weekh wrote:
I've the CZJ 35. It doesn't even come close.
Maybe or maybe not, I suppose, depending on your sample. The CZJ 35 f2.4 is well thought of. However, it might come real close in terms value for money. I don't think a few comparative samples would hurt. At the very least it might just underline how good the the CZ ZF 35 f2.0 really is.
ovredal73 wrote:
I am picking up my C/Y 35 1.4 at the postoffice tomorrow and will do some tests against my 35L as I will sell one of them at the end. The tests wont be scientific at all, mostly mood and quality to the image as well as userfriendliness. I am much more preoccupied with the handling than the IQ. I have rarely come across a (well respected) lens that does not have good enough sharpness etc for my use.
For me its more of an issue - which lens inspires me? I think the CY 35 1.4 will
If I see some interesting differences between the lenses I will try to post some images here.I also have the OM 35/2 and the Leica R 35/2. I might do a quick comparison between all of them.......Show more →
I use the 35mm focal length more than any other. Last week I shot a job with the Canon L. Then I sold it. This weekend I went back to my Zeiss CY f1.4. What a relief. I can't say why, because when I tested the Canon it had sharper corners, was brighter, had more contrast etc., but for some reason the Zeiss seems to make pictures look more real. It's mystifying, but if you like the pictures with one lens more than with another, that's what it's all about. I may be wrong but I think I detected a hint of CA across the frame with the 35L on my 1Ds3. At any rate, something was taking the edge off the image. I also prefer the more complex and interesting bokeh on the Zeiss. The Canon L has Leica-type bokeh - blander than the bokeh I see with my eyes.
In other words, I would advise anyone comparing these two lenses to base their comparison on the images they get rather than test metrics.
brainiac wrote:
In other words, I would advise anyone comparing these two lenses to base their comparison on the images they get rather than test metrics.
I've the the 35L and recently bought the ZF35. While the 35L is stellar, it is a little too big. I mainly use it for wedding whereby the fast AF and automation is really important. The ZF 35 though smaller than the L, is relatively huge compared to the other 35 F2 lenses.
What attracted me to get this lens is that the lens is very sharp wide open, even into the corners.
ZF35 + 5D. Bottom cropped off.
http://www.lens-scape.com/article/zf35-002.jpg
The color and light in this shot is amazing. Great composition and PP.
ovredal73 wrote:
I am picking up my C/Y 35 1.4 at the postoffice tomorrow and will do some tests against my 35L as I will sell one of them at the end. .......
If I see some interesting differences between the lenses I will try to post some images here.I also have the OM 35/2 and the Leica R 35/2. I might do a quick comparison between all of them....
Oh man, please do! I started this thread in the hopes that, unlike all the other threads, someone would actually post comparison pics. (and no pixel peeping, as I find that useless)
I picked up a ZF 35 last week (awaiting adapter) and also own 2 Leica Summicron 35s. I can only hope that the ZF lives up to the centre resolution of the Cron - shots from my cron look similar to the ZF shot above in terms of sharpness, but there is considerable field curvature which renders the corners soft, most notably at infinity (where you want sharp corners). Apart from the corners, I feel that the cron 35 is the sharpest lens I own - both copies. Will also compare to the ZF once I've got a feel for them.
Ok - Had a brief play with the ZF 35 alongside my cron(s) today and have a few initial observations.
They seem about on par in terms of centre resolution - extremely sharp. Both designs clearly outresolve the 5D sensor.
Corner resolution on the ZF is better, but it isn't perfect wide open either. Still significantly better.
Zeiss looks Zeissy, but the Leica also has a lovely look, which is not entirely lacking in 3D. Both contrasty, lovely bokeh and colours. ZF may have a slight edge in microcontrast, but I think that's probably more a preconception than an observation at this stage.
The ZF handling is frankly the worst of any lens I've used, firstly because it's backwards to Canon/Leica/C/Y etc and secondly because the aperture ring is ridiculously close to the mount. It is difficult to find and very awkward to use. I use Oly lenses, too, and they are similarly backward, but where that is simply a manageable difference, the aperture ring on the ZF makes this an awkward lens (for me) to use.
The ZF is considerably bigger, and the Leica is not a small lens. In terms of my collection, the 55mm filter thread of the Leica is an advantage, as is the built in hood, though the ZF hood can be reversed and is not too big.
Long and the short - it's handling/convenient hood and filter thread/small size vs corner sharpness. I think I'll hold both until I get a 450D, at which point I may be able to see a difference in sharpness in the centre due to the higher pixel density. At this stage, the slight advantage in the corners may not be worth the poor handling of the ZF, but I'll wait and see how each goes on the 450D.
Edited by Justin D on Jul 02, 2008 at 08:29 PM GMT
True, but the tradeoff is a fairly even one. Corner sharpness is worth a bit, but so is not finding the lens annoying to use. No other lens I've used has the aperture ring so badly placed. It is simply difficult to get at as it's right up against the body. Is this a characteristic of Nikon lenses, or is it just that these are poorly designed?
Cableaddict wrote:
Oh man, please do! I started this thread in the hopes that, unlike all the other threads, someone would actually post comparison pics. (and no pixel peeping, as I find that useless)
I await yours with massive anticipation.
Well....since my Contax arrived in a rather disappointing state, it will unfortunately be some time before I can get around to this. First I have to make it work properly with my camera....
brainiac wrote:
My Nikons were quite like that too. But from what I hear, the ZF's are worse.
Agree - seems to be a ZF design attribute.
Only gets worse with the longer glass such as the 50/2 and 100/2 (and 85/1.4 IIRC) as the ring now sits in a narrow valley between the body and larger lens barrel. While the 35/2s ring sits too close to the body (and makes inadvertent nudging of the focus ring too easy when stopping down), with the 100, you need very skinny fingers to use it quickly in stop down mode. John Black at www.pebbleplace.com covers the issue nicely with, in his case, the 50/2.
No idea why they did it that way - spend some more on larger aperture blades, etc., etc - or make the lens a bit longer and move the ring fwd. I'd sacrifice some extra bulk for smoother handling. Great glass in almost all respects, but the ergos are shall we say, 'different' - and much less of an issue for a Nikon shooter with auto-stop down.
Justin D wrote:
True, but the tradeoff is a fairly even one. Corner sharpness is worth a bit, but so is not finding the lens annoying to use. No other lens I've used has the aperture ring so badly placed. It is simply difficult to get at as it's right up against the body. Is this a characteristic of Nikon lenses, or is it just that these are poorly designed?
Agree, I can imagine that this is a problem for many users, I also found it difficult to use from time to time
From some fairly thorough tests today: the Summicron is a fair bit sharper than my copy of the ZF at infinity. I am not particularly surprised, (though I am kind of surprised given the ZF's reputation), as the cron is sharper at infinity than many of my lenses which have greater magnification.
The ZF is sharper up to ~3m, after which the lenses are neck and neck until ~50m, after which the R takes over, by quite a margin. The ZF had the advantage here, as I focus bracketed 8 shots at each aperture and picked the best, whereas I just put the R at the infinity stop and let it be - I know the R lens/adapter combination well.
The ZF is sharper wide open, though the R is no slouch. Both sharp as hell by 2.8.
The R, as I've made clear here and elsewhere, has horrible corners up to f5.6 and even at f8 they aren't perfect, and my tests tend to end at f8.
At the same aperture and shutter speed, the R tends to be about a third of a stop brighter.
The R handles flare better, at ~45 degrees to a bright sun, contrast was visibly reduced on the ZF.
The R seems to be slightly cooler, at least on AWB. I guess on AWB, this comment means very little.
Vignetting appears to be much of a muchness, but the horrible corners of the R make the corners unusable at less than f5.6.
To be honest, I'm quite disappointed by the ZF - I paid about the same for each, but expected it to be as good as my Leica at the Leica's good points, but without the Leica's bad points. To be honest, I think it falls short of the Leica's good points, and has some annoying bad points of its own.
May put up the pictures on which I base these comments tomorrow.
Great test - thanks. I like the summicron (actually now looking for one) for 'reportage' style work where center performance and fast operation/easy focus on wider apertures matter more than flat field performance, but never really tried it for landscape-esque shots. Appreciate the effort.
I've not tested the Zeiss or Canon 35/1.4 lenses but I think I've tried most of the other candidates for the 'best 35mm' crown, including the slower Zeiss and Leica candidates, and the most impressive of them all has been – surprisingly – the Zeiss 35-70mm and the Flektogon f2.4. I didn't like any of the Leicas at all: as you point out, Zone C is just nasty.
Yep, I think the 35-70 is my Zeiss look 35... I was hoping this ZF would be the answer, but it's just not.
The R 35 2.0 still has its place, despite the corners. For a long time, I though I had a faulty lens, but having had 2 copies, and having realised that it's field curvature, I now know that it's just the nature of the lens design.
Though the CZ35-70 outresolves all the Zeiss and Leica primes from f5.6-f16, it does have some vicious barrel distortion, so I guess nothing's perfect. As I said, though, my Flektogon fractionally outperforms my Distagon prime at 35mm.
I have both the CZ35-70 and the Leica 35/2 and prefer the Leica when it comes to landscape photography (at the 35mm focal length). Although the Leica does show softness in the extreme corners at f/8, I will take that over the CZ edge performance that is slightly inferior at f/8. The other thing that I don't particularly care for when doing landscape photography is the reduced depth of field on the CZ35-70 when compared to the Leica (at the same focal length). I'm not quite sure why that is - I've tried different adapters, but the end result is that the CZ35-70 can not match the infinity to foreground depth of field that the Leica 35/2 achieves.
