akul wrote:
The comparison is very informative. I won't draw conclusion, but, at least from the example, 35/2 's brokeh is busier than 35/1.4 in this particular range. However my shots are 1.4 and 1.8, which makes big difference. I do recall better bokeh from 35/2 when focus point is closer with distant background. Thing with 35/2, is that the dof feels deeper than 35/1.4 at f2. I could be wrong.
See akul as u know this week is zeiss' last rebate promotion. I want to use 1.4/35 as my 35mm portrait-environmental lens at 1.4 with 6 ft subject distance. Do you think this lens can pull it? Sharp 3d on the subject and smooth bokeh background..... not blurred out, something like theres a veil of softness...but u can still identify what background object is.
Malina, there haven't been that many shots posted recently with the 28mm f2, so it's good to see your offerings. Looks like you have a great copy! Post more when you can.
I won't complain about my copy, though I'm looking forward to its update in Milvus lens line. I'll definitely share more shots as 75° is my preferred FOV. During my last trip to Greece that was the only lens shot with.
Skialoudi Islet
2/28ZE @ f/2.0
Cropped only the top part to achieve 16x9 aspect ratio. Here is the 1920x1080px file.
I think you'll really like my ZF.2 35/1.4 for environmental portraiture. I've tried a bunch of 35's and it's my favorite.
I don't think the 3D is as pronounced as with the ZF 35/2 or 100/2. From f/1.4-2.0 it's not crisply sharp in the plane of focus, I think due to spherical aberration. The LoCA is pretty intense at those apertures as well, as you can see from Luka's slightly misfocused photo (same thing happens to me on my Nikons with the green dot). Specular highlights can be made ugly, and you can bring out onion-rings if you're not careful due to it's aspherical element.
However, the contrast and colors give an impression of sharpness and clarity when viewed from a normal distance, with nice subject pop even stopped down somewhat. The bokeh is my personal favorite, as the out of focus elements are soft-edged, with gentle transitions, and lower contrast than the subject. The inward field curvature helps to separate a center-third subject from the background. The natural vignetting profile helps with this as well. And interestingly, even though the background is soft and defocused, it's not totally blown out and without structure, which I really like for environmental portraits. I wish there was another lens like this which wasn't so damned big.
I have a spur of the moment photo of my wife I'll put up later that I grabbed while setting up our family photo, and it's one of her favorites, even though she can't explain in words why that is. I credit her beauty and smile, but the Zeiss surely helped out a bit
bushwacker wrote:
See akul as u know this week is zeiss' last rebate promotion. I want to use 1.4/35 as my 35mm portrait-environmental lens at 1.4 with 6 ft subject distance. Do you think this lens can pull it? Sharp 3d on the subject and smooth bokeh background..... not blurred out, something like theres a veil of softness...but u can still identify what background object is.
bushwacker wrote:
See akul as u know this week is zeiss' last rebate promotion. I want to use 1.4/35 as my 35mm portrait-environmental lens at 1.4 with 6 ft subject distance. Do you think this lens can pull it? Sharp 3d on the subject and smooth bokeh background..... not blurred out, something like theres a veil of softness...but u can still identify what background object is.
Strictly comparing between 35/2 and 35/1.4. I like 35/1.4 much more. I like the rendering and bokeh fits my taste.
Probably the price for the pleasing bokeh is the veiling flare in harsh lighting. Aside from that, today there are few more interesting options. Nikon 35/1.4g and Sigma art both have strong followers. I myself would have hard time deciding if I were in your position today. Focusing 35/1.4 is challenging, and weighs down quite a bit. And it is not cheap either. But if those are not the determining factor, yes.
Photo cross posted in the Sony FE Image Thread and taken the evening of April 24, 2016, at 7:01 PM (49 minutes before sunset), looking at farmers fields along Loch Valley Road, New Tripoli, PA. Image taken with my tripod mounted A7rM V3 and my Zeiss 35mm f1.4 Distagon ZM lens, ISO 100, lens set to f11 for 1/60 second. Exposure corrected by +0.24 Stops and processed with CornerFix and LR6.
akul wrote:
Strictly comparing between 35/2 and 35/1.4. I like 35/1.4 much more. I like the rendering and bokeh fits my taste.
Probably the price for the pleasing bokeh is the veiling flare in harsh lighting. Aside from that, today there are few more interesting options. Nikon 35/1.4g and Sigma art both have strong followers. I myself would have hard time deciding if I were in your position today. Focusing 35/1.4 is challenging, and weighs down quite a bit. And it is not cheap either. But if those are not the determining factor, yes.
Good luck
Luka
Tnx akul,
How hard is this lens to focus at 6-8ft subject distance at f1.4....
I have the 2/35, this one focusing is easy for me.
uscmatt99 wrote:
I think you'll really like my ZF.2 35/1.4 for environmental portraiture. I've tried a bunch of 35's and it's my favorite.
I don't think the 3D is as pronounced as with the ZF 35/2 or 100/2. From f/1.4-2.0 it's not crisply sharp in the plane of focus, I think due to spherical aberration. The LoCA is pretty intense at those apertures as well, as you can see from Luka's slightly misfocused photo (same thing happens to me on my Nikons with the green dot). Specular highlights can be made ugly, and you can bring out onion-rings if you're not careful due to it's aspherical element.
However, the contrast and colors give an impression of sharpness and clarity when viewed from a normal distance, with nice subject pop even stopped down somewhat. The bokeh is my personal favorite, as the out of focus elements are soft-edged, with gentle transitions, and lower contrast than the subject. The inward field curvature helps to separate a center-third subject from the background. The natural vignetting profile helps with this as well. And interestingly, even though the background is soft and defocused, it's not totally blown out and without structure, which I really like for environmental portraits. I wish there was another lens like this which wasn't so damned big.
I have a spur of the moment photo of my wife I'll put up later that I grabbed while setting up our family photo, and it's one of her favorites, even though she can't explain in words why that is. I credit her beauty and smile, but the Zeiss surely helped out a bit
bushwacker wrote:
Based on the description youve said.... I think this will be good portrait lens., how soft is this? Us just like 50 planar 1.4?
I haven't used that lens before. From 1.4-2.8, my CV 35/1.2 and CV 40/2 have a more crisply sharp look to what's in focus. From f/4-8 the Zeiss 35/1.4 takes over on the sharpness front, tons of fine detail. I prefer the Zeiss colors in general, and especially for people photos. The only 35mm lens I've seen that has the highly corrected in plane sharpness wide open, with beautiful bokeh, is stuck onto the front of the Sony RX1.
Regarding focusing this lens and the ZF 100/2 on a DSLR, you will get a lot of misses at portrait range, especially if you're looking to nail the eyes. That's what spurred me on to get a Sony A7, and even then it can be hard with the 35/1.4 as different colors come into focus at ever so slightly different distances. The nature of the uncorrected aberrations that give the lens its wonderful bokeh.
akul wrote:
Strictly comparing between 35/2 and 35/1.4. I like 35/1.4 much more. I like the rendering and bokeh fits my taste.
Probably the price for the pleasing bokeh is the veiling flare in harsh lighting. Aside from that, today there are few more interesting options. Nikon 35/1.4g and Sigma art both have strong followers. I myself would have hard time deciding if I were in your position today. Focusing 35/1.4 is challenging, and weighs down quite a bit. And it is not cheap either. But if those are not the determining factor, yes.
Good luck
Luka
Akul,
Weight is fine for me... its the focusing 6ft distance at 1.4. And how soft is this compared to 50P at 1.4
Jun 28, 2016 at 04:30 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Weight is fine for me... its the focusing 6ft distance at 1.4. And how soft is this compared to 50P at 1.4
I have both the ZE 35 f/1.4 and the 50P f/1.4 (C/Y mount). The 35 is noticeably sharper wide ope than the 50P and it is easy to focus on the my A7 II at 6 feet and closer--over half my shots are in that range. If I get to 3 feet or less with the background a decent ways away I often stop down to f/2 for a bit better bokeh and a bit sharper image, but wide open is fine IMO. Check the Zeiss 35mm thread for lots of examples.
Weight is fine for me... its the focusing 6ft distance at 1.4. And how soft is this compared to 50P at 1.4
My 50 p is broken so this is from memory. I am with Steve. 35/1.4 is sharper than 50p at 1.4 at close range. In distance, the gap narrows. Bokeh from 35/1.4 is more pleasing, but we both are 50p bokeh fans, so I'd say just more composed. Focusing at 6 ft hand held, nailing focus on eyes is hard. I tend to spray and pray, or live view, compose, close up focus and shoot. Reward is great when it works, but I also delete a lot.
Weight becomes an issue for me for hiking. I sometimes do one lens hike, then it is less of an issue. One of the reason why I got 25/2.8 to give more options, but that is irrelevant to your quest.
Why not try out at B&H counter ? One can also buy, try , and return if it is not working for you, but you will most likely get hooked
Thanks for all the replies. Will let you guys know and post some samples here if I get it. thanks a lot. My primary use for this is will be for portrait with environment but I don't want the environment obliterated... thanks a lot.
