I probably won't be trying another one soon since I bought Hubsand's CY 35mm PC lens that he used in his review at 16-9.
I would however like to see crops from others who have full frame cameras and the 35zf lens.
Dan
a ZF version on a Nikon camera performs flawlessly. from what i read here and other places, all the evidence for Zeiss Z-series lens flaws as large as you describe are in the adapters. used on their native mount bodies, they just work.
Herb...
DanPBrown wrote:
I had high hopes when I received my 35mm zf last week. Alas I didn't consider it up to snuff and sent it back to B&H. I used it on my 1dsmk2. The chromatic aberration was too much, hell it was the more than any lens I have. Light fall off was apparant below f/8. And the nail in the coffin was the distortion. I hope the new 28mm f/2 is much better.
Dan
HerbChong wrote:
a ZF version on a Nikon camera performs flawlessly. from what i read here and other places, all the evidence for Zeiss Z-series lens flaws as large as you describe are in the adapters. used on their native mount bodies, they just work.
Herb...
Assuming one likes the output of the Nikon sensor. I'll be watching for images of the D700. I'm considering this cam as a tandem with the 5D. It'll be my ZF camera. The rumored D900 (or D3x or whatever the high MP designation will be) does not interest me.
I had a 25 ZF that exhibited worse behavior than the OP. Comparing it to samples posted by other photogs at the time, I determined that the adapter had to be at fault. In fact, the chip on that piece of cr@p just fell off last night. Just dropped off. It was not a happypagehk adapter. I plan to take another run at the 25 ZF, but there are a few lenses farther up on the To Buy list. I found an Oly 24/2 that will serve fine until then. I just passed on a used 25 ZF that was reasonably priced at $700 in the B/S forum. May still be available.
Therein lies the problem of using adapted lenses - you add another variable into the mix. That said, I do think some lens lines are more intolerant of iffy adapters than others.
rfkiii wrote:
Assuming one likes the output of the Nikon sensor. I'll be watching for images of the D700. I'm considering this cam as a tandem with the 5D. It'll be my ZF camera. The rumored D900 (or D3x or whatever the high MP designation will be) does not interest me.
HerbChong wrote:
a ZF version on a Nikon camera performs flawlessly. from what i read here and other places, all the evidence for Zeiss Z-series lens flaws as large as you describe are in the adapters. used on their native mount bodies, they just work.
Herb...
Not my experience at all. My 2/35 ZF had notable sharpness issues in the left hand part of the image near the edge, and some CA at all distances both on my Nikon D3 and on my 1DsIII with adapter. No difference.
I guess there are no great lenses, just great samples. Dan and mine were not. Makes one wonder about QC at Cosina....Show more →
I think Zeiss/Cosina QC is not perfect, but very close to perfection. I mean with all the members here using Zeiss glass, we've got 2-3 unhappy experiences. That's way better than Canon or Nikon, just visit their forums and you will have an idea. This is no excuse for Zeiss, and I would like their QC to be 100% but maybe they're at 99% which isn't too bad. I've owned more than a dozen Canon lenses in the past, and the chances of getting a good copy was less than 30%, even with L glass.
Many people on the Canon forum complain about sample variation and lens issues.
I always feel some people who send them back instantly without asking for an exchange and without considering servicing the lens, just want to play around a bit with a new lens and never consider to really buy one.
Well I dont want to blame anyone for this practice and dont want to put people here in the same corner, however I wonder why people which have issues with ZF lenses dont send the lens to Zeiss Germany to service them?
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think Zeiss/Cosina QC is not perfect, but very close to perfection. I mean with all the members here using Zeiss glass, we've got 2-3 unhappy experiences. That's way better than Canon or Nikon, just visit their forums and you will have an idea. This is no excuse for Zeiss, and I would like their QC to be 100% but maybe they're at 99% which isn't too bad. I've owned more than a dozen Canon lenses in the past, and the chances of getting a good copy was less than 30%, even with L glass.
Much of the Zeiss glass folks here are using seems to be made before the appearance of the current M and Z lines, and thus by Kyocera or Zeiss Germany. My impression is that we don't yet have a broad enough user base of these new lenses to make reliable statements as to QC.
Agree with Arne re: sample variation - CZ is not ZF, population of ZF within the photo community is still small (especially in alternate user market), so jury is still out (other than fact that while far better than Canon, is not 100% yet)
A user should never have to send a NEW out of box lens in for service, regardless of who makes it. Part of the attraction of alternate glass (optics aside) is the attraction of NOT having to send a new lens in for a CLA because someone was laying down on the job at the factory (you there Canon?).
As well, back and forth trying of multiple samples is not cost effective not to mention a PITA when dealing with cross border VAT & shipping. Part of the premium you pay for Zeiss (or Leica)vs EF is the perception of paying for quality and consistency - both optical and mechanical.
The lenses are good, very, very good - but there have been some reported issues with QC, so simply ensure you have a friendly return policy just in case - or, if nervous, hold off buying until you can try the lens in question over the counter with a known body/adapter (if applicable). Problem solved.
Hopefully as the line matures/expands the reports of QC issues will diminish.
I bought a used 35/2 ZF this week that had been listed on the FM Buy Sell forum. As usual, I took it down to my "testing location" for a set of shots. While there, I took a set of shots with the Contax 35-70 & EF 35L for a comparison. All samples shot with 5D at f11, the focus point (red brick building left center) was not quite at infinity. Wind very calm. Converted to jpeg from DPP with Level 7 sharpening. No further PP outside of DPP.
For those of you who would prefer to see a different section of the photo at 100% or are confused by the jpeg compression (like me) or do not like my choices in PP, here are the RAWs ranging from f4 to f22.
