wfrank wrote:
...can forget about annoying things like focus shift while doing it....
What? Does this lens has focus shift? It's very easy to see in both 50 and 85 Planars, but I have not detected focus shift with 1,4/35.
R.Young wrote:
...I'd also love some rounded blades...
AhamB wrote:
I imagine that for Samuli's use, he would have more trouble with bokeh in the corners with that lens, but probably slightly more central "pop", giving more presence to the in-focus subject.
Thanks Robest and Benjamin - Discussion is always good, I had "forgotten" (more like I was not thinking about it) that Contax (and Rollei) versions have non-round aperture when closed down. And I have enough problems with corner bokeh already with ZE-version. And for me losing EXIF would be quite big loss as well. Maybe I'll just have to try to survive with ZE-version, and try to learn what makes it "sing".
PS. Just came back from shooting 5 hours in swamp and surrounding cliffs, in rain (well it varied, no rain, light rain etc.) - One more "plus" for ZE/ZF: the hood is really protecting front lens from water drops. I was mostly using 1,4/35ZE and during whole shoot only one drop of water ended to front lens.
wfrank wrote:
sebboh thanks. I dont see that purple/green fringing - but I did a very slight color balance in post to make the color of the car to be true. Or it could be the red in the granite cobble, or else I simply dont have the eyes. Like the depth in that pano!
it shows up pretty obviously (to me) on the chrome of the car – green behind the focus plane and purple in front.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
What? Does this lens has focus shift? It's very easy to see in both 50 and 85 Planars, but I have not detected focus shift with 1,4/35.
Samuli
Oh no you cant fool me, these are the kind of things you tell me.
But with a CY, if you use them the way I do you dont have to care. For close subjects 99 out of 100 I do wideopen or close and then the EG-S does the work. For stopped down I learn the lens at F/8 if I dont have the time for LV so it will perform nicely regardless. With a ZE I dont know. I only have one ZE, the 21. A couple of weeks ago I though I had the perfect target, an abandoned house. Very pretty. I took perhaps 30 shots. I was new to the lens and combined EG-S (useless stopped down) and AF-confirm in various ways, even handheld LV just to be sure to get some keepers.
What happened? Zero hits (except one closeup). This is one of 20 similar shots, none is worth any size here, they usually got front focus. Personally I blame focus shift, but need to use this lens much more.
Sebboh, that's a great pano!
Wfrank, really nice car shots.
Samuli, no offence but calling the 35/1.4 ZE/ZF the most frustrating lens ever invented is quite funny. Aren't you overreacting?
I'm very happy I'm not as critical as you because the endless search for the holy grail of rendering must be frustrating on it's own...
I agree that the old 35/1.4 looks really great wide open, but I'm also certain that you'll be disgusted (keeping your previous comments in mind) by it's corner bokeh in many situations. It seems even harsher than the ZE/ZF. Looks like you need to own both to be somewhat happy.
wfrank wrote:
With a ZE I dont know. I only have one ZE, the 21. A couple of weeks ago I though I had the perfect target, an abandoned house. Very pretty. I took perhaps 30 shots. I was new to the lens and combined EG-S (useless stopped down) and AF-confirm in various ways, even handheld LV just to be sure to get some keepers.
What happened? Zero hits (except one closeup). This is one of 20 similar shots, none is worth any size here, they usually got front focus. Personally I blame focus shift, but need to use this lens much more....Show more →
Really great looking old house, shame you didn't nail the focus. However it's not because focus shift (Distagon 21 doesn't have focus shift), but for some other reason. I stopped using optical viewfinder many years ago for focusing (and I have never used focus confirm), so I don't think I can assist you with this problem.
21 is quite difficult to focus even with live view, since area of sharp focus is so wide. It's one of the lenses I get sometimes focusing errors even I'm using live view (in final photo contrast at focus plane reveals that focus wasn't spot on).
Jochenb wrote:
Samuli, no offence but calling the 35/1.4 ZE/ZF the most frustrating lens ever invented is quite funny. Aren't you overreacting?
Yes - maybe 1,4/50ZE would have been more frustrating unless we would have solved the issues together here in the forum (and I did get 50mm quite late, it had been quite long time on market, but for reason or another the live view movie mode was "the thing" forum invented).
Even I was overacting, it's really frustrating that I don't understand how to make 1,4/35 shine. It happens randomly and I don't understand why it worked in picture A but not in picture B.
Jochenb wrote:
I'm very happy I'm not as critical as you because the endless search for the holy grail of rendering must be frustrating on it's own...
Yes, it's very frustrating, but good hobby
Jochenb wrote:
I agree that the old 35/1.4 looks really great wide open, but I'm also certain that you'll be disgusted (keeping your previous comments in mind) by it's corner bokeh in many situations. It seems even harsher than the ZE/ZF. Looks like you need to own both to be somewhat happy.
Can't have both, too much weight and space from my camerabag.
One less frustrating shot from todays's shoot, I don't have any idea why this one worked well while some other very similar just didn't work at all. Also hiding some corner bokeh by cropping to iPad format... @ f/1.4 - larger
I find the transition from DOF to bokeh, and related contrast drop, to create rather nice effect, even closed down to middle apertures. These are shot @ f/5. I don't think I shot this kind of shots with f/1,4 ZE version before, and it seems that rendering closed down to f/5 is different compared to f/2 version of this lens (transition and contrast in transition, also color might be slightly better, and there isn't and CA while 2/35 shows CA also closed down to mid and small apertures).
Sorry didn't have any old Volvo's available so had to shoot 90's Saab...
Wilhelm: that Volvo shots are incredible. BOTH.
Sebboh: the pano work is amazing.
Here are two 35mm ZF.2 shot with D700 from last fall. I was doing some research on this lens based on discussion here and find some interesting foto to share.
A little background, The image was captured in Japanese Garden of Portland. that day is typical Oregon fall/winter, cold and wet with small rain drop 10 minute ago. the image to my surprise capture well with almost water color effect and I can feel the humidity of that day through the image.
To keep the Bokeh untouched, I reduce the default contrast and Clarity in LR4. The lens still manage to get decent POP to me. Maybe I am not as picky, I really don't see the rendering problem other than beauty of ZF and ZE
Hi Samuli
I also struggled between the C/Y and the ZE versions and finally went for the ZE version. I told my self that the ZE is a newer piece of hardware made by the same guys who made the C/Y version, and so it should be a more solid performer. Lack of guarantee, marks of wear and a very close price tag made the rest.
The ZE version might outperform the C/Y version, even someone here posted MTF charts showing that the ZE is a better performer. HOWEVER, I also have the feeling that the C/Y version achieves that 3D look more easily than the ZE. That is really nagging me. I have eventually offered my CR2 files to the fore, expecting to find some RAW files from the C/Y in exchange, but in vain.
That green bush above shows that the ZE can do the job, but I haven't succeeded myself yet, and I am still wondering if the C/Y might make my life easier.
Jopeme: Outperform is not about MTF. Particularly not wide-open. Good fast lenses have all the resolution you need midframe anyway, at least enough for 21MP/5D2.
I'd be happy to provide a RAW-file from 5D2 if I understand what you're trying to achieve. For me, you cant tell just about anything when you dont know what cam, dont have an identical shot to compare with a ZE etc. What do you think you'll be able to see?
Samuli - if you're interested, I'll happily send you my C/Y 35/1.4 so you can check it out. It would be interesting to see what you can achieve with it. I haven't got use for it now, as I don't have a camera I can use it with. Send me a PM if interested.
jopeme, the subject you have chosen to your test photos has no surfaces, just edges. It will be very hard to get "3D" if you don't have surfaces, which contain textures and can give shape and volume to objects.
mortyb wrote:
Samuli - if you're interested, I'll happily send you my C/Y 35/1.4 so you can check it out. It would be interesting to see what you can achieve with it. I haven't got use for it now, as I don't have a camera I can use it with. Send me a PM if interested.
Hi Morten,
Thanks for the offer, but as it is summer I'll spend all time with real photography instead of test shooting.
mortyb wrote:
BTW - nice set of wheels.
Heh, lowest possible TCO and practical, but it's not nice... btw. it's like brand new, I got it when it was 110000km and now it's 140000km in it - most likely I'll drive with it next 20 years Earlier I had one Volvo 240, which I decided to give up when it reached 1000000km, I don't think Saab goes that far, but should go 300-400k without major repairs.
Slowly learning to like 1,4/35ZE: Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1,4/35 @ f/2.2, 1/15s, ISO 100 - larger
Hi wfrank
I agree MTFs are just that. Look at the above crocodile and the other beautiful samples in this forum.
My main goal is to isolate the main subject by blurring the background WHILE STILL RETAINING the angle of view of a 35mm lens. To my understanding, that entails shooting as close to Minimal Focusing Distance as possible, shooting wide or nearly wide open, and nailing the focus. Focus must be right there where you want it to be.
The ZE version is plenty sharp. That's not the problem. Corner to corner performance is just amazing even wide open, BUT I'm prone to think the C/Y or Rollei versions do the job better in the above scenario.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Heh, lowest possible TCO and practical, but it's not nice... btw. it's like brand new, I got it when it was 110000km and now it's 140000km in it - most likely I'll drive with it next 20 years Earlier I had one Volvo 240, which I decided to give up when it reached 1000000km, I don't think Saab goes that far, but should go 300-400k without major repairs.
Wow, 1 million km. That's crazy. Respect to both you and your old Volvo! I really like Saab, I had a 9-5 once, it was great. Your car does indeed look like new, I'd never guess it had 140k. My 2005 BMW has had all sorts of ridicilous problems starting at 140k. Too much electrical stuff.
Anyways - to be honest, I think many of your 35/1.4 shots lack a bit of the Zeiss pop. I'm a little surprised about that. Or maybe I'm just not used to the more subtle rendering of the new 35/1.4.
mortyb/samuli: it so happens that a Volvo P1800 got what's known as the world record in milage (according to Guiness). It's a 1966 driven in Australia. It counts 2 900 000 miles now (as of Jan 2012), ie some 4 700 000 km's. He changes oil regularly :-)
Pretty sure I'm getting the hang of it 
