DavidBM wrote:
Arrgggh this is tempting.
But it'd have to replace my FE 1.4 and Loxia. And I think I'd like native AF at f1.4 and f2; so still want the FE.
And I'm not sure that stopped down there is much to choose between this and the Loxia, which is more portable.
And there is no way I can justify *adding* it to my 35mm stable in addition to to those two (and the FE2.8 which is my pancake for when I'm hungry...)
I have a great Lox 35 but the ZM is much better stopped down at infinity distance David. Do you want to see some crops?
Yup that's the signature Loxia 35 astigmatism striking in the corner all right!
My Lox is not great in the corners at f5.6. But it improves to be nice by f9. Do they get closer by f8 - f11?
I see very high contrast for the Loxia crop (compared to other lenses). Center and mid-field areas are also strong for the Loxia. However, the ZM 35/1.4 is better on center and mid-field as well. The corners are way better.
DavidBM wrote:
Yup that's the signature Loxia 35 astigmatism striking in the corner all right!
My Lox is not great in the corners at f5.6. But it improves to be nice by f9. Do they get closer by f8 - f11?
Center and mid-field start to lose resolution due to diffraction but here are f/8 and f/9 crops showing the extreme edges for both lenses. The ZM is still noticeably better but the Loxia 35 does show more improvement.
Really interesting! Seems it's the very extreme corner where the Lox never catches up; by the inner edges of the crop they are a lot closer.
And being able to use f 5.6 at infinity to avoid diffraction is a big plus.
Hard to know if a native Lox version of the 1.4 with better corners at wide apertures would be preferable to this one which you can use the teachart for which makes it more informal portrait capable.
The temptation is high. But so is the cost! Maybe I'll sit tight for a while! Or.......(*slaps hand*)
DavidBM wrote:
Really interesting! Seems it's the very extreme corner where the Lox never catches up; by the inner edges of the crop they are a lot closer.
And being able to use f 5.6 at infinity to avoid diffraction is a big plus.
Hard to know if a native Lox version of the 1.4 with better corners at wide apertures would be preferable to this one which you can use the teachart for which makes it more informal portrait capable.
The temptation is high. But so is the cost! Maybe I'll sit tight for a while! Or.......(*slaps hand*)
Another benefit of the ZM 35/1.4 is that it's a AF lens with the TechArt adapter and that's very useful when shooting wide open.
Fred Miranda wrote:
At f/8, the Contax 35-70/3.4 can't compete either. But they are all great lenses.
Yep: I'd done an infinity at f8 test on the Lox vs. Contax zoom, and concluded that in the corners it was a wash resolution wise, but the Lox was stronger in centre and midfield, and had better contrast.
DavidBM wrote:
Yep: I'd done an infinity at f8 test on the Lox vs. Contax zoom, and concluded that in the corners it was a wash resolution wise, but the Lox was stronger in centre and midfield, and had better contrast.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Another benefit of the ZM 35/1.4 is that it's a AF lens with the TechArt adapter and that's very useful when shooting wide open.
Is it just curvature of field that is responsible for the wide aperture off axis softening on the Sony sensor? Because if so, it's not a problem for off centre portrait subjects just so long as you focus accurately. And is the TechArt fast enough for informal portraiture wide open? Eye AF? (you can guess where I'm going -- here's a an alternative to my FE 1.4. Though letting a well centred copy of that out of my hands......)
DavidBM wrote:
Is it just curvature of field that is responsible for the off axis softening on the Sony sensor? Because if so, it's not a problem for off centre portrait subjects just so long as you focus accurately. And is the TechArt fast enough for informal portraiture wide open? Eye AF? (you can guess where I'm going -- here's a an alternative to my FE 1.4. Though letting a well centred copy of that out of my hands......)
Yes, it's easy to focus with the TechArt even in low light at f/1.4. It uses PDAF for both AF-C or AF-S modes. It does not work with EyeAF but works with face and smile detection.
Anyone out there got both the ZM 1.4 and the FE ZA 1.4?
I ask because it would be fantastic to get a wide open and f2 bokeh comparison.
You can see why: if the bokeh is as gorgeous as on a decent copy (hard to get I know) of the FE ZA, then you get two lenses in one: the gorgeous portrait goodness of the FE ZA and the ten bladed sunstars and high contrast of the Loxia.
