Its really close here and at first blush it looks like the Proxar but look at the very back red and blue crates. The Hoya looks better. Now we are at 2.8 here so does it really matter is the question
GMPhotography wrote:
Its really close here and at first blush it looks like the Proxar but look at the very back red and blue crates. The Hoya looks better. Now we are at 2.8 here so does it really matter is the question
There is a little focus difference but to my eyes, the Proxar is slight better in contrast and resolution.
Both great options.
Thanks to everyone providing all the useful information in this thread. Here are my experiences concerning adapters and reaching infinity at each lens’ largest aperture. The Ulata adapter focuses (far) beyond infinity for all Contax G lenses I tried. Interestingly, I could not reach infinity for the VC35 using the recommend Fotodiox adapter (only my Techart was able to do so).
G21 and Opto Sigma SLB-50-1500PM:
Techart TA-GA3: No
Ulata: Yes
Note: For the Ulata the lock pin on my copy had to be filed down a tiny amount to clear the rear lens guard.
G28 and Opto Sigma SLB-50-1500PM:
Techart TA-GA3: No
Ulata: Yes
G45 and Opto Sigma SLB-50-5000PM:
Techart TA-GA3: Yes
Ulata: Yes
VC35 and Opto Sigma SLB-50-5000PM:
Voigtlander VM Adapter (Ver 1): No
Fotodiox (mentioned by BastianK): No
Leinox (cheap and flimsy): No
Techart LM-EA7: Yes
Vignetting in the corners was corrected, which lead to visible noise as I am sure you can see.
Focusing at Infinity with my Fotodiox adapter + 5m lens was not an issue,
but as @tormoder@ posted this does not seem to work with all of these adapters
PS: as I can see a midzone dip with both filters on this lens, on my ZM 35mm 1.4 and to a much lesser degree on the VM 35mm 1.7: Can please who said/says this does not occur on his sample of the ZM 35mm 1.4 upload with/without filter raws shot at infinity at f/1.4?
Agree Fred it's so darn close and given I can use the hood easily than I'm taking the Hoya with me to NY. By F4 both filters totally equal out. Really like this 25.
Fred Miranda wrote:
There is a little focus difference but to my eyes, the Proxar is slight better in contrast and resolution.
Both great options.
Vignetting in the corners was corrected, which lead to visible noise as I am sure you can see.
Focusing at Infinity with my Fotodiox adapter + 5m lens was not an issue,
but as @tormoder@@ posted this does not seem to work with all of these adapters
PS: as I can see a midzone dip with both filters on this lens, on my ZM 35mm 1.4 and to a much lesser degree on the VM 35mm 1.7: Can please who said/says this does not occur on his sample of the ZM 35mm 1.4 upload with/without filter raws shot at infinity at f/1.4?...Show more →
@BastianK I'm a happy L35 user for many purposes; but as I use 35 so much I can be tempted by some improvement as I know I would get in the corners with the distagon zm. Assuming I have no need for the f1.4 of the ZM (I use ZA for that) do you have a view about the CV + Eksma versus ZM plus Opto? In particular would I lose any of the signature performance against the light that the Lox has with either of those?I wouldn't trade that for a slight corner improvement.
DavidBM wrote:
@BastianK@ I'm a happy L35 user for many purposes; but as I use 35 so much I can be tempted by some improvement as I know I would get in the corners with the distagon zm. Assuming I have no need for the f1.4 of the ZM (I use ZA for that) do you have a view about the CV + Eksma versus ZM plus Opto? In particular would I lose any of the signature performance against the light that the Lox has with either of those?I wouldn't trade that for a slight corner improvement.
Well, let me be honest here: I have used the Lox35 a lot and was mostly tempted by the ZM because of f/1.4.
In the meantime I also got to use the VM 35mm 1.7 and now even the Leica Summilux 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE.
My ZM loses to the VM in many categories, regardless if we talk about with filter or without filter performance.
Flat field performance is better at f/1.7 on the VM than it is on the ZM at f/2.0.
Off center sharpness wide open is better on the VM at f/1.7 than it is on the ZM at f/1.4 (ZM catches up at f/1.8 though).
As this doesn't reflect the general opinion on the ZM (nor does this meet my expectations)
I send the ZM to Zeiss for inspection. I noticed a slight decentering which I wasn't sure whether
I want to live with or not, but this may influence other aspects (flat field performance in general) as well.
But if the performance of my ZM reflects what is to be expected from this lens I will get the VM 35mm 1.7 instead...
I have clearly seen more ghosts with the ZM than I have with the Loxia.
It is not a bad performance but I would still rate it worse than Loxia.
I have not yet examined the VM as thoroughly as the other two but it looks very good so far.
To answer your question: so far of all the 35mm lenses I have used with the A7rII the best all around package seems to be VM 35mm 1.7 + coated Eksma filter (I have only used the uncoated version which ruins the performance against bright light).
BastianK wrote:
Well, let me be honest here: I have used the Lox35 a lot and was mostly tempted by the ZM because of f/1.4.
In the meantime I also got to use the VM 35mm 1.7 and now even the Leica Summilux 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE.
My ZM loses to the VM in many categories, regardless if we talk about with filter or without filter performance.
Flat field performance is better at f/1.7 on the VM than it is on the ZM at f/2.0.
Off center sharpness wide open is better on the VM at f/1.7 than it is on the ZM at f/1.4 (ZM catches up at f/1.8 though).
As this doesn't reflect the general opinion on the ZM (nor does this meet my expectations)
I send the ZM to Zeiss for inspection. I noticed a slight decentering which I wasn't sure whether
I want to live with or not, but this may influence other aspects (flat field performance in general) as well.
But if the performance of my ZM reflects what is to be expected from this lens I will get the VM 35mm 1.7 instead...
I have clearly seen more ghosts with the ZM than I have with the Loxia.
It is not a bad performance but I would still rate it worse than Loxia.
I have not yet examined the VM as thoroughly as the other two but it looks very good so far.
To answer your question: so far of all the 35mm lenses I have used with the A7rII the best all around package seems to be VM 35mm 1.7 + coated Eksma filter (I have only used the uncoated version which ruins the performance against bright light)....Show more →
Thanks Bastian, that's what I was beginning to suspect from your samples and other things. So it is likely that even if the exact differences you are seeing are down to sample variation (which they might not be), on average the CV and ZM are likely pretty similar in overall quality. So it comes down to whether you want the speed. I guess no-one has tested the cv with coated eksma yet - so maybe I should consider being a guinea pig in a test of whether the backlight performance is a good as Lox!
BastianK wrote:
Can please who said/says this does not occur on his sample of the ZM 35mm 1.4 upload with/without filter raws shot at infinity at f/1.4?
My first test in last December didn't have enough details to judge midzone dip and also my filter centering was not best at that time. So I will retest my ZM35 and will upload Raws for you. Maybe this weekend. Pls wait for a while.
BastianK wrote:
Well, let me be honest here: I have used the Lox35 a lot and was mostly tempted by the ZM because of f/1.4.
In the meantime I also got to use the VM 35mm 1.7 and now even the Leica Summilux 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE.
My ZM loses to the VM in many categories, regardless if we talk about with filter or without filter performance.
Flat field performance is better at f/1.7 on the VM than it is on the ZM at f/2.0.
Off center sharpness wide open is better on the VM at f/1.7 than it is on the ZM at f/1.4 (ZM catches up at f/1.8 though).
As this doesn't reflect the general opinion on the ZM (nor does this meet my expectations)
I send the ZM to Zeiss for inspection. I noticed a slight decentering which I wasn't sure whether
I want to live with or not, but this may influence other aspects (flat field performance in general) as well.
But if the performance of my ZM reflects what is to be expected from this lens I will get the VM 35mm 1.7 instead...
I have clearly seen more ghosts with the ZM than I have with the Loxia.
It is not a bad performance but I would still rate it worse than Loxia.
I have not yet examined the VM as thoroughly as the other two but it looks very good so far.
To answer your question: so far of all the 35mm lenses I have used with the A7rII the best all around package seems to be VM 35mm 1.7 + coated Eksma filter (I have only used the uncoated version which ruins the performance against bright light)....Show more →
Bastian,
I have the ZM 35 set up with the OptoSigma PCX 5m and am very pleased with the results. However, I also own a CV 35/1.7 that I would like to test with the same filter. My question is how does one remove shims on that lens so as to be able to achieve infinity focus. If the IQ is close, I might prefer it to the ZM strictly for its smaller size.
HaruhikoT wrote:
My first test in last December didn't have enough details to judge midzone dip and also my filter centering was not best at that time. So I will retest my ZM35 and will upload Raws for you. Maybe this weekend. Pls wait for a while.
Thank you very much!
I am also not sure the focus on your "Highway" comparison was identical in both shots.
robgo2 wrote:
Bastian,
I have the ZM 35 set up with the OptoSigma PCX 5m and am very pleased with the results. However, I also own a CV 35/1.7 that I would like to test with the same filter. My question is how does one remove shims on that lens so as to be able to achieve infinity focus. If the IQ is close, I might prefer it to the ZM strictly for its smaller size.
Thanks,
Rob
I honestly have no idea.
I luckily got it to work properly with a too short adapter, so I didn't have to mess with the lens.
DavidBM wrote:
Thanks Bastian, that's what I was beginning to suspect from your samples and other things. So it is likely that even if the exact differences you are seeing are down to sample variation (which they might not be), on average the CV and ZM are likely pretty similar in overall quality. So it comes down to whether you want the speed. I guess no-one has tested the cv with coated eksma yet - so maybe I should consider being a guinea pig in a test of whether the backlight performance is a good as Lox!
All this being said, the ZM and VM have very different renderings. To my eye, the VM has a 'muted sharpeness' OOC. That is to say that the colors are certainly there but seem to be more muted vs the ZM. It's not a fault but the character of the lens. The ZM on the other hand has better color to color separation and a smoother rendering but with micro contrast. I love them both but can see using each to express a different mood.
I'm still waiting for my PCX 5cm and I'm always sad I sold my VM 35!
DavidBM wrote:
@BastianK@ I'm a happy L35 user for many purposes; but as I use 35 so much I can be tempted by some improvement as I know I would get in the corners with the distagon zm. Assuming I have no need for the f1.4 of the ZM (I use ZA for that) do you have a view about the CV + Eksma versus ZM plus Opto? In particular would I lose any of the signature performance against the light that the Lox has with either of those?I wouldn't trade that for a slight corner improvement.
If "L35" is the Loxia 35, maybe a ZM Biogon 35/2 with the PCX filter treatment would be the way to go.
rji2goleez wrote:
All this being said, the ZM and VM have very different renderings. To my eye, the VM has a 'muted sharpeness' OOC. That is to say that the colors are certainly there but seem to be more muted vs the ZM. It's not a fault but the character of the lens. The ZM on the other hand has better color to color separation and a smoother rendering but with micro contrast. I love them both but can see using each to express a different mood.
I'm still waiting for my PCX 5cm and I'm always sad I sold my VM 35!
I agree with you on the different characters of the two lenses. My biggest problem with the CV Ultron is the extreme field curvature and color smearing along the edges. The color smearing is the fault of the sensor in my A7ii, but it is much less pronounced with the ZM 35. Still, I would like to try a the 5m lens on the front of the Ultron just to see how it compares to the ZM. I have both the Hawk and VM-E adapters, but I have a feeling that I will not be able to reach infinity focus with either. Regardless, I am going to purchase a 46-55 step-up ring to play with. Ultimately, I may sell the Ultron, though it is a very nice, compact lens.
robgo2 wrote:
I agree with you on the different characters of the two lenses. My biggest problem with the CV Ultron is the extreme field curvature and color smearing along the edges. The color smearing is the fault of the sensor in my A7ii, but it is much less pronounced with the ZM 35. Still, I would like to try a the 5m lens on the front of the Ultron just to see how it compares to the ZM. I have both the Hawk and VM-E adapters, but I have a feeling that I will not be able to reach infinity focus with either. Regardless, I am going to purchase a 46-55 step-up ring to play with. Ultimately, I may sell the Ultron, though it is a very nice, compact lens.
I guess I never felt bothered enough about the corners on my CV35/1.7 to bother me immensely. I sold it because I needed to choose between it and the ZM. Maybe my copied performed a bit better in the corners.
rji2goleez wrote:
I guess I never felt bothered enough about the corners on my CV35/1.7 to bother me immensely. I sold it because I needed to choose between it and the ZM. Maybe my copied performed a bit better in the corners.
Bob, if you shoot with an A7Rii, then the color shifting would not have been an issue, because of the BSI sensor.
Hmm, I have used my CV35 a lot on 7 and a7ii and only felt the need to correct the colorshift once for this image:
Bastian posted his test with my CV35 and both his 5m filters a few pages ago. We both came to the conclusion that it performed better at wider apertures than the ZM 1.4/35. The midzone dip in the ZM was also visible in Guys tests, not only his slightly decentered copy. But we are waiting for more raws to compare.
