General Question - Can anyone point me at a Distagon review or comparison site?
Specific Q's -
I am really interested to read anything about the 35mm f1.4 and I have realised I cant source anything other than a few flickr pictures and not much more.
Can it be mounted n a 5D?
Is there any resource for Zeiss lenses (other than MTF charts and the official Zeiss site) that anyone could recommend I had a look at?
Indeed, can anyone let me know anything about the f1.4? Any first hand opinions?
I use it occasionally for low light photography. Wide open, it is an average performer like most wide aperture lenses. There is a very good review on www.slrlensreview.com.
I just purchased a 35 mm 2.8 ($200) to use on my 5D. The tabs on the back did hit the mirror. A quick snip of the tabs with wire cutters did the trick (Obviously, I plan on keeping the lens).
There has been a lot written here about that lens and other 35's. It is a pain but search for those threads in this forum, lots of details.
From memory, the 35/1.4 is great if you are looking for lots of bokeh and/or low light conditions but it isn't as sharp stopped down as the 2.8 version. Also, many here are convinced the Canon 35L to be a better for this style shooting. Also, the new Zeiss ZF35/2 is worth a serious consideration. It has been measured as one of the highest resolving lenses ever. It is also a bargain at $800. So, if you can live with 2.0, I'd suggested you consider the ZF.
Lloyd Chambers (pay site) has some extensive tests of the new ZF line. Perhaps the best site for alternative lens test is 16:9, though Mark hasn't tested the 35. http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests.
David Clapp wrote:
Cheers everyone, Edward is it a lot sharper at f2.8?
I never did direct comparisons but I believe from experience that it is quite sharp in the center even wide-open but lacks contrast, which gets better when you stop it down to 2.8-4. The corners are never outstanding. That's why I only use it for hand-held low light situations. For architecture or landscapes, I use the 28/2.8. In any case, I believe it is better than the Canon L in real life situations.
Cheers, I always try to do some extensive searches of a number of forums before I post anything, but my specifics weren't found so thanks for the help.
Its for moonlight, astro photography, stars etc in the landscape; the sharpness at f2.8 is going to be way better than using the 17-40 @ 5.6 I have been trying (corners are mush), you can see why I find it difficult to find any answers...
Most people shoot around f8 and recommend a slower lens, but this wont be much use to me as I can't stop it down or shutter speeds get way too long. The objective is to shoot no more than 30secs (not a star trails fan)
I had it a year or so ago. It fell short of the Canon 35L in performance for me. I sold it. There is no advantage either in terms of cost or performance.
