I currently have a Zeiss 28mm f2 ZF.2 but am contemplating getting the Milvus 35mm f1.4 while it's still on sale.
I'm struggling with determining if the the outlay in cash will be worth having this lens. I understand the optics should be well worth it, but being so close in focal length to my 28...would it make sense?
I'm wondering if people have preferences of one over the other or in 28mm vs 35mm in general. I typically use for landscape type images and just for general walk around purposes.
I'd love to hear your thoughts and possible advice if you are willing to share with me.
The RX1's Sonnar definitely sold me to the 35mm camp, but I can understand that is a very peculiar lens with an attached camera as a bonus. The result is that you can do very sharp landscapes and some crazy bokeh-licious close-ups with only one lens.
Even when I go interchangeable, a fast 35mm for me is just the perfect FL/lens for most of my shooting and the one that helps me minimize lens swapping (while being able to focus more on composition as a bonus).
Particularly if I'm going to have people in the frame, I think that that 7mm difference is significant, so I see 35mm as a better all-around lens for my use (though I'll admit that I sometimes accept the compromise when I factor in the weight/size difference between my C/Y 28/2.8 and 35/1.4 ZF.2 )
I currently have a Zeiss 28mm f2 ZF.2 but am contemplating getting the Milvus 35mm f1.4 while it's still on sale.
I'm struggling with determining if the the outlay in cash will be worth having this lens. I understand the optics should be well worth it, but being so close in focal length to my 28...would it make sense?
I'm wondering if people have preferences of one over the other or in 28mm vs 35mm in general. I typically use for landscape type images and just for general walk around purposes.
I'd love to hear your thoughts and possible advice if you are willing to share with me.
In broad terms, no, I don't think one *need* own both a 28 and 35. They are indeed quite close. I prefer 28 FWIW.
However, the 35/1.4 and 28/2 are lenses of very different sizes and weights. I don't think they're necessarily redundant. You have my permission to own both, although really I'd be happier with you if you bought the 28 Otus instead (and let me borrow it).
I have the Zeiss Distagon 28mm f2 ZF and Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2 ZF.
I prefer the 35mm but the 28mm is amazing, too.
As a focal length, I dont know. Using 35mm or 40mm often has a somewhat more "harmonious" look. The 28mm on the other hand has this "its just ever so slightly too close / too wide" look which can be good or bad.
The Zeiss 28mm f2, which already existed in a Contax version before, already commonly has been assigned the nickname "Hollywood" for its dramatic rendering. Personally I have christened my 35mm the "Honeycomb" for its rendering.
Sauseschritt wrote:
The Zeiss 28mm f2, which already existed in a Contax version before, already commonly has been assigned the nickname "Hollywood" for its dramatic rendering. Personally I have christened my 35mm the "Honeycomb" for its rendering.
My understanding is that the Contax 28/2 CY was called "Hollywood", because of its great popularity with Hollywood directors and cinematographers, for use on cine cameras. Regardless, I have Hollywood's 'twin', the SMC Pentax 28/2, which was developed alongside the Contax 28/2 CY, as a joint Zeiss/Pentax project. Optically, they are the same, barring differences between T* and SMC coatings.
I call my SMC Pentax 28/2 "Vancouver", which is "Hollywood North".
In general, I have no preference for any particular focal length, although I use 24mm/25mm more often than 28mm.
Never been a fan of the 35mm focal length, my normal everyday kit consists of a 28 old Contax Distagon and a long lens, be it a 80mm Mamiya or a 135mm Canon LTM.
I have both lenses as well as the Zeiss ZF/ZE 35/2.0. First, in terms of optical quality, the Milvus 35/1.4 is a better lens in terms of rendering style, color, and center/corner sharpness, compare with both the 28/2 and 35/2. If you are using higher MP digital body, the optical advantage of Milvus will be very clear. The only thing that is negative for Milvus is its weight and size. It’s a very heavy lens! Second, for the preference for 28mm vs 35mm, I use 28mm a lot more than 35mm for travel photography. For landscaping type of images, I usually take multiple primes, including both 28mm and 35mm. But if I have to only take one lens, the 35mm is the best compromised choice.
I also think 35mm is a one-lens compromise, but a good one. The Milvus 35/1.4 is a bit more than I want to carry when I can live with my F-mount Art or plastic kit zoom. For a lens pair, 28 and 50mm work nicely: I have my choice of f/1.4 or f/2.8, AF or manual. Glad that CZ is working on their color correction—now they need to understand weight reduction!
That's exactly what I was going to say. I do like 35mm but I like it by itself. Once I have other lenses incorporated it is always too wide or too tight, it's never right for me. That's likely because my bias is towards 28 and 50mm as a pair.
I always come back and think that I need to have a 35mm but as it turns out, if I have other lenses, I really don't. That's just me personally but I'm fine NOT having one.
Thank you to all of you who contributed their thoughts and experiences to this thread with me. So many excellent points were brought up for my consideration and I truly appreciate it In fact, you all have given me so much to consider, that I wasn't able to make up my mind prior to sale ending, lol. That's okay... there will be another sale at some point.
There will be times that I will be able to make great use of the f1.4 aperture; there are times when I feel the 28 is too wide and the 50 is too long; I don't think the size and weight will be a hinderance to me as it doesn't keep me from shooting my 200f2VRII. I think I may have been getting too hung up on the focal length difference or lack there of.... but it appears that the rendering of both lenses are different enough to make that point moot.
Originally I was thinking that I would end up having either just the 28f2 or the Milvus 35f1.4, but I've been spending a lot of time lately shooting with my 28f2 as well as reviewing previous images that I have taken with it, and I can't really imagine parting with it. It is a lens that I have really truly enjoyed having. I'm thinking the Milvus will definitely be worth trying out and could make a very nice addition rather than a replacement.
So it appears that I was the proverbial "a day late and dollar short" this time around due to me not being able to make up my mind in time... but I will be waiting and ready for the next sale when it comes along
I will generally reach for a 28mm before a 35mm, it's kind of funny to talk about a preference when they are both very close in FL, but then again, I have that same feeling with 40mm vs 45mm and 35mm, strange how we become attached to perceived feelings.
I do often feel that I want a wider lens when the widest lens I have with me is a 35mm, with 28mm, I almost never do, and I do like wide angle lenses, possibly more than any other range, the reality is, as long as I can capture the feeling/look I want, the focal length doesn't matter all that much to me.
For a single lens, I prefer 35mm over 28, and the Loxia is my preferred 35. I enjoy the slight extra DOF of the 28 as a single focal length -- nice to have choices to keep the framing fresh.
I enjoy the rendering differences between the ZE 28 and ZE 35/2 enough to want them both -- not necessarily using them at the same time.
I'm inclined toward an AF lens for 35/1.4, currently owning the Canon 35L for that purpose.
I'll probably do a little comparison of the AOV for ZE 18-25-28-35, mostly for my own interest, and probably post results here or on the Sony forum.
28mm for me, but understand people using 35mm as a one lens solution. But 35mm is bipolar, trying to walk on both sides of a barbed wire fence, two masters pulling in opposite directions. 28mm is the widest normal perspective and can be made with sweet curvature for induced depth perception. 35mm looks too often cropped. 28mm pulls you into the picture.
28mm is far more satisfying, versatile. Gaps very nicely upwards to 40m or 50mm, down to 21mm - both settled and dedicated focal lengths. A lens has to impart what it is to the photographer, and have a clear identity.
I owned both the Leica Q (28-ish) and the X100F (35-equiv) for a time. I much preferred the Q field of view as a single lens solution. It's a lot easier to move in closer than it is to back up far enough.
The Milvus 35 1.4 is an optical marvel, but the rendering is a departure from the look of your ZF.2 28. The Contax Zeiss Distagon 35 1.4 (C/Y) or the classic ZF.2 version of the 35 1.4 might be a better combination with your 28 unless you specifically want the more modern look.
Totally different FLs for me. I don't reach for my 28/2 if the 35 isn't enough. I usually go for the Loxia 21mm.
However I do like the 35mm FL and I love my Voigtlander M 35/1.7 with both the Voigt Close Focus adapter and with the TechArt if I need AF. That's a small lens worth having if it's foibles don't bother you - I don't even notice them, not even in the prints it makes.
)
