I have to thank this thread. I was planning to trade mine in for a Leica M-A, but after seeing this thread, I decided to keep it. It is the sharpest 35mm lens that I have. If it wasn't for the FLE II, and the Voigtlander Ultron II, I would still be using it. I will take it out for a spin now.
modlin wrote:
I have 35 apo vm....was thinking about buying 35 zeiss zm as well...why do you prefer vm over zm?
It's native Sony mount. That's the primary driver. I shoot Sony, so I adapt the ZM.
To me, the ZM is more of a character lens and it has a very specific, sharp, high contrast rendering. It has pizzazz - often very good, occasionally bad - but it is not a boring lens. The Voigtlander has less character, but is a good all-around lens. I think both would work well for landscape, but I bought the Voigtlander to join my other APO lenses in my landscape kit. It's easier to not have to worry about bringing an adapter, plus I had one fail on me in the field.
Yogifi wrote:
Is it the wrong call to get this and use an adaptor with it over getting the CV 35mm f1.2 e-mount on my a7cii, or something else?
It has a unique rendering. If you want that rendering, you cannot get it anywhere else.
I recommend using a PCX lens to correct the corners, as the thicker sensor cover glass on the Sony impacts the far corner performance without the corrective lens.
scrappydog wrote:
It has a unique rendering. If you want that rendering, you cannot get it anywhere else.
I recommend using a PCX lens to correct the corners, as the thicker sensor cover glass on the Sony impacts the far corner performance without the corrective lens.
Thank you, with the PCX lenses are there drawbacks, like does it stop focussing at infinity or something that would lead to needing to take them on and off again, or I can just leave it on?
I have terrible corners on my first m-mount lens, simera 28mm so would love to get it figured out.
I know it's a little bigger of a lens, but I'm not loving the 35mm f1.2 images but I'm liking them a little more than the simera 35mm but it's bigger and if I'm gonna go bigger, why not get the ZM is the logic. Though I haven't seen a side-by-side so if anyone has both would love to see it.
If I wanted to sacrafice a little less mid-frame wide open but gain a smaller benefit in the corners, is there a different PCX filter anyone would suggest?
So the question I have is: What is it about sharp corners that is important to you? If corner to corner sharpness is the most important criteria for your photography, you’ll never find it in any small, light, super fast f1.4 wide angle lens. You will only find it in bigger lenses designed for that feature. Or the newer APO lenses from Voigtlander - but of course those are not f1.4 lenses.
You may be chasing “perfection” where it can’t be found for your definition of “perfection.” These small CV, Zeiss ZM, and Thypoch lenses are designed for making beautiful images as a whole. But stopped down, they also deliver very good results corner to corner. If you want a sharp landscape lens, get a 28 APO or 35 or 50 APO. For people and people in the landscape, or travel, the ZM, CV, and Thypoch fast 1.4 lenses are just the ticket.
The corners aren't a huge deal with this for me, but if there's a magic fix I'll take it.
I don't need to sacrifice quite as much of the midframe for the corners like Bastian showed with the 5m pcx, just not sure which PCX filter would be weaker.
I'm very curious what folks who seemed to love this lens this last decade are now using for 35mm.
I saw Steve mentioned the 35mm f1.2 mostly at f2. And I remember you mentioned leaning towards the simera due to size over the nokton. Not many lugging this around anymore?
I went with the 35mm sigma f2 over the apo but haven't been using it that much, waiting for some nice weather for a hike and thinking of taking the 75mm tta with it.
But for non-landscape shots... the images I see from this one do call to me but definitely curious which direction people went with after using this lens.
Yogifi wrote:
The corners aren't a huge deal with this for me, but if there's a magic fix I'll take it.
I don't need to sacrifice quite as much of the midframe for the corners like Bastian showed with the 5m pcx, just not sure which PCX filter would be weaker.
I'm very curious what folks who seemed to love this lens this last decade are now using for 35mm.
I saw Steve mentioned the 35mm f1.2 mostly at f2. And I remember you mentioned leaning towards the simera due to size over the nokton. Not many lugging this around anymore?
I went with the 35mm sigma f2 over the apo but haven't been using it that much, waiting for some nice weather for a hike and thinking of taking the 75mm tta with it.
But for non-landscape shots... the images I see from this one do call to me but definitely curious which direction people went with after using this lens....Show more →
The 35/1.4 ZM midfield and corners are weak on the Sony up to around f/8 without the PCX (it's a lot better on Leica). With the PCX, the corners on the Sony are immediately good, but there is no change that I see in the midfield. I assume the midfield stays softer until f/8 or so, although my memory about my tests are a little fuzzy. In real world shooting, I never noticed the midfield dip. I posted a shot earlier in this thread and you can see how it performs wide open with the PCX. I also have shots in a 35ZM album on my Flickr page.
I recently tested the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 II. That lens is a joy to shoot. Very fast AF, accurate AF, sharp, and nice build quality. It's noticeably bigger and heavier than the ZM - any f/1.2 lens will be larger and heavier. With the ZM, you can get AF with some Sony bodies if you shoot with a Techart, but it's nowhere as good as native AF.
I own the Voigtlander 35/2 APO. The 35ZM and 35APO are very different lenses. If I shoot in a city, I bring the ZM, and if I shoot landscape, I bring the Voigtlander. I definitely appreciate the ZM size (fairly small), weight (not bad), and speed (pretty fast). These aspects are useful in city shooting. Thing is, the ZM is really sharp, with incredible contrast, and it would work great as a landscape lens at f/8 or narrower.
scrappydog wrote:
The 35/1.4 ZM midfield and corners are weak on the Sony up to around f/8 without the PCX (it's a lot better on Leica). With the PCX, the corners on the Sony are immediately good, but there is no change that I see in the midfield. I assume the midfield stays softer until f/8 or so, although my memory about my tests are a little fuzzy. In real world shooting, I never noticed the midfield dip. I posted a shot earlier in this thread and you can see how it performs wide open with the PCX. I also have shots in a 35ZM album on my Flickr page.
I recently tested the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 II. That lens is a joy to shoot. Very fast AF, accurate AF, sharp, and nice build quality. It's noticeably bigger and heavier than the ZM - any f/1.2 lens will be larger and heavier. With the ZM, you can get AF with some Sony bodies if you shoot with a Techart, but it's nowhere as good as native AF.
I own the Voigtlander 35/2 APO. The 35ZM and 35APO are very different lenses. If I shoot in a city, I bring the ZM, and if I shoot landscape, I bring the Voigtlander. I definitely appreciate the ZM size (fairly small), weight (not bad), and speed (pretty fast). These aspects are useful in city shooting. Thing is, the ZM is really sharp, with incredible contrast, and it would work great as a landscape lens at f/8 or narrower....Show more →
Thank you for the advice, much appreciated. And I'm in the same position - I have the landscape covered with another lens if need be for reliable uniformity. But I want a fun 35mm. And I was thinking a different look to what I already have.
I have a couple noktons and a couple simeras but I held off on the 35mm with both for whatever reason (a less used focal length) and maybe saw some shots on flickr that I quite disliked.
I'll look into if there's something weaker than the 5m pcx filter, I imagine I probably wouldn't notice the midfield dip with it either but I care even less about the corners whereas midfield, eyes etc. And maybe it would work on the simera 28mm too.
Would it help with the issue someone showed with I think a lemon tree in this thread, where branches further back randomly came into focus?
It's so much bigger than the nokton or the simera, but I don't use 35mm all that often - but when I do, I think I'll want to be glad I did rather than wishing I used the 40mm f1.2 nokton or the 28mm simera etc...
It makes sense right? It's going to be a monster I'm sure, someone said it was the same length as the 55mmf1.8 but surely that isn't true. I'm reading close to 9cm, without an adaptor.
Grumpy old man on Friday afternoon here.
I recall the ZM 35/1.4 as a lens with high microcontrast in the center, a so-so bokeh (or downright bad at some distances), quite some purple fringin' and a focus plane bending towards infinity towards the edges and corners. Add the MF and a high price.
Back in 2016 it was the lens to talk about. The PCX-filters were discussed and different sensor mods were performed for nothing else but getting a good fast 35mm.
If my memory fails me somebody will jump in and defend their expensive (and probably seldom used) ZM!
Yogifi wrote:
Thank you for the advice, much appreciated. And I'm in the same position - I have the landscape covered with another lens if need be for reliable uniformity. But I want a fun 35mm. And I was thinking a different look to what I already have.
I have a couple noktons and a couple simeras but I held off on the 35mm with both for whatever reason (a less used focal length) and maybe saw some shots on flickr that I quite disliked.
I'll look into if there's something weaker than the 5m pcx filter, I imagine I probably wouldn't notice the midfield dip with it either but I care even less about the corners whereas midfield, eyes etc. And maybe it would work on the simera 28mm too.
Would it help with the issue someone showed with I think a lemon tree in this thread, where branches further back randomly came into focus?
It's so much bigger than the nokton or the simera, but I don't use 35mm all that often - but when I do, I think I'll want to be glad I did rather than wishing I used the 40mm f1.2 nokton or the 28mm simera etc...
It makes sense right? It's going to be a monster I'm sure, someone said it was the same length as the 55mmf1.8 but surely that isn't true. I'm reading close to 9cm, without an adaptor....Show more →
Help me out—what exactly are you looking for? A compact MF 35mm with a f2 or faster aperture? Does it need to be good at infinite wide open across the frame? And what type of rendering are you looking for?
Yogifi wrote:
Thank you for the advice, much appreciated. And I'm in the same position - I have the landscape covered with another lens if need be for reliable uniformity. But I want a fun 35mm. And I was thinking a different look to what I already have.
I have a couple noktons and a couple simeras but I held off on the 35mm with both for whatever reason (a less used focal length) and maybe saw some shots on flickr that I quite disliked.
I'll look into if there's something weaker than the 5m pcx filter, I imagine I probably wouldn't notice the midfield dip with it either but I care even less about the corners whereas midfield, eyes etc. And maybe it would work on the simera 28mm too.
Would it help with the issue someone showed with I think a lemon tree in this thread, where branches further back randomly came into focus?
It's so much bigger than the nokton or the simera, but I don't use 35mm all that often - but when I do, I think I'll want to be glad I did rather than wishing I used the 40mm f1.2 nokton or the 28mm simera etc...
It makes sense right? It's going to be a monster I'm sure, someone said it was the same length as the 55mmf1.8 but surely that isn't true. I'm reading close to 9cm, without an adaptor....Show more →
Regarding the effect of the PCX, I can make some of my test shots available to you if you'd like. I duplicated my tests with and without the PCX. All were infinity shots taken from a rooftop. PM me if interested
If you decide on the ZM, the PCX is an accessory that you will want. I never noticed the midfield dip in my ZM shots, but I think you will appreciate the ZM more with the PCX. I use mine as a lens cap - it never comes off.
If I take urban shots, I want f/1.4 or faster. I prefer 35mm over 28mm (not sure about 40mm), of which I find the 28mm to be just a tad too wide for my tastes. I also know myself well enough to know that the extra weight of f/1.2 would not be worth it to me despite that I really like the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 II. We all have our preferences.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Help me out—what exactly are you looking for? A compact MF 35mm with a f2 or faster aperture? Does it need to be good at infinite wide open across the frame? And what type of rendering are you looking for?
And you are shooting e-mount, correct?
Thank you nehemiahphoto, I'm shooting e-mount and it doesn't need fabulous infinity sharpness wide-open across the frame. I do want enough sharpness for peoples eyes without squinting at the photo, but not more than necessary in the center+mid under f2 - but not needing too much luck to get it.
The ones I've been looking at are the nokton 35mm f1.2 SE, the 35mm f1.4 simera and this one.
The Simera I worry doesn't have enough bite for a street type lens with people smaller in the frame and think I'd need to take it to f2. At which point, maybe I'd just take the TTA 40mm f2 with autofocus, which I think is closer to 37mm but not sure how reliable that is in low-light. I do like the 28mm simera, despite the corners, and I have a 50 on the way, just not sold on the 35.
I do like the nokton somewhat from what I've seen. I would hope I can get away with around f1.6 like I do with my 40/50 (which I really like at those focal lengths with people).
I'm sure every lens can look bad in some situations but this image made me pause: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mian9/15767064584/
There's been a few other examples where it's just not quite right, with similar framing to how I'd like to use it (the above isn't an example of that but just tells me a bit about the lens).
From my flickr browsing (and going through this thread and some reviews), the ZM seems a bit more consistent... although perhaps sometimes too contrasty but I don't know if that's post processing amping it up further. Most of the shots on flickr for it are B+W.
I know it's chunky and the focus ring is a bit tight. But for something I don't use that often, just for fun and also variety (I've got noktons and simeras but only the 55mmf1.8 for zeiss), and used prices not that far off the nokton in good condition after import tax... I find myself drawn to this... and still a little to the nokton, but less.
But if most people here have stopped using theirs... then I'll take the hint. As long as it's not because of the GM (size and weight, the ZM already pushes it, and perhaps too sharp) or going Leica and getting an FLE (out of acceptable budget).
---- blog:
For super compact, convenient and casual I have the x100vi at 35mm, and the small 28mm convertor with it. The WCL is not sharp at all but it's got a look I like. For landscape I went with the 35mm f2 sigma though not put it to much use yet.
I'm also steering gently away from considering the 40mm f2.5g during the BF sale, though my postprocessing skills would probably improve some if I did get it (out of necessity with the colours). I think it's like the 50mmf1.8 in that it has nice clean colours and image (outside of some nervous bokeh), but also a bit plain.
I've been experimenting as it's a return to photography, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper to do on anything but Leica, but not free.
I'm really liking the a7cii, other than the moire in high contrast light when zooming in - and wishing it had nikon's MF eye confirmation.
I don't carry the camera on my neck and I've been using the wotancraft 2L pilot to go out with 1 lens and I can barely feel that I'm carrying it. It's very quick to take out too with the sliding lock, and then magnetised re-lock.
That bag probably won't fit this lens sideways though , perhaps with the lens facing down. Every other compact lens I have works with it though.
scrappydog wrote:
...
Thank you, I'd definitely be curious, Bastian's review did show a comparison with the filter but the objects were very small in the distance and it was only one scene - hasn't fully sunk in what it would like in my mind. I'll dm you if I get the lens, thanks again.
You may not want my opinion, but here it is - I think you are WAY overthinking this whole thing. If you’re just getting back to photography, take the lenses you already own (and it looks like you own some good ones) and then go shoot the hell out of them. Take one lens on a vacation and get to REALLY know it. Shoot it in all kinds of situations, especially the ones where it’s not “meant” to shoot. I think you’re doing mental gymnastics over lens minutiae that won’t have anything to do with the real world. Take any one of your lenses and shoot it for a month. You’ll learn more about the lens and more about yourself than you ever will debating what lens has a better midzone or corners or bokeh or on and on and on. I hope you take this advice in the spirit it’s given. I’m not criticizing you, but no amount of lens hand wringing will ever make you a better photographer. We only become better by shooting and shooting and shooting. And learning from books and good online resources how to do it better. Forget about lens minutiae and shoot what you have for a long time. THEN you’ll know what you really like. 🙂👍🏻
Honestly, it's very good advice... but I've always been one to try to get prepared right off the bat, it's a bad habit I have. It's a massive headache and very time consuming at the start.
I like to put in the work in the beginning to make life a little easier later on, with less to have to think about. Even if I need to make (hopefully only) slight adjustments.
It drives the people around me mad as it's a lot of details when you're starting from almost scratch.
The Simera 28mm I think beats out the 28mm nokton for me...and it's nothing to do with corner sharpness or midframe sharpness - even though I did check that stuff when trying to make a decision between the two, and was surprised with the Thypoch mid-frame being better than the Nokton native e-mount at 2-8m in my own testing.
I'm not really asking about that here other than advice about PCX filters, I'm more interested just generally what people are liking these days for 35mm after using this one.
I love the lenses that I've gotten so far and think I've done a reasonably good job getting set up for some good variety, different usecases, of focal lengths I'd actually use 28-50 for the most part.
The only one I think I should lose is the Sigma 50mm f2 dg dn. I just enjoy using the 50mm f2 apo lanthar more for the same purpose and I don't love sigma's bokeh rendering (smooth but I find it distracting for a weird reason when it's a significant part of the frame) + it's not weather sealed for long-term durability. If I need AF I have the viltrox f2 air, by the time that fails, they might actually put weather sealing in their compact(ish) f2 lens.
On the 28mm, I know I mentioned planning to get the apo, and trying to decide between one for dual-purpose - and I like the overall look of the Simera over the Nokton. It's cleaner. But it's just hard to let go of the nokton. I'm not sure I actually need the AL, despite neither of these being perfect. Nokton was a good price and I like the more crunchy look sometimes, thinking of keeping it:
But I'm just missing something fun and fast around 35mm. And a different look with the zeiss is making sense to me despite the size. I don't have anything like that. It's going to be different to my other lenses. And it won't make me regret taking out a 35mm for a change... I don't think.
I think it's the last piece of getting setup for me. --- And the holiday is coming next, I definitely need it. I'll follow your advice, take one or two lenses and just shoot with one a day and experiment.
But this one is calling to me. It's just the enthusiasm people had seems to have mostly dried up. I'm wondering if they sold or held onto it. Or they just scatterred to different lenses elsewhere and are happier with where they landed.
This would be the most expensive one for me, figured it wouldn't hurt to check in with the seasoned shooters.
Mudlake's advice is solid. I have owned most the m 35mm's and many others. Sure, there are a couple that have a look that's super hard to produce in post (like a CY 35/1.4 or 35 Lux Pre-ASPH), but most of the modern options, IMO are less different that you would think. As always, subject, light and composition and usability matter more than the lens in 95% of opportunities. And if you aren't shooting WO often, then lenses differences shrink futher.
So, to get back to your question--why not go with a CV 35/1.7? Of the m glass adapted to Sony, it's still performs pretty well. The lens as good global contrast and ok micro-contrast. With some minimal but intentional processing after profiling to a 35 Lux FLE I used to own, I can get the 2 lenses to look very similar bumping the CV's color and punch. OOF will be different. You can find it for $400 or under, it's fast, small-ish, and I think has better ergo than the ZM 35/1.4 or Thypoch 35/1.4. The CV 35/2 and 35/1.4 FLE v1 have perfect ergo for me, so the CV looses out to those two.
All of the m-lenses essentially are comprises--if you want super well correct lenses that are fast, you have go the GM/Sigma type route (though those lenses are boring to me) or suffer a stop penalty with an APO. And the APO is large for m-mount.
Anyway, from center to outer midzone on the CV 35/1.7 is solid, even on a Sony stock body at typical shooting distance. At infinite, you can get the whole plane of focus in focus shooting at 1.7 if you focus on the midzone which helps mitigate sensor stack induced FC. Yes, the CV is not the ZM 35/1.4, but with a little love in post, it's actually a great option. It has generally smooth bokek till the background get really complex at longer distance and some swirl/cat's eye. But again, a common issue with fast m-mount lenses.
It's very versatile. I prefer the 35 FLE, CV 35/2 and ZM 35/1.4 slightly, but no at the size, price and optical hit you take on a Sony.
Thank you for the suggestion @nehemiahphoto, much appreciated and lovely photos.
I've heard that lens is really popular with folks, I didn't realise for Sony too. I will look into the 35mm f1.7 (m-mount type II, I think?).
It looks much more practical to use. That bokeh is pretty nice too and I like the colours, that I'm guessing are after you've profiled the lens.
I tried that once, using a colour passport checker and using my fuji lenses vs sony in lightroom.
I found it rather difficult to do, wasn't sure exactly what I should be changing - is it the colour calibration, individual colour changes, perhaps a mix of both.
I also noticed when I applied that profile to the images, sometimes you get weird artefacting so I'm sure I'm doing something incorrectly (I think it was the luminosity change that causes it).
And colour is really my biggest weakness with post-processing. I do need to spend more time editing but honestly, I hate doing it and I'm not good at it. It's a struggle.
Will think about it, thank you very much this might be the way to go. I do think a comfortable 35mm is important for how I would use it, but also I want to like the images without too much work on every photo so will go through the flickr a few times as well.
And my 40mm f1.2 nokton is kind of the comfortable everyday one. Could be more comfortable in tight places though.
, perhaps with the lens facing down. Every other compact lens I have works with it though.
