If 35L and Contax 35 f:1.4 were "suspiciously similar" (copyright@Brainiac), then it seems, based on early pics, that the ZE35 f:2.0 is "suspiciously different" from its Contax forefather. I will know more when I eventually get mine
Hi,
sorry for the question but I'm considering the Contax version of this lens from some time, are there any particular differences between the Contax and Rollei mount?
I like the turtle shot Anden - and with such models, who needs AF anyway
---
Regarding AF performance of Canon 35/1.4, I was quite happy with how accurately my copy focused at f/1.4 on my camera at the time (5D Classic). Accurate and consistent.
I've owned and/or used all Canon's f/1.2 and f/1.4 primes from 24 to 85 mm and the one bright prime I recall as being the snappiest and most accurately focusing is the 35/1.4 L.
brainiac wrote:
Yes - well, the 35L and Contax 35 f1.4 even have very similar looking length, girth, and size/curavature of front and rear elements, which is why I use the word suspicious.
No need to speculate... here are block diagrams: Canon
The Canon is an 11/9 design and the Zeiss is a 9/8 design. Both have a single aspherical surface. The length and girth similarity is due to the fact that the lens is very fast and it takes some space to fit enough elements to make such a lens sharp. Other than the fact that they're both reverse-telephoto lenses (like pretty much all SLR wide-angle lenses) they seem pretty different.
The newer 35/2 is a 9/7 design and again pretty different from both f/1.4 lenses.
Anyway, all three are amazing. I'm glad we have so many options at this focal length since it's one of my favorites. Between these three and the flektogon and EF 35/2 anyone could find the lens for their needs (AF, close focusing, bokeh, "look", weight, etc.)
Edit: I just noticed the 35/2 is only 50g lighter than the 35L. Ouch.
