I am not sure how popular it is--it's always been second fiddle to the other more popular 35mm's, even shortly after it's launch despite it offers some things better and worse aspects compared to other fast m 35mm's.
That colors on first one above are just a modded film preset. The 2nd is just tweak for preference with no presets. I do think, if you're in this price of camera and lens, your time and money will be better spent (saved actually) having far more control of your output via post processing rather than hoping the camera + lens output is to your preference.
Are you shooting RAW? Even a couple simple edits can make a large differences--WB, contrast levels via the tone curve, and mixing primary colors (RGB) with some vibrance can really help. I will say, if you not interested in any post really, and depending on your tastes, I would probably not go with the CV 35/1.7--even the new CV's have better color and contrast, and the ZM 35/1.4 and 35 FLE are better yet IMO.
I am talking about this CV 35/1.7 (the m, not the LTM version):
Yeah, I have used the CV 35/1.2 (v3) m mount version on Sony and the FE version on Sony. If you really want lots of bokeh or are shooting on film where ISO really matters unlike digital, then it's cool. But beyond those two use cases, I would just look at other 35mm's. It does have more SA and a softer feel. It can give great images though--it's not a super corrected lens. I always preferred the 40/1.2 which is similar, but smaller, a bit but appreciably narrower with smoother bokeh.
I'm not grumpy about it, and it's OK to dislike something, certainly if you can provide reasons for feeling that way. It's great that people enjoy the ZM 35/1.4. In context, it's a typical 21st century Zeiss lens, characterised by very high levels of macro-contrast and rapid fade progression to a still-contrasty bokeh field. It's a pervasive preference of the company, we see it in the Supreme Primes and the ZE/ZF ranges, which were developed contemporaneously with this one.
It's no surprise it is a polarising lens (pun unintended) depending on how much you enjoy the sharpness and rate visual impact above nuance and subtlety, which we might argue is a hallmark of 35mm lenses. The new Zeiss look is nothing if not muscular and tough. A little history:
The ZM 35/1.4 appeared a full decade after the ZM range was announced. It embodied the 'bigger is better' ideology the company espoused at that time, scaling in at the high end for M 35mm lenses, at 380 grams. Zeiss have had a few goes at fast 35mm lenses over the years. Their CY 35/1.4 became a cult lens along with the 28/2 Hollywood, and honestly they might have come from a different world from the 830 gram ZF 35/1.4 and this one.
Because of the equation in their minds of rapid falloff with image quality, bokeh was always going to be critical. Some will feel it is also too constrasty, which serves to accentuate highlight balls, which in many compositions can overpower the subject. Bokeh is touchy for camera-subject distances.
Bokeh can show double lines unexpectedly and prematurely (rapid focus fade), whites are lost to clipping easily, bokeh motifs often have a dark edge overlaid on an amorpous shape destruction. Many blocked shadows. You should not have trouble finding examples of the above in this thread. The highlight handling! I looked in vain for a solid blue sky these past few pages. It does well in overcast, at night, indoors and shot a little low in exposure.
'I think people long enough in the game would prefer a lens with a bit of bite, some character as to how it’s best used.'
It's unclear to me. If more experience (and the passage of time) endears one to 'a bit of bite' and that aligns with character, then I'm Benjamin Button. And it is a philosophical difference, maybe? We don't want to have lenses dictate how we use them, do we? I want them to perform in my work environment, without having to conduct an ongoing search for something they can do well. The ZM 35/1.4 imposes an artistic template on the imagery it produces, their version of 'artistry'.
What a bunch of .. The "whites lost to clipping" and "blocked shadows" in addition to the other generalizations is utter baloney. The ZM 35/1.4 is a fabulous legendary lens for a reason.
The strong micro-contrast can be a boon or a bane. I tend to be careful shooting it at mid distances especially if there is a busy background where it can show a harsh bokeh. But its color, contrast and resolution are simply amazing. Its about understanding its strengths and weaknesses and using those to your advantage.
I am shooting raw and I'm reasonably comfortable with everything except sweeping colour changes.
Like turning more pastel colours into more modern without ruining the image. It's very difficult for me and I'd rather have the lens do most of the heavy lifting and I'll do some tweaks as necessary.
Maybe spend some time crafting a couple looks I like that I can use on a lot of the images.
I 100% agree that it would be an invaluable skill to hone and would give you a lot more freedom in shooting whatever the hell you want if you can get the look you want in post anyway. And I think the Sony lenses are good for that (50mm f1.8, 40mm f2.5 g).
But after a lot of effort, I'm worn out and need a little break from spending a long time just to end up preferring to reset changes
I've been going through flickr and I don't think I need the 35mm f1.7 in my arsenal despite the appealing form factor and good performance but I greatly appreciate the suggestion, thank you kindly anyway. It's not the landscape shots but the other ones with people with streets etc.
I don't know why but the CV lenses especially noktons (and ultrons) keep pushing me to filmic looks. I do enjoy it and I even wound-up getting an fm2n with the CV 40mm F2 sII-n because of them - and like it a lot.
Even considering a medium format film camera that I'll use a handful times a year - mostly kicked off due to this image:
But I think I want something that gives a little more of a modern feel for 35mm. And I think that leaves me with the Simera and the Distagon. I think they're polar opposite in terms of contrast.
The Simera is a lot smaller (smallest out of the 28/35/50) iirc but I do have a compact 35mm with the x100vi.
Will have less bite until stopped down and I just haven't seen enough examples of it wide open without the subject right infront of the lens - and I have a 50mm simera coming for that.
Like something with depth in the city streets. Whereas people seem to be using that with the distagon all day. But I know the simera has been out for a lot less time.
Please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm literally basing this all on random images I've seen online.
Distagon, mamiya and call it a day at this point for at least 5 years. Maybe a mkII of the cv 23mmf1.2 for fuji apsc.
I can’t recall any longer, but I think in an Zeiss interview, they stated the microcontrast was higher on the ZM 35 1.4 than the original Otus 55. That lens just has so much micro contrast and quick focus fall off with not super smooth OFF that images get that very strong separation or depth or 3-D or whatever people wanna call it. The problem with most really well corrected very modern glass is a lot of it looks pretty similar, and much of it has not much character.
Again, if you pick up CV 35/ 1.7, you can get it to look very modern in under 30 seconds of processing. It’s about nine clicks and it will look very similar to an FLE in terms of color, contrast in overall feel. The bokeh will be smoother but with more cat’s eye and that’s not have that thin vale of SA which is pretty.
I think you see more analog type processing with CV lenses because they’re easier to work with with more neutral color + not high micro-contrast. Lenses that have extremely high micro contrast and essentially strong resolution and that type of thing just look too digital (different) than film and it’s harder to edit that out convincingly and it takes some skill and time. It is easier for me to process the Simera 35/1.4 or Pentax 31/1.8 or CV 35/1.7 to look filmic than it is a 35 Lux FLE or ZM 35 1.4. And in reverse, I cannot get my 35 Lux pre-FLE to look like the ZM 35 1.4. So, sometimes lenses that are a little gentle or or more in the middle are easier to work with. If I’m going to spend a lot of money on a ZM 35 1.4 or 35 FLE, I am buying it because I want to look the lens give me (primarily). They are expensive, if I am going to alter the image signature significantly I can save a lot of money buy something else. Which I have. At least those are my thoughts.
For something fun: do any of these photos strike you as more or less modern? Or appreciably different?
I'm with you, I wouldn't be changing what the zeiss gives and that does worry me a little.
I was watching a youtube video of a guy who now goes around using an old canon 5d mk1 + 50mm f1.4 and slaps on his preset and they consistently have this great filmic look.
Another I've seen online that just use loads of different lenses but he somehow always manages to have a very similar look (alikgriffin).
I just can't seem to do it. Nokton looks like Nokton, simera looks like simera. I can't make a nokton modern consistently.
Samyang seems to be quite easy to make filmic.
---- just saw your images, perhaps just off with the timing of the post. Those look absolutely brilliant... I was so close to calling it a day, but thank you for intervening.
It's late here at the moment and I can't formulate this properly but I so so so so would love to know how to do that.
That's exactly what I want, I just wasn't seeing it at all going through the images on flickr.
Yogifi wrote:
I'm with you, I wouldn't be changing what the zeiss gives and that does worry me a little.
I was watching a youtube video of a guy who now goes around using an old canon 5d mk1 + 50mm f1.4 and slaps on his preset and they consistently have this great filmic look.
Another I've seen online that just use loads of different lenses but he somehow always manages to have a very similar look (alikgriffin).
I just can't seem to do it. Nokton looks like Nokton, simera looks like simera. I can't make a nokton modern consistently.
Samyang seems to be quite easy to make filmic.
---- just saw your images, perhaps just off with the timing of the post. Those look absolutely brilliant... I was so close to calling it a day, but thank you for intervening.
It's late here at the moment and I can't formulate this properly but I so so so so would love to know how to do that.
That's exactly what I want, I just wasn't seeing it at all going through the images on flickr....Show more →
Three of those are the FLE, two of them are the CV 35/1.7. The point of the posting was to show it’s easy to get the CV to look a bit more modern with a slight bump in contrast, WB and color saturation and shift. And similar to the Lux
I see, if I had to guess I would say the third and the last feel more modern to me but they're all good.
The 1st not being far off, or perhaps on par with the third.
Just saturation, shift, WB and contrast? No tone curves and colour calibration is a relief because it's endless tweaking with those.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Three of those are the FLE, two of them are the CV 35/1.7. The point of the posting was to show it’s easy to get the CV to look a bit more modern with a slight bump in contrast, WB and color saturation and shift. And similar to the Lux
Those images are nice! These days I often work with a set of presets and end up with stuff to my liking. I doesn't has to be true to life always.
Maybe... I'm not at all sure but I guess image 1, 2 and 5 are taken with the Lux35 FLE?
Jonas B wrote:
Those images are nice! These days I often work with a set of presets and end up with stuff to my liking. I doesn't has to be true to life always.
Maybe... I'm not at all sure but I guess image 1, 2 and 5 are taken with the Lux35 FLE?
What is "shift"
Color shift meaning I use a couple sliders for primary color (RGB) to tilt color. I often go in each color channel, but that’s not necessary often.
I also don’t think images need to look true to life—in fact I prefer they don’t. Photos should have some personality and individuality—otherwise images start to look like the cameras imaging pipeline. I think most shooters are working off presets
Images 1 and 5 are the CV 35/1.7. The middle 3 are the FLE. @Yogifi I am happy to share settings if you’d like. And you’re welcome for the images.
And I like Alik Griffen—I haven’t followed him in years though. I always found his use of light and processing great.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Color shift meaning I use a couple sliders for primary color (RGB) to tilt color. I often go in each color channel, but that’s not necessary often.
I also don’t think images need to look true to life—in fact I prefer they don’t. Photos should have some personality and individuality—otherwise images start to look like the cameras imaging pipeline. I think most shooters are working off presets
OK, I suspected that was it but you can never be sure. Yes, presets are good for screwing things up. I like to work with them but one has to watch out for side effects.
Images 1 and 5 are the CV 35/1.7. The middle 3 are the FLE. [...]
Lol. he opposite to what I thought! Funny. Cheers!
@Jonas B' - Yes, presets are good for screwing things up' <-- Really? What presets in what PP software are you referring to?
I have (Sony) camera presets based on camera's SN/model number matched with specific lenses that open once I load images for processing. It detects camera model, lenses and per-programmed setting and it works with each of my camera model.
JaKo wrote:
@Jonas B@' - Yes, presets are good for screwing things up' <-- Really? What presets in what PP software are you referring to?
I have (Sony) camera presets based on camera's SN/model number matched with specific lenses that open once I load images for processing. It detects camera model, lenses and per-programmed setting and it works with each of my camera model.
Oh. Maybe I should have put a smiley there. The context is that nehemiahphoto and I mentioned we not always want the colors to look natural.
I use a plethora of presets. Pretty often my own ones made using Lumariver. Those are the default ones. Just as often I use or add other presets, downloaded, my own or bought ones for special effects. That's when you have to watch out for side effects as I mentioned.
HiYogifi,
Let me make a simple suggestion. If you can find a retailer that has a generous return policy for either used or new, buy the Zeiss and play with it for awhile. It has great micr-contrast, outstanding color, sharpness and blur. It doesn't need to be worked to death in post IF the look is to your taste.
I've not used recently, but have gone through too many phases, from big and classic Zeiss to small vintage lenses to GFX and Leica. Love them all for different reasons. In the past, I spent whole evenings plus on post and loved it. Now I'm a kind of out of the camera kind of person.
I dig new old lenses. I shoot Simera and MS-Optics ... guess you could say I"m kinda nuts.
But the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 m-mount lens is special. Give it a try, you might love it; you might hate it.
Regards,
Joe D
Thanks for the advice tunisia, I went for it, should be here this week and they seem flexible with returns on the used copy.
I figured I don't use 35mm very often and this will make picking it up a bit more rewarding and less of a struggle in post with my current pp skills.
I am very curious how the output will differ in practice with people from my sigma 35mm f2.
I'm hoping a bit more blur and faster fall-off for people and a little more pop and but also subtle character. I do like the 35mm f2, but I want the f1.4, and think I need it with 35mm for people as I don't tend not to get super close.
I am interested in the other 35mms mentioned still but I'm hopeful that this will end the spree I've been on for the most part. Perhaps down the line with the f1.7 for something smaller - thank you very much too, nehemiahphoto.
It's been a lot of photography struggle and research this year and I want to take it easy for a while now and just enjoy. And when I've got the capactiy for some extra challenge/headaches, will give the mamiya a shot.
Thank you. I'm just imagining this on my a7cii though - I'll share a pic with it mounted when it gets here can't find an image of the combo online anywhere.
I can't even find a (black) copy of the CV 35mm f1.7 VM in decent condition. Yes, I was looking after picturing the zeiss on the a7cii . I am very excited for the distagon though.
35mm is my favorite focal length. On a rangefinder, the Zeiss has the fewest possible drawbacks in regards to image quality (zero focus shift, minimal field curvature, sharp, pleasing bokeh, strong flare resistance). Yes, it's bigger than all of its competition, but in use, it doesn't really feel all that unwieldy. It feels much more balanced, size-wise, on mirrorless. I can't imagine I'll ever sell it. Highly-recommended.
Jess by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Sony A7S, Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon ZM
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Sony A7S, Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon ZM
Roberto by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Leica M5, Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM, Kodak T-Max 400, Xtol 1:1
Jenny by Jim Fischer, on Flickr
Zeiss Ikon ZM, Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM, Fompan 400, Rodinal 1:50
