GMPhotography wrote:
I'm still lost. I got the CV 35 and the PCX what to do you guys want me to try.
People were wondering different things!
But I guess the mini-thread started with people wondering on these lenses with a mid-zone dip, whether that dip
(a) happens at portrait distance
and
(b) if it does, if it's still there if you focus on your mid-zone subject.
So if you have any interest in testing the CV 3 + 5m in this way put a portrait head in the mid-zone, focus on it, and see how it goes, maybe compared to without 5m. And if you can really be bothered, compared with central focusing (though that would be really hard to do for portrait distance).
jhinkey wrote:
Hmmm . . . I just saw a Pentax 35/1.8 in the used case this morning for $799. I was wondering why the high price! I guess it must have some merit to it.
it's a very nice lens, it is competitive for landscape with the cv + 5m pcx (comparison) and seems to have a nicer draw for portraits imo. it's too big for my taste, but much smaller than the ZA 35/1.4. it focuses the wrong way and has very little focus damping, which is quite annoying too.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Bastian's review and my experience with the ZM makes me wonder whether I would ever be happy with the CV as a portrait lens. It looks like the CV has very similar bokeh to the ZM from Bastian's tests and that is really what bothers me about the ZM as a portrait lens. I get that for lots of people the high contrast look of the ZM wouldn't be what they want for portraits, but sometimes I like that. I think I have asked you before Derek, but how would you compare the CV to the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 for portraits? I am leaning in that directions these days, but I am still pretty undecided. I may just give up on shooting 35mm portraits on the Sony, and then I would go with the Zeiss Contax 645 45 f/2.8 on my Fuji GFX, which seems to my eye to share a lot of features with the C/Y 35 f/1.4. I am really enjoying the GFX for shooting portraits with its tilt/swivel EVF which allows shooting holding the camera at my chest....Show more →
Steve, i really don't think there is any better 35mm lens for portraits than the c/y 35/1.4 (though my wife prefers the lux pre-asph). i actually think under 1 meter the zm draws very similarly to the c/y (especially if you focus with a helicoid adapter rather than the lenses own helicoid), but with a bit more bite and a bit less smoothness and SA centrally:
at slightly longer distances though, the zm has very ugly bokeh (weird squares). the c/y isn't great in this regard either. the cv is better in this regard – it has cat's eyes instead with less color aberration and less bright outlines. the cv has it's own attractiveness at close range wide open, but it's different from the zm and certainly high contrast:
bokeh comparison between the two:
cv f/1.7:
zm f/1.7:
zm f/1.4:
the pentax 31/1.8 ltd might be more up your alley. i haven't played with it much myself, but the pictures i've seen from nehemiah look very promising – similar to the c/y but with a little less pop and better cross the frame performance.
Sep 23, 2017 at 07:54 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
sebboh wrote:
it's a very nice lens, it is competitive for landscape with the cv + 5m pcx (comparison) and seems to have a nicer draw for portraits imo. it's too big for my taste, but much smaller than the ZA 35/1.4. it focuses the wrong way and has very little focus damping, which is quite annoying too.
the pentax 31/1.8 ltd might be more up your alley. i haven't played with it much myself, but the pictures i've seen from nehemiah look very promising – similar to the c/y but with a little less pop and better cross the frame performance....Show more →
Thanks Derek, I always value your opinion and find it quite helpful. I have the ZM 35 f/1.4 and my problem is that I bought it hoping that I could use it in two different kits and it works quite well in one, but not so well in the other. Where it works for me is in a three lens kit with the Sony A7r II and the Loxia 21 and Loxia 85. These three make a nice fairly small versatile kit. At the wide end the Loxia 21 is fantastic at most everything I want it for. The Loxia 85 is also quite versatile and I find it excellent for portraits and landscapes. The ZM has a very similar look to the two Loxia's and it is my among my favorite lenses for close-ups and with the Hawk's adapter I have is very easy to use for such shots. Stopped down to f/5.6 or 6.3 it is also a very good landscape lens. I am not using the front end filter and still for my uses in this kit it works well. I would probably be happier if it was better for portraits, but I do have the Loxia 85 along in this kit which works at least 80% of the time for the portraits I want to take. So, in this role it does great, not perfect, but it really works very well.
I also at times really like to take a two lens portrait kit with a 35 and something between 75 and 90. I had big hopes the ZM 35 would fill the 35mm role in such a kit. When I use this lens primarily for portraits in such a kit I am pretty disappointed. So, I have been thinking about other options for such a two lens kit. Could the CV 35 f/1.7 replace the ZM in the kit above and in this two lens kit? Perhaps, but it seems like for almost all of what I am seeking the ZM would just be a better choice. I like it better for close-ups and I like it better for landscape shots stopped down. Yet, I am pretty sure the CV would be better for the 2 lens portrait kit. It seems to me what I should do is not try to find one do it all 35mm lens, but rather add a second 35mm lens for the two lens portrait kit. Right now I am leaning toward the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4. Yeah, it is bigger, but in a two lens kit I care less. I have also considered the Zeiss ZF.2 classic 35mm f/1.4, which I currently have, but the focussing direction drives me nuts and the ZE version with a metabones or similar (which I did have) gets so big it does start to bother me. I also considered the Leica R 35 f/2 Mk II, partly because my longer lens in this two lens kit is the Leica R 80 f/1.4. I do think they would pair well together as they are both Mandler lenses and share a similar look, but partly based on what you have said I reviewed my old shots with the R 35 cron II and I can see its weaknesses and I don't think I will got that way. The Pentax 31 limited is also a lens I have long considered but the focus direction and the fact it is an AF lens together have me worried about how I will feel about focussing it. So, I am left still unconvinced by any options but I am likely to try the Zeiss C/Y next. Thanks for your advice.
Sep 23, 2017 at 08:57 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
GMPhotography wrote:
Steve your wanting a Mandler look and your going to have to find one that's got that wide open glow. Leica R 35 1.4 might be your ticket. Or the old Contax 35 1.4
Thanks Guy. I always appreciate your advice as well and I think you hit the nail on the head. I have considered the Leica R 35 f/1.4, but it is a very particular lens. It is sharp centrally, but until well stopped down the sharpness falls off quickly away from the centre. It is also ridiculously expensive for a lens with its characteristics in my view. As I described above I will probably try the old Contax 35 f/1.4, and I have good hopes that will work well with the R 80 f/1.4 with which I plan to pair it in a two lens portrait kit.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks Guy. I always appreciate your advice as well and I think you hit the nail on the head. I have considered the Leica R 35 f/1.4, but it is a very particular lens. It is sharp centrally, but until well stopped down the sharpness falls off quickly away from the centre. It is also ridiculously expensive for a lens with its characteristics in my view. As I described above I will probably try the old Contax 35 f/1.4, and I have good hopes that will work well with the R 80 f/1.4 with which I plan to pair it in a two lens portrait kit....Show more →
Steve,
Have you tried the CV 35/1.7 + PCX? I'm really liking this combo. Perhaps you want faster?
GMPhotography wrote:
Is it possible that it was never there to begin with natively that is. Not sure the PCX actually fixes any midframe just the outside zones
I'm not sure but that was the reason I sold my ZM 35/1.4. I prefer having a strong mid when composition my images.
At center, the CV and ZM are very similar (very strong)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm not sure but that was the reason I sold my ZM 35/1.4. I prefer having a strong mid when composition my images.
At center, the CV and ZM are very similar (very strong)
on the kolari UT my cv 35/1.7 has a mild midzone shift, but only on one side.
Sep 29, 2017 at 04:36 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
Steve,
Have you tried the CV 35/1.7 + PCX? I'm really liking this combo. Perhaps you want faster?
Hi Fred,
No, I haven't tried the CV 35 f/1.7 + PCX yet, but it is an intriguing option. I was already to get the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 and I do like the faster aperture of that lens, but you, and Guy, and Derek have all given me a bit of a pause in getting the C/Y lens and I may go with the CV instead. I have decided to wait, think about it a bit more, and see more samples. Part of my particular usage is that I am very happy with the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 for close-ups which for me is a very common use and I don't think the CV will be better for that and I think I will prefer the slightly faster aperture of the ZM. For stopped down landscapes I am also quite happy with the ZM at f/5.6 and 6.3. I doubt the CV will be much of an upgrade their either, so because of those two uses I am pretty sure I want to keep the ZM and just get a second lens for portraits, where I am not happy with the ZM. The CV is in the running for that second lens, but I am still not 100% sold.
No, I haven't tried the CV 35 f/1.7 + PCX yet, but it is an intriguing option. I was already to get the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 and I do like the faster aperture of that lens, but you, and Guy, and Derek have all given me a bit of a pause in getting the C/Y lens and I may go with the CV instead. I have decided to wait, think about it a bit more, and see more samples. Part of my particular usage is that I am very happy with the Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4 for close-ups which for me is a very common use and I don't think the CV will be better for that and I think I will prefer the slightly faster aperture of the ZM. For stopped down landscapes I am also quite happy with the ZM at f/5.6 and 6.3. I doubt the CV will be much of an upgrade their either, so because of those two uses I am pretty sure I want to keep the ZM and just get a second lens for portraits, where I am not happy with the ZM. The CV is in the running for that second lens, but I am still not 100% sold. ...Show more →
There is a noticeable different in blur going from f/1.4 to f/1.7, so that's a consideration.
I'd say they are both sharp wide open around the center area. The ZM does better at the corners (PCX) and the CV is stronger at mid (PCX). Since my subject are often at mid-zone, I prefer the CV.
The ZM is better color corrected and specular highlights are more rounded wide open. Both are free of onion ring bokeh.
The CV is definitely smoother at mid-distance and is a much cheaper solution. Worth a try.
It's a bit challenging to find an adapter that gives infinity with the PCX. I bought 5 and 2 worked. One of them has a little play (lens to adapter).
Has anyone tried the a front filter with the ZM28? Fred, I think you mentioned that you were interested in buying one, but I don't think I've seen any mention of it in the last several pages.
partitura wrote:
Has anyone tried the a front filter with the ZM28? Fred, I think you mentioned that you were interested in buying one, but I don't think I've seen any mention of it in the last several pages.
I tested it and posted the results a thousand pages back. Gotta just find it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I tested it and posted the results a thousand pages back. Gotta just find it.
Fred, I got worried as my wiki didn't have link to your test and I went through the thread since page 68, in which we learned from Haruhiko that the correct filter for ZM28 is 2000/2500mm. On same page you were wondering should you order 2000mm or 2500mm. On page 71 you were still trying to find one ZM28 in mint condition. Page 74 there was comment "The ZM 28 could not compete with it even with the PCX 1.5m.".After that I found no reference about ZM28 from this thread.
So if you have tested it was with wrong filter and before page 68. Or results are in some other thread?
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Fred, I got worried as my wiki didn't have link to your test and I went through the thread since page 68, in which we learned from Haruhiko that the correct filter for ZM28 is 2000/2500mm. On same page you were wondering should you order 2000mm or 2500mm. On page 71 you were still trying to find one ZM28 in mint condition. Page 74 there was comment "The ZM 28 could not compete with it even with the PCX 1.5m.".After that I found no reference about ZM28 from this thread.
So if you have tested it was with wrong filter and before page 68. Or results are in some other thread?
Samuli...Show more →
User @candreyo@ had some comparison shots in an external album, unfortunately that link is dead now
PCX 1500 was the way to go.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Fred, I got worried as my wiki didn't have link to your test and I went through the thread since page 68, in which we learned from Haruhiko that the correct filter for ZM28 is 2000/2500mm. On same page you were wondering should you order 2000mm or 2500mm. On page 71 you were still trying to find one ZM28 in mint condition. Page 74 there was comment "The ZM 28 could not compete with it even with the PCX 1.5m.".After that I found no reference about ZM28 from this thread.
So if you have tested it was with wrong filter and before page 68. Or results are in some other thread?
Yes, I tested it with the PCX 1.5m and purchased the PCX 2m to compare. The mid zone got slightly better but the edges a little worse, so I concluded the PCX 1.5m was a better choice. The issue was that the ZM 28/2.8 was not amazing to begin with so there other 28mm lenses with same or better performance. The PCX definitely helped though.
Gotta just find it.
and I went through the thread since page 68, in which we learned from Haruhiko that the correct filter for ZM28 is 2000/2500mm. On same page you were wondering should you order 2000mm or 2500mm. On page 71 you were still trying to find one ZM28 in mint condition. Page 74 there was comment "The ZM 28 could not compete with it even with the PCX 1.5m.".After that I found no reference about ZM28 from this thread.