ZM 35/1.4 and ZM 35/2 MTF graphs is not reliable since they were not based on Sony's sensor stack and the Biogon design seems to struggle much more.
Both Loxia and ZM 35/2 have great center/mid-field resolution a couple stops down but the corners never sharpen up even at f/8. (Looks OK at f/11 but at this aperture, it loses its magic everywhere)
The Distagon 35/1.4 ZM does not have issues with smearing even on the stock Sony body. An easy test is to focus on the extreme edges and the result will be sharp corners from wide-open (and terribly out-of-focus center). From my own tests, the main issue with the Distagon 35/1.4 on the Sony is induced field curvature. (Kolari or PCX front-lens fixes this problem)
uhoh7 wrote: What I said is Lloyd tested ZM 35/2 and ZM35/1.4 on M240 and Biogon won for landscape, according to him. That probably at least F/5.6
That is a fact--I think, but please check me at his site in 6-way shootout. I did not intend to say anything else. Apologies if I wasn't clear.
Obviously it won't win on any A7, well maybe on my new supremod.......
Charlie, no need for apology, if so, it's on my part for extra pushing
I had both Biogon 2/35 and Distagon 1.4/35 for nearly two months and took few side by side shots on Kolari modded A7R before letting Biogon go.
My conclusion was that both lenses were fairly equal in the center, but in the corners Distagon was clearly superior (center and corner samples below, shot at f/8)
I recall Edward Karaa had both lenses for a while then sold his Biogon 2/35 as well, so perhaps he would comment on difference on M240.
Hi,
This thread is really attactive to me.
mine is a stock A7 Mk2 and I'm looking for the best all-around 35mm len.
FE 35 1.4ZA is really stunning but I hate how it looks like and weight.
i wonder if any issue happened if I go for: stock A7 II + techart + ZM35 1.4?
Thank you!
I've had all 3 Zeiss 35s, and finally kept the 1.4 and 2.8. I can only comment on their behavior on M bodies. The distagon is as close to perfection as can be, and that starting from wide open. The biogon has veiling haze wide open but it clears at 2.8. The long range performance is phenomenal at 5.6-8, and in my opinion, it is even better than the distagon, except in the extreme corners, where it doesn't do so well at any aperture. The c-biogon is a kind of mini distagon. The sharpness is similar but has significant vignetting. Also none of biogons has the sparkle of the distagon. At close distances, the c-biogon behaves very well, while the biogon is very sharp but has some nervous bokeh in some situations.
So basically I would agree with Charlie that the biogon may be better for landscapes, and if that's what I shoot, I would have probably opted to keep it. But the distagon is such a fantastic lens, with the only weakness (only compared to the biogon) is the slight dip in resolution around mid-frame at infinity.
I've had all 3 Zeiss 35s, and finally kept the 1.4 and 2.8. I can only comment on their behavior on M bodies. The distagon is as close to perfection as can be, and that starting from wide open. The biogon has veiling haze wide open but it clears at 2.8. The long range performance is phenomenal at 5.6-8, and in my opinion, it is even better than the distagon, except in the extreme corners, where it doesn't do so well at any aperture. The c-biogon is a kind of mini distagon. The sharpness is similar but has significant vignetting. Also none of biogons has the sparkle of the distagon. At close distances, the c-biogon behaves very well, while the biogon is very sharp but has some nervous bokeh in some situations.
So basically I would agree with Charlie that the biogon may be better for landscapes, and if that's what I shoot, I would have probably opted to keep it. But the distagon is such a fantastic lens, with the only weakness (only compared to the biogon) is the slight dip in resolution around mid-frame at infinity....Show more →
Tks for your advice.
I had few months with FE35 2.8 which is sharp, but I tend to shoot more wide open (environmental portrait).
My question regarding 35ZM is about technical issue to combo techart + ZM35 1.4: any problems like either smearing corner, color shifts or any slow/incorect AF... which I heard somewhere about non-native len + adaptor.
Um thanks sebboh, so I guess it's no better than the CV 35 1.7 then?
If that's the case I am once again leaning heavily towards the Ultron...it's less than half the price, smaller, lighter, and has just as much character, also f1.4 vs f1.7 is of no diff to me.
kin2son wrote:
Um thanks sebboh, so I guess it's no better than the CV 35 1.7 then?
If that's the case I am once again leaning heavily towards the Ultron...
i haven't shot the cv ultron yet so i can't comment on that from experience. i've heard you need to stop the ultron down to f/8 or smaller to get good corners and a good center at infinity (you should probably check phillip reeve's review to confirm this), with the zm f/5.6-f/6.3 seems to be enough. the zm also has extremely high biting contrast wide open that i doubt the ultron can match. finally, if you haven't seen the front filter correction thread you should take a look – putting specific type of closeup filter in front of either lens will correct the field curvature.
sebboh wrote:
i haven't shot the cv ultron yet so i can't comment on that from experience. i've heard you need to stop the ultron down to f/8 or smaller to get good corners and a good center at infinity (you should probably check phillip reeve's review to confirm this), with the zm f/5.6-f/6.3 seems to be enough. the zm also has extremely high biting contrast wide open that i doubt the ultron can match. finally, if you haven't seen the front filter correction thread you should take a look – putting specific type of closeup filter in front of either lens will correct the field curvature.
Focus was not adjusted on stopping down, by clever positioning of the focus plane you might be able to yield slightly better results.
In short range I also found the CV 35mm 1.7 to show significant focus shift, that might also make the lens look worse than it would be when adjusting focus stopped down.
Focus was not adjusted on stopping down, by clever positioning of the focus plane you might be able to yield slightly better results.
In short range I also found the CV 35mm 1.7 to show significant focus shift, that might also make the lens look worse than it would be when adjusting focus stopped down.
Thanks for the comparison!
By the looks of things CV is sharper than the ZM at center and mid frame.
Sure the ZM looks better stopped down at the corners, but honestly the CV is good enough, and we are pixel peeping here.
Oh I careless about mid and corner at f2.8.
I take the smaller, lighter, more agile CV at less than half price thank you.
