tr0n wrote:
I didn't remove anything and thought the lens preformed beautiful as long as you don't have important detail in the corners, or I would just crop in a bit. I never saw the value added in the whole pcx business and I still use an a7rii
Thank you. Good to know. Seems a few started talking about removing shims when adapting to A7x to promote improved infinity but was curious to know if there were any other unintentional effects.
tr0n wrote:
I didn't remove anything and thought the lens preformed beautiful as long as you don't have important detail in the corners, or I would just crop in a bit. I never saw the value added in the whole pcx business and I still use an a7rii
For landscapes, shooting at f/8 or smaller, the ZM 35/1.4 still performs great without any modification, especially when focusing at mid-field. (I posted samples on the board)
When shooting wide open, corners are not really an issue but there could be some oddness in some situations where elements towards the corners may appear sharp when they should be OOF and this is due to induced field curvature. (Same for the CV 35/1.7 Ultron without any mod)
LBJ2 wrote:
Putting aside the technicals for a minute, beautiful ZM 35 1.4 landscape shot. Very interesting composition and really like the many brown tones against the blue 👍
Thank you for the kind words! It's great to have someone comment on the aesthetics rather than technicalities of a photo
Thanks Gary! The L3 filter has a similar width of spectra it passes to a stock camera but is more toward red. In doing so it lifts skin tones and darkens skies slightly. It's an interesting look.
This is again the same as the c-sonnar 50. I have loxs 21, 35, 50 and 85. from them i prefer the 35 for the colors and contrast! But this fantastic test shows that distagon have even more delicious colors. Again, it looks like enthusiasm disappeared, and love for zm vanished in favor of other lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is the same image showing the center area of the frame:
hanay78 wrote:
This is again the same as the c-sonnar 50. I have loxs 21, 35, 50 and 85. from them i prefer the 35 for the colors and contrast! But this fantastic test shows that distagon have even more delicious colors. Again, it looks like enthusiasm disappeared, and love for zm vanished in favor of other lenses.
I think the ZM 50 1.5 and ZM 35 are not favored any longer as much because they aren't as good optically (ZM 35 too affected by the sensor stack, the 50 1.5 by the sensor stack and the optical formula), and most have found CV to take their place, especially the 40 1.2. I think the ZM 35 1.4 is a little hard to hit focus, and the MFD is longer too.
I like the CV's less than these for rendering and color, but they are priced better with nicer ergo, and then they do come in native e-mount...
The ZM 35/1.4 has incredible contrast and great color rendering but I dislike its rendering. It's quite harsh at mid-distance compared to recently released Voigtlander lenses. It's absolutely superb on the Leica body and a 35mm lens that can rival the sigma 35/1.2 in terms of resolution and contrast.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The ZM 35/1.4 has incredible contrast and great color rendering but I dislike its rendering. It's quite harsh at mid-distance compared to recently released Voigtlander lenses. It's absolutely superb on the Leica body and a 35mm lens that can rival the sigma 35/1.2 in terms of resolution and contrast.
Do you dislike it or prefer the CV 35/1.2iii? I don't dislike it, but I do prefer the CV 35 1.2 for people. Otherwise I prefer the ZM.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Do you dislike it or prefer the CV 35/1.2iii? I don't dislike it, but I do prefer the CV 35 1.2 for people. Otherwise I prefer the ZM.
I think they have distinctive rendering. The ZM is a great performer even up close due to FLE but the Voigtlander has smoother and lower contrast rendering (SA) which I prefer for environment portraits.
Sep 25, 2020 at 01:04 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I have always been deep ambivalent about the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4. I had it for almost 3 years. I really liked it for close up shooting where it is contrasty and renders really nicely, IMO. It can be fairly nice for landscapes, but much more so on a Leica M camera than on Sony, but I really disliked it for portraits and basically any shot that had people. Mid range bokeh is pretty rough, IMO the lens was too contrasty, and the field curvature with sharpness curving back toward the camera made it hard to isolate the subject. The first two of these problems I found pretty much as bad on a Leica camera too. So in the end I sold it, but I do still find myself missing it for some applications. I am attaching below one that I think worked, but like I said there were a lot of shots that I think didn't work as well.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think they have distinctive rendering. The ZM is a great performer even up close due to FLE but the Voigtlander has smoother and lower contrast rendering (SA) which I prefer for environment portraits.
I came to the same conclusion, and so I ended up keeping the CV because I do so many environmental portraits. I was just wondering if you actually disliked the ZM 35
@nehemiahphoto I understand. Still, many of the photographs have so fantastic and delicious colors
@Fred Miranda watching yesterday some photographs you took in a exceptional sunset with the c-sonnar I also got the impression about harshness. Still, the colors are sooooooo gorgeous
@hanay78 I don't have a Kolari modification. Mine was done in Taiwan from NKIR. It's thinner than what Kolari can provide and has minimal issues with white balance.
Between the ZM35m, my Contax lenses, and the FD85L, I have a full set of lenses that see a dramatic improvement compared to the stock.
MAubrey wrote:
@hanay78@ I don't have a Kolari modification. Mine was done in Taiwan from NKIR. It's thinner than what Kolari can provide and has minimal issues with white balance.
Between the ZM35m, my Contax lenses, and the FD85L, I have a full set of lenses that see a dramatic improvement compared to the stock.
