I'm interested in the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 based on Phillip Reeve's excellent review of it. He reviews the ZM version though, which also comes along with the filter stack issue that comes with adapting to Sony. So I was wondering, is there any real difference between the ZM version, and the ZE/ZF versions for Canon/Nikon? If there's no difference, then it would certainly be better for me to go with the Canon/Nikon versions in terms of adapting it to my Sony.
motorhead9999 wrote:
Quick question for all of you Zeiss people:
I'm interested in the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 based on Phillip Reeve's excellent review of it. He reviews the ZM version though, which also comes along with the filter stack issue that comes with adapting to Sony. So I was wondering, is there any real difference between the ZM version, and the ZE/ZF versions for Canon/Nikon? If there's no difference, then it would certainly be better for me to go with the Canon/Nikon versions in terms of adapting it to my Sony.
The ZM and ZE/ZF 35/1.4 are very different in terms of optical performance, side and weight. If you plan to use the 35/1.4 on the Sony body, you will be better off using the ZE/ version, as you know that ZM version is designed for M-mount rangefinder bodies. But they may not be an ideal combo as ZE versions are pretty large and very heavy (Milvus version). The optical performance of the ZE/ZF 35/1.4 Milvus is excellent and I use it on my DSLR.
The difference between the ZM and the ZE/ZF is huge (literally). They are completely different lenses, and the SLR lenses are WAY bigger. I can't comment on the image quality differences.
motorhead9999 wrote:
Quick question for all of you Zeiss people:
I'm interested in the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 based on Phillip Reeve's excellent review of it. He reviews the ZM version though, which also comes along with the filter stack issue that comes with adapting to Sony. So I was wondering, is there any real difference between the ZM version, and the ZE/ZF versions for Canon/Nikon? If there's no difference, then it would certainly be better for me to go with the Canon/Nikon versions in terms of adapting it to my Sony.
Thanks in advance!
I have the 1.4/35 ZF.2 Classic. It's HUGE. IMO it's easier to handle than the Milvus.
I use it on a D810 w/battery grip and the ergonomics are great in spite of it's size because the body/grip are designed for handling large/heavy lenses. I've never used it on a ML camera, but my impression is that it would be a very front-heavy setup on a ML body. I'm not sure that the ZE/ZF 1.4/35 would be all that easy to handle on a smaller/earlier ML camera that isn't designed with large grips.
Because the Classic/Milvus versions for DSLR are retrofocus designs (Distagon) I would not expect them to exhibit the "wide angle rangefinder lens on mirrorless" problem that people have reported with the ZM. Ultimately, I think the ZM would have much better ergonomics on the Sony body while the ZE/ZF could be expected not to suffer from those RF on ML problems. In my estimation the ZM would handle better but the ZE/ZF would not suffer from some of the RF on ML issues that are inherent to the ZM.
Caveat: I have not yet used the 1.4/35 ZF.2 on a mirrorless Sony body, so please consider my comments as theoretical rather than practical. It would be best to confirm that the filter stack issue isn't a problem with retrofocus lens designs.
motorhead9999 wrote:
Quick question for all of you Zeiss people:
I'm interested in the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 based on Phillip Reeve's excellent review of it. He reviews the ZM version though, which also comes along with the filter stack issue that comes with adapting to Sony. So I was wondering, is there any real difference between the ZM version, and the ZE/ZF versions for Canon/Nikon? If there's no difference, then it would certainly be better for me to go with the Canon/Nikon versions in terms of adapting it to my Sony.
Thanks in advance!
As others have noted, these Zeiss 35/1.4s (ZM, ZF/ZE Classic, ZF/ZE Milvus) are entirely different lenses.
The ZM on a Leica M, or with a PCX, or on a thin-stack Sony, is outstanding even wide open, as Phillip's review no doubt notes. The rendering is characterful rather than super smooth, but I like it plenty.
The ZF/ZE Classic is just that -- a classic/old school Zeiss 35/1.4. V nice rendering. Less well corrected than the ZM or the Milvus. Much larger than the ZM.
The ZF/ZE Milvus is also large, really well corrected without being "perfect" or sterile, and has really beautiful rendering. It is much smoother than the ZM.
Deathchant wrote:
Thank you for the nice comments, appreciate it!
Dankjewel/Thanks!
Jouwe mogen er ook zijn zeg, wat een sfeertje!/Yours are great too, very atmospheric!
NIce and crispy Jim! What happened with the wooden bar on the first picture? Looks like it got cloned/photoshopped wrong.
Good catch on the stitching error! I missed that -- hard to see even when I knew what to look for! Here is a different version shot a few days later with a Sony and ZE 28/2. The stitch error still occured, but is a bit more hidden. Ha-ha! Tough shot to make a composite!
I'll have to go back with a wider angle (ZE 25 or 18) and try it again some day.
**************************
I went back quickly today with the ZE 25/2. Totally different lighting and angle, but single frame eliminates the problem with stitching error. Probably would have worked best originally with the ZE or Batis 18 from the original low angle of view.
coralnut wrote:
I have the 1.4/35 ZF.2 Classic. It's HUGE. IMO it's easier to handle than the Milvus.
I use it on a D810 w/battery grip and the ergonomics are great in spite of it's size because the body/grip are designed for handling large/heavy lenses. I've never used it on a ML camera, but my impression is that it would be a very front-heavy setup on a ML body. I'm not sure that the ZE/ZF 1.4/35 would be all that easy to handle on a smaller/earlier ML camera that isn't designed with large grips.
Because the Classic/Milvus versions for DSLR are retrofocus designs (Distagon) I would not expect them to exhibit the "wide angle rangefinder lens on mirrorless" problem that people have reported with the ZM. Ultimately, I think the ZM would have much better ergonomics on the Sony body while the ZE/ZF could be expected not to suffer from those RF on ML problems. In my estimation the ZM would handle better but the ZE/ZF would not suffer from some of the RF on ML issues that are inherent to the ZM.
Caveat: I have not yet used the 1.4/35 ZF.2 on a mirrorless Sony body, so please consider my comments as theoretical rather than practical. It would be best to confirm that the filter stack issue isn't a problem with retrofocus lens designs....Show more →
I shoot the 35/1.4 classic on Sony bodies. Front heavy; particularly with an adaptor. No worse than the 24-70 GM though.
coralnut wrote:
Caveat: I have not yet used the 1.4/35 ZF.2 on a mirrorless Sony body, so please consider my comments as theoretical rather than practical. It would be best to confirm that the filter stack issue isn't a problem with retrofocus lens designs.
I'm another happy user of the 35mm/1.4 classic ZF.2 on Sony (in my case A7iii). As noted by everyone it's heavy and large, but no complaints in terms of image quality. For me, it shines best as an environmental portrait lens, wide open or close to it. It is stunning on my Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera, which has a very small sensor (Super 16 size, even smaller than Micro 4/3); it has a look reminiscent of the old Zeiss Superspeeds, minus the triangular OOF highlights.
I have seen reports that the earlier Contax-Yashika versions of this lens actually had more microcontrast, although I've also seen reports that they are the same glass so I'm not sure what to believe.
motorhead9999 wrote:
Quick question for all of you Zeiss people:
I'm interested in the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 based on Phillip Reeve's excellent review of it. He reviews the ZM version though, which also comes along with the filter stack issue that comes with adapting to Sony. So I was wondering, is there any real difference between the ZM version, and the ZE/ZF versions for Canon/Nikon? If there's no difference, then it would certainly be better for me to go with the Canon/Nikon versions in terms of adapting it to my Sony.
Thanks in advance!
You've gotten a lot of great answers. To add to them. The ZF 35/1.4 Classic has field curvature in the opposite direction of the rangefinder lenses. I love this as you won't get those edges and corners partially in focus with the plane of focus extending away from the camera at the periphery. If anything you'll achieve a look of greater separation from background elements in the outer portion of the image circle. This is the main reason I'll use this lens in lieu of the lighter and smaller CV 35/1.2 rangefinder lens, vII in my case, on mirrorless bodies.
The lens is pretty sharp even by today's standards at f/5.6 but there is mid field dip at infinity. There is a ton of axial CA wide open so brace yourself for some green/magenta cleanup. It's super front heavy and doesn't balance well on a tripod when on a mirrorless body (I use it on a Z6 currently but have owned it since it was released). All that said, it's one of my favorite rendering lenses of all time, especially for environmental portraits and flowers. I'll be lugging it along on our upcoming trip for my wife's birthday in Costa Rica just for some environmental memory pics of us. Otherwise it will stay in the hotel room.
Climbing down 7m into a dead end with cliffs all around... Soaked tripod and feet. A Moment in Time by micke vmix, on Flickr
D850 + 21/2.8 Milvus at F18
