GMPhotography wrote:
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.
Even at f2.8, the corners are not too shabby with the PCX reversed, which I find impressive. I would rate f4 as very good and f5.6 as excellent. F8 is the best across the frame.
darbo wrote:
Amen! Love the Batis formula of high optical performance in a lightweight AF package and would dearly love a Batis 35mm 1.8 or 2.
Regarding 35mm, I've become so exasperated by the unfortunate current native choices that I'm considering falling back on the superb (but massive) Canon 35L II. I want a 35mm that has very good wide-open performance with near subjects and excels at infinity. Haven't tried anything that's overall better (optically) than the Canon, which has quite good bokeh, brilliant sharpness, and minimized CA.
The Zeiss 35mm 1.4 ZM is an compelling consideration, but I just don't have the stomach for front filters and shimmed adapter hacks in order to eek out the full performance of the lens. Of course the lens doesn't need that to perform well above 5.6, but it would drive me crazy knowing that the image quality is degraded at faster apertures without the hacks. ...Show more →
I understand your trepidations regarding the modification process, but having gone through it personally with the ZM 35, I can assure you that it is much easier than it may seem, and the results are very much worth the effort.
sebboh wrote:
not perfect but pretty good for an f/1.4.
Have to second that.
But currently I am further exploring the VM35 1.7.
ZM35 1.4 and VM35 1.7, they both have different strengths and weaknesses.
I may end up keeping both...
Here's a photo demonstrating the ZM 35's bokeh with PCX 5000 front filter at close range. It was taken at f2 using a VM-E helicoid close focus adapter. Distance to subject was about 12 inches.
But currently I am further exploring the VM35 1.7.
ZM35 1.4 and VM35 1.7, they both have different strengths and weaknesses.
I may end up keeping both...
The mid-zone dip is real though. Thanks for reporting it several pages back. I never cared about it since I mostly use the ZM 35/1.4 for landscapes and stop down to at least f/4 or smaller where it's pretty well masked. However, from f/1.4 until about f/2.8, I can detect a significant mid-zone resolution loss at all distances. I'm not sure what causes it but there is a possibility it is a characteristic of the lens.
It's unfortunate because it happens right at the rule of thirds where I usually place my subject. So, this is an issue when shooting wide open or f/2 and placing the subject at the mid-zone. There will be a noticeable resolution loss around that area...After f/2.8, this goes away but the mid-zone is never perfect even at f/5.6. (compared to corners and center)
I will put back the shims and test it without the PCX filter just to make sure it's not due to the FLE + significant shim removal that's causing this.
sebboh wrote:
agreed, i quite like it's rendering when there is a solid distance between subject and background, but much less so when i can see the transition oof or if there is anything just a little out of focus in the corners.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The mid-zone dip is real though. Thanks for reporting it several pages back. I never cared about it since I mostly use the ZM 35/1.4 for landscapes and stop down to at least f/4 or smaller where it's pretty well masked. However, from f/1.4 until about f/2.8, I can detect a significant mid-zone resolution loss at all distances. I'm not sure what causes it but there is a possibility it is a characteristic of the lens.
It's unfortunate because it happens right at the rule of thirds where I usually place my subject. So, this is an issue when shooting wide open or f/2 and placing the subject at the mid-zone. There will be a noticeable resolution loss around that area...After f/2.8, this goes away but the mid-zone is never perfect even at f/5.6. (compared to corners and center)
I will put back the shims and test it without the PCX filter just to make sure it's not due to the FLE + significant shim removal that's causing this....Show more →
I ran my 35mm comparisons in pretty much all cases with and without filter.
At infinity the midzone dip is visibly worse with filter, at closer distances I found the differences to not be worth talking about.
At distances < ~1.0 m the dip pretty much vanishes, even with filter attached.
Furthermore at varying distances up to ~ 3.0 m I readjusted the position of the lens with a helicoid adapter
(to get it back to the original flange distances without having to put the shims in again), again: no meaningful differences.
sebboh's comparison on his UTmod A7 was very interesting, as here the midzone dip was also present,
so I tend to say it is part of the lens design as well, albeit it would be interesting checking on an M-camera (which I don't have)
and I can't see it to such extent in the mtf graphs...
BastianK wrote:
sebboh's comparison on his UTmod A7 was very interesting, as here the midzone dip was also present,
so I tend to say it is part of the lens design as well, albeit it would be interesting checking on an M-camera (which I don't have)
and I can't see it to such extent in the mtf graphs...
i have a comparison on an m9 with the zm, FLE, and cv all at infinity. haven't looked at it yet though...
BastianK wrote:
I ran my 35mm comparisons in pretty much all cases with and without filter.
At infinity the midzone dip is visibly worse with filter, at closer distances I found the differences to not be worth talking about.
At distances < ~1.0 m the dip pretty much vanishes, even with filter attached.
Furthermore at varying distances up to ~ 3.0 m I readjusted the position of the lens with a helicoid adapter
(to get it back to the original flange distances without having to put the shims in again), again: no meaningful differences.
sebboh's comparison on his UTmod A7 was very interesting, as here the midzone dip was also present,
so I tend to say it is part of the lens design as well, albeit it would be interesting checking on an M-camera (which I don't have)
and I can't see it to such extent in the mtf graphs......Show more →
I can confirm that the mid zone dip is also visible on a M camera (for me the M246). When I compare the ZM35 with my Elmarit 28 Asph v2, I can detect a mild dip even at f/5.6. I have only tested at infinity. The Elmarit has excellent resolution in center and midzone but lower resolution than the ZM35 towards the edges (on an M246).
BastianK wrote:
I ran my 35mm comparisons in pretty much all cases with and without filter.
At infinity the midzone dip is visibly worse with filter, at closer distances I found the differences to not be worth talking about.
At distances < ~1.0 m the dip pretty much vanishes, even with filter attached.
Furthermore at varying distances up to ~ 3.0 m I readjusted the position of the lens with a helicoid adapter
(to get it back to the original flange distances without having to put the shims in again), again: no meaningful differences.
sebboh's comparison on his UTmod A7 was very interesting, as here the midzone dip was also present,
so I tend to say it is part of the lens design as well, albeit it would be interesting checking on an M-camera (which I don't have)
and I can't see it to such extent in the mtf graphs......Show more →
With the PCX, I can see a noticeable resolution deterioration right outside the center area (around mid-zone) at 1-1.5m distance when shooting wide-open.
I've read a bunch of the pages on this thread and I have to admit the size/weight of the ZM 35 1.4 is really appealing. Currently have the FE 35 1.4 and really like it a lot though.
I'm just curious, is size and weight really the only thing gained in the ZM 35 over the FE? I have a good copy of the Sony which is pretty even at f1.4.
Does the ZM have a better rendering at all? I'm guessing without any filter mods the FE probably has better across the frame sharpness at wider apertures?
The ZM with the PCX at F4 is perfect across the frame . I had 4 FE 35 1.4 that had decentering problems. Never could find a good one so I gave up. Been chasing rabbit holes since. Really like the ZM 35 1.4 and I thought about going back to a FE but it is way bigger and no guarantee I will get a good one. Tired of playing the lottery on that lens plus it has horrible bokeh balls at least to me it does.
snikt228 wrote:
I've read a bunch of the pages on this thread and I have to admit the size/weight of the ZM 35 1.4 is really appealing. Currently have the FE 35 1.4 and really like it a lot though.
I'm just curious, is size and weight really the only thing gained in the ZM 35 over the FE? I have a good copy of the Sony which is pretty even at f1.4.
Does the ZM have a better rendering at all? I'm guessing without any filter mods the FE probably has better across the frame sharpness at wider apertures?
the zm is sharper across the frame from f/5.6, if you put the filter on it's sharper period.
even without the pcx filter on the front the zm has noticeably more pop and contrast and less fringing. The FE has noticeably smoother bokeh.
BastianK wrote:
I ran my 35mm comparisons in pretty much all cases with and without filter.
At infinity the midzone dip is visibly worse with filter, at closer distances I found the differences to not be worth talking about.
At distances < ~1.0 m the dip pretty much vanishes, even with filter attached.
Furthermore at varying distances up to ~ 3.0 m I readjusted the position of the lens with a helicoid adapter
(to get it back to the original flange distances without having to put the shims in again), again: no meaningful differences.
sebboh's comparison on his UTmod A7 was very interesting, as here the midzone dip was also present,
so I tend to say it is part of the lens design as well, albeit it would be interesting checking on an M-camera (which I don't have)
and I can't see it to such extent in the mtf graphs......Show more →
here is the comparison of the zm 35/1.4, FLE, cv 35/1.7, and lux pre-asph on the m9. files were upsized to 24mp prior to cropping so i could compare them to the a7 kolari UT. all lenses were focused to the infinity stop, which was slightly more distant than the ~50m away subject in the crops. http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2908/33878491501_33c310e217_o.jpg fullsized comparison.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Not long ago, the ZM 35/1.4 + 5m PCX was a favorite here at FM. Somehow this changed and I still don't know for sure what caused the exodus.
Quite intrigued by it as an option, currently looking in the 28-35 range for a compact high quality E mount lens and the options are quite confusing
Would love if Zeiss could bring out a new premium line of high quality Loxia S lenses for Emount, all @ f1.8 with higher correction + price tag - a sort've compacted Milvus line for E mount..... One can dream eh!
