The ZM is noticeably stronger towards the corners as long as you focus on the mid-frame area to counter-balance the induced FC. Like that it's possible to get great sharpness across the field. Where you focus is crucial and lenses behave differently depending on their FC shape.
Now, that's without the 5m PCX lens. With the corrective front lens I get similar results to what Jako posted, and I don't see any resolution loss in the center or mid-field. With the front lens, it's massively better than the Loxia. I have no experience with the CV 35/1.7 but I hope the corrective front lens works just as good for it.
BastianK wrote:
At what apertures? At f/8.0 I would give the nod towards the ZM (without 5m) vs Loxia, but before that?
Loxia corners are far from great wide open, but ZM is just mushy because of field curvature.
With my two samples: Loxia has better corners between f/2.0 and f/5.6 (still nothing to write home about up until f/4.0),
after that it is surpassed by the ZM.
Also keep in mind as I have written before: in this comparison I did not adjust focus on stopping down so this is only valid for focusing wide open and stopping down after that.
But as soon as the OptoSigma filter arrives I have to rerun the test anyway....Show more →
kin2son wrote:
Even with what you said is true, your example of filling 3 people at f4 with ZM will have the same issue (albeit less than CV maybe?). And if you have to tightly frame a 3 people group shots with faces near extreme edges then I am sorry that's just the incompetence of the photographer.
I know this forum is great at vigorous tests and measurebating, but sometimes it's way over the line I feel.
Hmm . . . sometimes I've had no choice but to put people in the far borders (edges) because of space constraints . . . I guess I'm incompetent.
I personally like knowing the limitations of my glass since many times I won't get a 2nd chance to make that image, thus making well informed decisions about the technical capabilities of my gear is very important to me so I can decide what gear to take or change the way I make an image to work around limitations of the lens/camera system.
So funny how people adhere to absolute mantra on subjects like this.
I don't think the cv will beat the zm, but I think it's going to be closer than people think, having owned and shot both lenses. The biggest differences to me was the uber microcontrast of the ZM, and the greater FC of the CV, which I found even more pronounced than the ZM, especially with close subjects. Given the price and size difference, I'd be tempted to pick up a cv 35 if the corrective filter works well, Plus, I don't think the cv uses a floating element, so TAP users might take that into account.
Luvwine wrote:
For landscapes, corners matter. Lenses are often at their best at F5.6 and diffraction starts being noticeable at F11. I want to have the best output my camera and lens can make. I will often focus stack to avoid having to stop down too much. Sometime I need faster shutter speeds and value across the frame output at larger apertures. IF you like the CV better, enjoy. By all means post examples and show how great it is. However, many here seem to prefer the ZM for any number of valid reasons.
Generally, the discourse here is civil and folks avoid name calling. Referencing the supposed "incompetence of the photographer" (Guy is a pro and very knowledgeable) and alleging the whole forum is "way over the line" and "measurebating" is perhaps not the best approach. This is a gear forum after all and folks here take testing and discussing the pro's and cons seriously. Pixel peeping is normal. Every lens is a compromise. Just because you find the CV's compromises more to your liking does not mean that others are wrong, incompetent, or a measurebator....Show more →
well on the flip side, this is a 35mm we're talking about, and filling the frame with 3 people, all the way to the edges? Sharpness differences are the least of my concern at that point, that perspective gotta be all wonky.
For a large group photo, then yes, edge sharpness will matter
Charlie N wrote:
well on the flip side, this is a 35mm we're talking about, and filling the frame with 3 people, all the way to the edges? Sharpness differences are the least of my concern at that point, that perspective gotta be all wonky.
For a large group photo, then yes, edge sharpness will matter
That is certainly a valid point. Guy may not have chosen an ideal example to make his. The focus of my post was more to point out (gently) that the style and tact of the way in which you initially chose to word your point was perhaps a bit indelicate. "The incompetence of the photographer" was, to me, an unnecessarily inflammatory way of phrasing your rejoinder. Labeling in that way is rarely productive. It was likely not your intention to offend, and therefore I was merely hoping to encourage attention to style to avoid such an occurrence.
I was testing the ZM 35/1.4 (with 5m PCX) against the FE 35/2.8 today just for fun and was impressed how good the little FE lens is. (Well, I finally got a good copy of it...)
The ZM 35/1.4 PCX peaks at f/5.6. That's the aperture that finally brings the mid-field to the max resolution and yields sharpness across the entire field. All zones are very impressive at this aperture (center, mid and edges). I have not seen a 35mm performing better than this on any system.
The FE 35/2.8 ZA on the other hand does very well wide-open. At f/2.8, its mid-field is actually noticeably better than the ZM while center is very similar. The ZM has a slight advantage for the edges. The image has a lot of contrast and it's actually on pair with the ZM. I was surprised to see this. This tiny lens is definitely impressive at f/2.8. Colors also look very, very similar...Vignetting is stronger for the FE lens.
The FE 35/2.8 peaks at f/7.1 but is just as good as f/5.6, except for the corners and mid with a very slightly improvement at f/7.1. (f/6.3 looks identical to f/5.6)
So, how do they compare? I would say that center and mid-field are very similar starting at f/5.6. The mid-field looks better on the FE at f/2.8 and f/4 though.
Once we start approaching the edges, the ZM jumps ahead and it's absolutely superb. The FE 35/2.8 maintains sharpness while showing some astigmatism. From my tests, the FE 35/2.8 performs very similarly to the RX1RII at infinity distance but I was only able to see that with my latest copy.
Sunstar rendering looks strong after f/16 and is has 14 points. Best at f/22. The ZM 35/1.4's sunstar has 10 points and looks impressive starting at f/4.
Would this difference show in a print? Well, at 1:2 mag, both lenses at their optimum aperture look very similar at center and mid-field. Towards the edges, I can see better sharpness (resolution) on the ZM image but the difference is not that big and perhaps would go unnoticeable depending on the image. Of course, this different is much bigger at pixels level (1:1)
Contrast, believe it or not is slightly better for the FE!
I can tell you from experience, there is copy variation for this FE. I tested many copies and this one is finally well centered and performs great optically.
I can post some crops later but after studying images from both lenses, that's my consensus.
I had it when I first bought into Sony. Nice lens but mine was a bad copy for sure. My corners where really bad. I gave up on it since but nice to hear it can perform good. I like my ZM too much.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I was testing the ZM 35/1.4 (with 5m PCX) against the FE 35/2.8 today just for fun and was impressed how good the little FE lens is. (Well, I finally got a good copy of it...)
The ZM 35/1.4 PCX peaks at f/5.6. That's the aperture that finally brings the mid-field to the max resolution and yields sharpness across the entire field. All zones are very impressive at this aperture (center, mid and edges). I have not seen a 35mm performing better than this on any system.
The FE 35/2.8 ZA on the other hand does very well wide-open. At f/2.8, its mid-field is actually noticeably better than the ZM while center is very similar. The ZM has a slight advantage for the edges. The image has a lot of contrast and it's actually on pair with the ZM. I was surprised to see this. This tiny lens is definitely impressive at f/2.8. Colors also look very, very similar...Vignetting is stronger for the FE lens.
The FE 35/2.8 peaks at f/7.1 but is just as good as f/5.6, except for the corners and mid with a very slightly improvement at f/7.1. (f/6.3 looks identical to f/5.6)
So, how do they compare? I would say that center and mid-field are very similar starting at f/5.6. The mid-field looks better on the FE at f/2.8 and f/4 though.
Once we start approaching the edges, the ZM jumps ahead and it's absolutely superb. The FE 35/2.8 maintains sharpness while showing some astigmatism. From my tests, the FE 35/2.8 performs very similarly to the RX1RII at infinity distance but I was only able to see that with my latest copy.
Sunstar rendering looks strong after f/16 and is has 14 points. Best at f/22. The ZM 35/1.4's sunstar has 10 points and looks impressive starting at f/4.
Would this difference show in a print? Well, at 1:2 mag, both lenses at their optimum aperture look very similar at center and mid-field. Towards the edges, I can see better sharpness (resolution) on the ZM image but the difference is not that big and perhaps would go unnoticeable depending on the image. Of course, this different is much bigger at pixels level (1:1)
Contrast, believe it or not is slightly better for the FE!
I can tell you from experience, there is copy variation for this FE. I tested many copies and this one is finally well centered and performs great optically.
I can post some crops later but after studying images from both lenses, that's my consensus....Show more →
Excellent write up. Funny, I've heard high praise to meh for the FE 35 2.8--seems like maybe it's partially related to sample variation.
They show both lenses at infinity distance focused at the same location (mid-field). Best of 3 for both at 12.5x magnification.
LR default settings except for the same sharpening used for both lenses.
For these crops they were both at f/5.6 (which is the best aperture for the ZM 35/1.4)
Notice the slight better contrast for the FE 35/2.8 thumbnail image.
For all crops: ZM 35/1.4 PCX (LEFT) | FE 35/2.8 ZA (RIGHT)
thumbnail showing both lenses at f/5.6 -- ZM 35/1.4 PCX (LEFT) | FE 35/2.8 ZA (RIGHT)
Center crop -- ZM 35/1.4 PCX (LEFT) | FE 35/2.8 ZA (RIGHT)
Mid-field -- ZM 35/1.4 PCX (LEFT) | FE 35/2.8 ZA (RIGHT)
Extreme edges -- ZM 35/1.4 PCX (LEFT) | FE 35/2.8 ZA (RIGHT)
Thank you for the test.
From the test about, I still see ZM wins in all areas.
Even in midfield that the FE leads abit in resolution, ZM still looks more real (lets look at the roof)
in other word, the FE looks flatter to my eyes, even the sharpness is really good.
And the most advantage of ZM is for shooting wide open that the FE can't.
