The picture at the bottom of that press release is all kinds of bad photoshop cut & paste. The front of the lens is pasted onto the front of the barrel without doing any kind of transformation for perspective. The concealing of the model number was done well but that's rudimentary. Taken with an HD-39 hasselblad
Let's hope they still have a ZE/ZF/ZK 35/1.4 some time soon!
Dan - They make a point of mentioning sharp images throughout the focusing range... I would assume it does, or it doesn't matter if it doesn't? Is there a special reason you want a floating element? Perhaps shoot an e-mail to Zeiss they're pretty good with that sort of info.
thrice wrote:
The picture at the bottom of that press release is all kinds of bad photoshop cut & paste. The front of the lens is pasted onto the front of the barrel without doing any kind of transformation for perspective. The concealing of the model number was done well but that's rudimentary. Taken with an HD-39 hasselblad
Let's hope they still have a ZE/ZF/ZK 35/1.4 some time soon!
Dan - They make a point of mentioning sharp images throughout the focusing range... I would assume it does, or it doesn't matter if it doesn't? Is there a special reason you want a floating element? Perhaps shoot an e-mail to Zeiss they're pretty good with that sort of info....Show more →
Curios more than anything. Zeiss will usually say in their technical sheet if a lens has a floating design, but there is no mention withe 35mm. A few people on this board believe it does have the floating design though.
Dan
AFAIK, the release of ZE lenses is just the replication in ZE mount (Canon) of all lenses already in existence in ZF (Nikon ) mount. This is not what Zeiss have in mind when they talk about developping new products. I personally think that the 35 f:1.4 is just around the corner, as per the "leak" from Erwin Puts. Just think how many Canon shooters say that the only item keeping them from jumping to Nikon is the existence of the holy trinity of Canon primes. Nikon have a fast (1.4) 85mm, but no great 35. So releasing one would offer Zeiss a real opportunity in the Nikon world. And of course we would/will get the ZE version for those who prefer Zeiss glass.
For a Canon 35L owner who is happy with his lens, not sure if I can talk myself
into buying the Zeiss 35 ZE. Not only a question of money, but if I own both,
which lens would I take with me on a trip? The same applies to the Zeiss 50
and Canon 50 f1.2L I like (which is kind of a manual lens anyway )
In my case, I had the Zeiss 50 and the 35L, and the latter got less and less use until I sold it. I have a ZE 35 on order, in the hopes that it is more 21 than 28...
It's going to be hard to compete with the 35L. Any ZE 35/1.4 would be at LEAST as expensive as the 35L and not have AF. If they use the old design, it also won't be quite as sharp as the 35L.
So, how many photographers here actually shoot their lenses wide open often? I know the difference between a 1.4 and a 2.0 is one stop of speed. For reference, I am primarily a landscape, architecture and nature shooter. I never work near the wide open end. If, like many folks I know, I generally shoot above f5.6, why would I care if my lens is f1.4 of f2.0? BTW, when I do shoot wildlife, I am often wide open, so I understand the need there, bit I don't consider this lens a wildlife lens.
DanPBrown wrote:
Curios more than anything. Zeiss will usually say in their technical sheet if a lens has a floating design, but there is no mention withe 35mm. A few people on this board believe it does have the floating design though.
In an earlier thread, it was posted that an official at Zeiss specifically confirmed to the poster that the ZF 35/2.0 did indeed have a floating element(s). Personally, I can coinfirm that it is sharp both near and far. Quite an amazing lens, actually.
philber wrote:
In my case, I had the Zeiss 50 and the 35L, and the latter got less and less use until I sold it. I have a ZE 35 on order, in the hopes that it is more 21 than 28...
The Photozone review shows that it has pretty harsh chromatic aberration throughout the aperture range. So I wouldn't expect that aspect to be as corrected as the 21mm.
Jeffrey wrote:
So, how many photographers here actually shoot their lenses wide open often? I know the difference between a 1.4 and a 2.0 is one stop of speed. For reference, I am primarily a landscape, architecture and nature shooter. I never work near the wide open end. If, like many folks I know, I generally shoot above f5.6, why would I care if my lens is f1.4 of f2.0? BTW, when I do shoot wildlife, I am often wide open, so I understand the need there, bit I don't consider this lens a wildlife lens.
Quite often, I'm shooting wide open when doing documentary work with wide angle lenses.
bluetsunami wrote:
The Photozone review shows that it has pretty harsh chromatic aberration throughout the aperture range. So I wouldn't expect that aspect to be as corrected as the 21mm.
The ZF 35/2? Really? I don't see significant CA in my ZF 35/2 at all. Not sure i would trust that "review".
That's really phenomenal performance. If CA was an issue, it would certainly show up in abundance for the first example as that is pretty much a torture test scenario.
