Jochenb wrote:
Good to see this thread back. Steve, Some others and myself posted photos from the ZE/ZF in this thread before, so I'm sure it's ok. I still miss the ZE/ZF version quite often. It's a shame that it's so big and heavy. That prevents me from using it on an A7.
Thanks for showing the size with an adapter Derek. It looks manageable on an A7.
The problem is that I prefer the ZE/ZF over the C/Y or Rollei version. Mostly because of the bokeh and how detailed it is stopped down. The C/Y and Rollei can look a lot harsher at mid distance. At closer ranges they look superb though.
Btw, I sold my RX1 (I'll still be around in the thread though, I have a lot of unedited photos from it).
I currently only have a Sony/Zeiss FE 35/2.8. I don't like it optically, but use it for the quick AF. I still have to get a decent 35mm lens for the A7. That's why it's such a pity that the ZE/ZF is so large and heavy.
Jochenb wrote:
I currently only have a Sony/Zeiss FE 35/2.8. I don't like it optically, but use it for the quick AF. I still have to get a decent 35mm lens for the A7. That's why it's such a pity that the ZE/ZF is so large and heavy.
sounds like a good excuse to be guinea pig for the new loxia 35/2.
I have thought about getting the C/Y or rollei version a thousand times, but like Jochenb I prefer the bokeh of the ZE, so I have never took the plunge. I am still a good six months away from getting an A7 anyway, so I can wait. it doesn't look like the loxia 35 f/2 will be a solution for me either. At this point I think I am most likely to get a 35 lux pre-asph for something small and keep the ZE when I want to shoot wide open with good bokeh. The Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 is still in the running, however, but as odd as it may seem I think the like the bokeh from the lux pre-asph better than the Voigtlander. As the pre-asph stops down it seems to have very nice bokeh and I am not overly offended by the funky bokeh wide open. The Voigt on the other hand has nice bokeh at times, but exactly the kind of bokeh I don't like at others, so I am torn. I got a long time to decide, however. I probably won't pick up a 35 for the A7 until I am sure I want to keep it, and for me that means about a year after I get it.
Jochenb wrote:
I have a question about the C/Y. Are there any differences between the MMJ and AE version?
MMs are servicable by Zeiss (I hope that is still valid) and they dont have so-called ninja bokeh (different aperture blades). Also MMs are adaptable to any mount, while AE are Canon EF only. Sometimes there are some design updates, sometimes not.. unsure about 35/1.4.
Mescalamba wrote:
...
Also MMs are adaptable to any mount, while AE are Canon EF only.
No. Are you referring to Leitax-kits or something? Main difference historically was that MM (multi mode) lenses supported shutter prio/program mode as they could change aperture through a lever. A piece of metal told the camera that a MM lens was mounted hence enabling those modes in some cameras.
Same number of elements/groups and key figures such as MFD suggests gradual improvements if any between the AE and MM - but perhaps the ninja aperture thing. My personal experience is that it is easier to find minty MM lenses than AE, but there are unfortunately plenty of bad condition MMs out there too. Fine copies are getting rarer.
Anyone that knows about the claim that Zeiss still supporting MM lenses? I've read it many times (here) but never really heard anyone doing it. Would you send it to Germany - or how would that come about? I would like to see if they could do something about one of the Contax lenses I have (luckily not the 35/1.4 though :-).
wfrank wrote:
No. Are you referring to Leitax-kits or something? Main difference historically was that MM (multi mode) lenses supported shutter prio/program mode as they could change aperture through a lever. A piece of metal told the camera that a MM lens was mounted hence enabling those modes in some cameras.
Same number of elements/groups and key figures such as MFD suggests gradual improvements if any between the AE and MM - but perhaps the ninja aperture thing. My personal experience is that it is easier to find minty MM lenses than AE, but there are unfortunately plenty of bad condition MMs out there too. Fine copies are getting rarer.
Anyone that knows about the claim that Zeiss still supporting MM lenses? I've read it many times (here) but never really heard anyone doing it. Would you send it to Germany - or how would that come about? I would like to see if they could do something about one of the Contax lenses I have (luckily not the 35/1.4 though :-).
zeiss told me they would replace my rear element if it was an MM version. they also me that the rear element from an MM was not compatible with my AE, the way they worded it though gave me the impression that was either BS or the difference was just in the coatings.
Anden used to have a pre contax rollei and a contax version (think it was MM) and reported no obvious optical differences somewhere in this thread if i recall correctly (right before he sold the rollei to luka).
wfrank wrote:
No. Are you referring to Leitax-kits or something? Main difference historically was that MM (multi mode) lenses supported shutter prio/program mode as they could change aperture through a lever. A piece of metal told the camera that a MM lens was mounted hence enabling those modes in some cameras.
Same number of elements/groups and key figures such as MFD suggests gradual improvements if any between the AE and MM - but perhaps the ninja aperture thing. My personal experience is that it is easier to find minty MM lenses than AE, but there are unfortunately plenty of bad condition MMs out there too. Fine copies are getting rarer.
Anyone that knows about the claim that Zeiss still supporting MM lenses? I've read it many times (here) but never really heard anyone doing it. Would you send it to Germany - or how would that come about? I would like to see if they could do something about one of the Contax lenses I have (luckily not the 35/1.4 though :-).
Yes Leitax, if one owns Nikon or Sony A-mount camera, getting AE isnt option. They have very different mount side. While its possible to convert them, it means pretty much to completely put lens apart and find someone who will manufacture replacement mount. Canon shooters and any mirrorless dont need to care much.
I asked them about servicing my lens (50/1.4 MM) last year and they said ok, still didnt manage to get it there tho.. will try this month. Kinda left is as much as I left shooting. My MM was supposedly perfect according to seller, well it isnt. :/
I started this thread with the first version Rollei. I now have the Contax AEG.
I haven't used the MMG or MMJ.
From my tests the rollei and the contax was equal. The bokeh is the difference.
sebboh wrote:
zeiss told me they would replace my rear element if it was an MM version. they also me that the rear element from an MM was not compatible with my AE, the way they worded it though gave me the impression that was either BS or the difference was just in the coatings.
Anden used to have a pre contax rollei and a contax version (think it was MM) and reported no obvious optical differences somewhere in this thread if i recall correctly (right before he sold the rollei to luka).
