However, there is no f/2.8 comparison between them as they were compared wide-open. A couple weeks ago I tested this and although the RX1RII still maintain its smoothness at f/2.8, the FE 35/2.8 is not too far behind wide open. I will post a comparison.
BastianK wrote:
It might have been worthwhile comparing the ZM @ f/1.8 (as you can't easily set f/1.7 unfortunately) vs. VM @ f/1.7.
To my experience the differences in the transition zone are much smaller then.
yeah, i've typically been comparing them at f/2 since i couldn't get a good match of the cv's wide open aperture. that way it's a bit more fair since they are both a bit stopped down rather than wide open vs stopped down.
However, there is no f/2.8 comparison between them as they were compared wide-open. A couple weeks ago I tested this and although the RX1RII still maintain its smoothness at f/2.8, the FE 35/2.8 is not too far behind wide open. I will post a comparison.
Sorry--I should have specified. I meant the FE 35 1.4 and RX1
sebboh wrote:
yeah, i've typically been comparing them at f/2 since i couldn't get a good match of the cv's wide open aperture. that way it's a bit more fair since they are both a bit stopped down rather than wide open vs stopped down.
Could I get some advice? This ZM35 I'm evaluating has somewhat more vignetting on the upper half of the frame (especially on the left side). Severe vignetting is a given with this lens, I know, but is the symmetry of this copy close enough to be considered in spec, or should I try to get a better copy? Thanks!
Edit: I downsized those, but apparently not enough, sorry.
yeah, that's why the test i showed was both wide open. i just meant when i want to be fair to the lenses. i showed both for the FLE, zm, cv comparison.
Parariss wrote:
Could I get some advice? This ZM35 I'm evaluating has somewhat more vignetting on the upper half of the frame (especially on the left side). Severe vignetting is a given with this lens, I know, but is the symmetry of this copy close enough to be considered in spec, or should I try to get a better copy? Thanks!
Edit: I downsized those, but apparently not enough, sorry.
That seems to be normal for the ZM 35/1.4. Its vignetting is not symmetrical. I tested about 4 copies of this lens and they ALL show the same results. I talked to Zeiss about it and was told that's how the lens is!
Fred Miranda wrote:
That seems to be normal for the ZM 35/1.4. Its vignetting is not symmetrical. I tested about 4 copies of this lens and they ALL show the same results. I talked to Zeiss about it and was told that's how the lens is!
In LR that would work. In C1 you can do that also. What we did in MF tech cams was shoot a LLC which is a milk plexiglass about 2 stops above the taking aperture normally is than in C1 we run a blending of the two. So take your normal shot than a LLC and the LLC shot you make the correction with a push of a button than the software blends it . You can also make the corners lighter or keep a vignetting as well. I kind of like the vignetting myself as it adds drama but it is a little strong on the ZM 35. I like F2.8 a little better . But you could still shoot at 1.4 and adjust to a 2.8 look or better. In C1 the LLC helps with noise too. My bet so does LR but I don't use it to know better.
sebboh wrote:
LR flatfield plugin works great for that.
The problem is the CV's performance near MFD is not so great at all, needs stopping down to f/2.8 for decent sharpness and one has to watch out for severe focus shift (same goes for the FLE).
The ZM holds up very very well even wide open with a helicoid adapter and subject distances down to 30 cm (and there are pretty much no focus shift issues).
Fred Miranda wrote:
That seems to be normal for the ZM 35/1.4. Its vignetting is not symmetrical. I tested about 4 copies of this lens and they ALL show the same results. I talked to Zeiss about it and was told that's how the lens is!
BastianK wrote:
The problem is the CV's performance near MFD is not so great at all, needs stopping down to f/2.8 for decent sharpness and one has to watch out for severe focus shift (same goes for the FLE).
The ZM holds up very very well even wide open with a helicoid adapter and subject distances down to 30 cm (and there are pretty much no focus shift issues).
honestly, the lack of sharpness doesn't bother me much, it's still plenty sharp for my taste wide open (i'm not as concerned with sharpness as most here). i'm happy that the zm gets some more spherical aberration up close and reminds me more of the look from c/y 35/1.4, which i really liked for portraits.
here's crops from those blossom shots both wide open. the zm is at mfd of the lens and hawk's adapter the cv is still a ways away from mfd on the hawk's (thanks to it's closer lens mfd). dof of field is non existent and focus accuracy is questionable...
sebboh wrote:
honestly, the lack of sharpness doesn't bother me much, it's still plenty sharp for my taste wide open (i'm not as concerned with sharpness as most here). i'm happy that the zm gets some more spherical aberration up close and reminds me more of the look from c/y 35/1.4, which i really liked for portraits.
here's crops from those blossom shots both wide open. the zm is at mfd of the lens and hawk's adapter the cv is still a ways away from mfd on the hawk's (thanks to it's closer lens mfd). dof of field is non existent and focus accuracy is questionable...
I prefer the background of the CV sample, but almost none of the front flower is sharp. Is that because of lens softness wide open or slight misfocusing? And which image is the better one? I would choose the ZM, because I want to see something sharp. However, I would probably reduce global contrast just a touch.
robgo2 wrote:
I prefer the background of the CV sample, but almost none of the front flower is sharp. Is that because of lens softness wide open or slight misfocusing? And which image is the better one? I would choose the ZM, because I want to see something sharp. However, I would probably reduce global contrast just a touch.
Rob
the cv one is properly focused on things that stick out from the flower that i forgot the name of (meaning most of the flower is oof). on the zm i missed focus and got halfway between those things and the flower itself (making the flower sharper). both seem roughly as sharp at the actual focus point to me. the better one is whichever one you like better, i'd look at the full picture instead of the 1:1 crops to decide that.
Just a update . Today I tested my ZM 35 1.4 again with the PCX 5000 reversed. I have to say I love this lens and after adding this filter lens I picked up at least 2 stops in the corners. F4 is outstanding to the edges now. 5.6 not much is going to touch it across the frame in 35mm. Thats a bold comment coming from a lens that has a lot of field curvature.
