Marcel VanEerd wrote:
No offense, and it's not jealousy speaking either, but those shots don't scream "look, taken with a 35mm Zeiss that cost $xxxxx"
I agree that some lenses shine - but most of the time, it's the choice of subject, and great light that makes a shot. Great light with a mediocre lens will imho outshine a flat, grey light shot with an expensive lens.
My 2c.
And that is why I said that the two shots were ordinary. Most of the shots in this thread are a lot better. The last two were ordinary to say the least. I agree about light. You are perfectly right!
grosvenor wrote:
I do not mind a biased opinion if I get a good reason for the bias.. Thanks
Do you prefer 50 mm or 35 mm? By the FL you need and like. I prefer 35 mm.
For example, I have bought the Canon 135L twice because it is such a great lens. Sold it twice because I donīt like the FL.
Thanks to Ulrik! Here are comparising shots of a brickwall. Handheld. I probably should have used a tripod and made sure that the camera was in perfect angle to the wall but what the heck. I am not a lenstester. I use my lenses for real life shots.
This pic isn't very good. What I find interesting though is the demonstration of the lens' 3D and sharpness. There is NO sharpening at all (camera set to 0). This was taken at either f/1.4 or f/2. MM-J.
Jason_Thames wrote:
So, other than the aperture and the coatings, are there any other differences between the C/Y and Rollei versions?
-Jason
I have the older version Rollei and a not very old MM version, and there is a difference in size (one is longer than the other), and so there may be the same number of optics and in the same groupings, but there is an inherent slight difference. I think the coatings in both the MM version and the newer Rollei are better than the older Rollei, or maybe just in better shape. I believe my MM has better contrast than the older Rollei. Also, the bokeh is a touch different. Both out resolve my 5D sensor, in terms of sharpness and both have that 3D effect.
I am not sure if both or either are of a floating element design. I am guessing that the C/Y is, at least. Not sure about the Rollei, although it seems to be just as sharp at close distances as the MM, so it probably is.
I need to post comparison shots. I planned to sell the one that I liked the least, but I am having a hard time doing it. I swap one out for the other every couple days hoping that I will be dissatisfied with the results of one after using it and decide to sell it, but it is not happening!
I am even having some trouble telling them apart under certain lighting conditions.
If you found a Rollei and a C/Y in the same condition, I would by the cheaper of the two and not look back.
From the Zeiss spec sheet it says that the C/Y 35/1.4 has a floating element (group) design and has an aspherical element. That is why is it good close up and at distance and does not have much coma wide open either. I was wondering if this is the only Zeiss lens with both a floating element design and also with an aspherical element?
Hey Zeiss, how about building a 28mm 1.4 equivalent design lens? There is no competition at this focal length and speed except for old expensive nikon 28/1.4 and the new Nikon and Canon 24/1.4's.
The old Nikon is butter though... The best 28 I have ever had the pleasure of using on an SLR. I was under the impression that most is not all of the C/Y Line was made using the same designs as the Rollei lenses. I just was curioius if the Rollei shared the asp. and floating element design with the C/Y. From the pics I have seen from Andreas I think the optical formula must be the same because he gets the same fantastic results from both versions. It would be nice to know for sure if they are the same... Maybe I will try to email someone @ Zeiss and get an answer.
EDIT:
Guess I should have looked a little closer. The Capt. Jack page on SL35 stuff says the 35/1.4 in SL Mount was 9 elements/8 groups and 12in. MFD. Sounds as if they are the same save the coatings and aperture.
I just tried the new nikon 24/1.4 G and it is sharper wide open than the old 28/1.4. It is a pretty sweet lens.Just missing the micro-contrast of zeiss lenses.
You have both Andreas, do you prefer on over the other? I would have a hard time telling the output from the 2 copies you have apart... all of your work looks so good... Would be nice if Zeiss decided to make this lens in ZE mount... I would be in hog heaven then...
Jason_Thames wrote:
You have both Andreas, do you prefer on over the other? I would have a hard time telling the output from the 2 copies you have apart... all of your work looks so good... Would be nice if Zeiss decided to make this lens in ZE mount... I would be in hog heaven then...
-Jason
Then it is time to buy your ticket, Jason, because Zeiss will release a 35mm f:1.4 this year
philber wrote:
Then it is time to buy your ticket, Jason, because Zeiss will release a 35mm f:1.4 this year
I have heard this before... but where is the rumor's source? If true... I wonder how much better it will be with 2010 technology vs. the C/Y I have? I guess we'll see...
The source is from Erwin Puts website where he briefly showed in a comparison of Z* 35/1.4 against Leica 35/1.4 and then immediately pulled the pictures of the lens off the website within a brief time.
One difference between the C/Y and the new rumored Z* 35/1.4 will be the color temp as the new Z* lenses tend to be warmer than their old C/Y cousins.
