Ajay C: The first one is a breathtaking capture!
Dalmas: Thanks, I like your capture as well, the framing is perfect.
akul: Thank you very much About those huts, I've no idea why they are there
Gary Clennan: Love how the lines and colors in #3
rexx714: I like it!
OK, guys, I have tried the much awaited 35mm f:1.4, in ZE mount. Good news is that I ad a 35:: f:2.0 to duplicate the shots. Bad news is that the light was absolutely horrible, and I had less than 25mn all in.
Basic finding is that the differences are really small. Smaller than I expected. Much smaller than the differences between any two other Zeiss lenses. If you know what a 35 f:2.0 shot looks like, you also know what a 35 f:1.4 shot looks like. My guess is that no difference is large enough that it can be visible at Internet resolution.
What difference is there? There are two IMHO. The f:1.4 is more detailed than the f:2.0, which in a perverse way, makes the f:2.0 look sharper and more 3D, just because transitions are more brutal. The f:1.4 is as detailed as the 21 again IMHO. The second difference is that the colours are just a bit more saturated with the f:1.4. Not different, as they are between a 50 f:1.4 and a 50 MP, only a bit more saturated, and a shade more contrasty. Furthermore, it seemed to me that the f:1.4 is at its best around f:2.8, still very sharp at f:1.4 (unlike its 50 and 85 f:14 brethren). Around f:2.0 to f:2.8, maybe until f:3.4, it is clearly superior to the f:2.0. Bokeh is in the Zeiss tradition, maybe just a bit creamier, whereas the f:2.0 can be considered a bit rougher than average Zeiss.
Lastly, the f:1.4 suffers from quite a bit of magenta LOCA when wide open. At f:4.0, it has a bit less than the f:2.0 and a bit more than the 21.
I am sure that this bried report is a lot less than most of you expected. Sorry, this is the best I could do under the circumstances. Oh, and this lens is less of a beast than I feared. Very heavy, yes. Burdensome, yes. But still just inside the envelope of what I consider tolerable. I have yet to make up my mind, but I lean towards getting one.
P251:
Denoir, that "curve in ice/snow" is just stunning! Really wall hanging stuff. Love esp the 2nd low sun behind tree.
Malkovic, the B&W really stands out for me with the long exposure(?) faded sky, while the others have great color.
Carsten/denoir: have been struggling here too, getting a different look from pano's with a newly acquired (manual) pano head. No success as of yet, can't get the look I want.
Otacon: love that streetcar, indeed, with a somewhat "old" look.
Almas: no 1 & 4! Good to see some portraits here!
Diploneis: that 1st/21mm is so strong!
Myxine: welcome! Yes, very expensive thread. Love your B&W and dramatic lighting and your new (unseen for me) interpretation of well known subjects. Bravo!
Alkanphel: more great macro's
Martynas: 4 does it for me! (is that Flatirons, Boulder?)
Philber: finally better light for you, esp next page extreme angle!
P252:
Denoir: love that low light trough that narrow street, the water (?) on ice is marvellous
Akul: nice seagull capture
otacon: good stuff at night
Akul: great 2nd series esp Zen Garden
Ruben: love all the colors in the 1st
Malkovic: nice again!
Uzay: "I" really like those alternative stairs
P253
teh_rebel: great proposal portraits, ninja style suits you ;-)
Denoir: great B&W's, esp 2nd
Michael: love your portraits 1 and 3 and lighting! in 2 and 4 your model looks a bit insecure, in 2 a bit too much skin folds in her neck?
Malkovic, that hole in the fence is great
Bob, love those dreamy (long exposure?) canal shots
Gary: love the 3 closeups!
teh_rebel: more great portraits esp 2 and 3! How do you focus?
P254:
Rexx714: your PP really suits the subject, very nice, what dit you do?
Malkovic: no snaps, love all of them!
Now, if you all would please slow down, shooting, buying new lenses, travelling...
philber wrote:
Basic finding is that the differences are really small. Smaller than I expected. Much smaller than the differences between any two other Zeiss lenses. If you know what a 35 f:2.0 shot looks like, you also know what a 35 f:1.4 shot looks like. My guess is that no difference is large enough that it can be visible at Internet resolution.
I guess you didn't do any close range shots (where the differences in DOF would be more obvious)? We already know that shooting at wide apertures isn't your style anyway.
Whoa, the difference between the 35/2 and the 35/1.4 both at f/2 is almost enough by itself to tip me towards the 35/1.4. The wide open shot clinches it though. I will definitely wait until I can test the 35/1.4 before deciding, but I am also leaning towards the newer lens.
Philber thank you so much for posting this series. I did not expect to see any photos. These are really nice gifts. I think I get what you mean. They seem very close at least in these examples. ZF.2 35 is one of my favorite, so I feel like I know its character for my use. This is a tough one. If 1.4 has more saturation, a tiny bit more clarity it will be very tempting. Good thing they are not even announcing ZF version yet. No pain for the moment.
By the way, I like the photos very much. I am glad that your sample photos are not out of your shooting style. It would be less helpful all of a sudden you started shooting a chart on a wall
Thanks for the comments, people. It seems I am not alone in finding that the lens really shines around f:2.0 to f:2.8, and that differences are much less at f:5.0
Love that bicycle shots. For that one, I prefer the second one, which is 1.4 shot ? just a bit more. Was it at f/3.5 ? I tend to shoot around that aperture, and similar subject, for instance, bicycle .
About those huts, I've no idea why they are there 
