I think that Leica users are generally overestimating how many people know what a Leica is. It's a vanishingly small percentage of the general population. Most people just think it's some antiquated camera and are unlikely to think it is worth anything.
During my recent trip through the national parks in the US southwest, I looked a lot at other peoples' cameras. Guess how many of the hundreds upon hundreds of tourists with cameras that I saw had Leicas? The same number as had Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses - exactly zero. There are plenty of DSLR users, 99% of them using kit lenses. You can see an occasional Canon L zoom - typically the 24-70 and on occasion the 70-200/4. I saw only one single Zeiss lens and it was a zoom on a Sony Alpha. So alt gear is extremely unusual and even among alt gear Leicas are uncommon. So I don't think the color of the dot makes any real difference one way or the other.
Anyway, since we've gone so offtopic, I suppose I better post some pictures.
If I lived in the States, I would agree with you. Here in Germany, I have been approached several times and asked about my Leica, by name. I don't know that the black dot helps, but I like to think that it might. I have seen both other Leicas and ZF/ZE lenses here.
I made a comment in the previous thread about my disappointment with the center sharpness of the 35/1.4 ZF.2. I posted the cropped shots comparing my Nikon 24-70/2.8 and the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZF.2 (and for kicks my cheap kit lens Nikon 18-55VR) on Flickr at:
I don't have photoshop so I couldn't figure out how to combine the images into one in Lightroom 3. Feel free to do that and repost here if you'd like. I uploaded the pictures to Flickr using LR without any color/saturation processing or export sharpening. The only thing I did was crop the raw file image in LR and publish to Flickr with LR. You might have to open them in different windows to compare the images. My test subject may not be ideal because it's probably not what people will use it for but I was too lazy to carry all my gear outside.
Based on my brief experience with the 35/1.4 (this is my first Zeiss lens I've used), I made the following observations:
-veiling haze is noticeable at apertures 1.4-2.8, perhaps this is what gives it the beautiful bokeh
-bokeh at 1.4 is superb
-brighter image and more color saturation than my 24-70 nikon lens
-center sharpness (or maybe edge definition) is lower than my 24-70; this may be a plus for portraits
-micro-contrast is superior to my 24-70
-purple fringing is very evident at apertures 1.4 for bright, contrasty edges
-field curvature is more than my 24-70 at 35mm
-focusing on my D90 was not an issue since the focus point is exactly at the point when my focus indicator starts blinking
-weight was a bit on the heavy side but not a big deal (I carry my 24-70 on 10-mile hikes)
Since the 24-70 is my best lens and I don't have experience with any other Zeiss lenses, I can only make observations in comparison to my 24-70. I think the 35/1.4 is a very specialized lens and that its strength is in the bokeh. But because I wanted something that could be used as an all around lens, the 35/1.4 just wasn't for me so I decided to return it and exchange it for the 100mm instead. Perhaps I will get the 35/2 in the future for that focal length...
Aug 02, 2011 at 11:44 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
But you are comparing the Zeiss at f/1,4 and the Nikon at f/2,8. Compare them at the same aperture and you will get a very different result. Everything you complain about with the Zeiss lens is between f/1,4 and f/2,8. And at those apertures you can't even use the Nikon.
IMO you are looking too closely at the pixels. Take some real world photos and see if the lens is lacking there.
The Zeiss looks sharp at f/2.8 and down, but it is perhaps focused slightly further away than the zoom, so on the front edge of the hair dryer it never reaches the sharpness of the zoom. Further back it does.
Luka, I have always liked your shots. Part of it has been a nostalgia for Europe, and your picturesque shots of your city satisfy that. In your Southwest shots, the scenery does a lot of the work, but you have found some unique compositions there too.
The truck shot, however, shows your real eye and artistry. Taking about as humble and banal a subject as one could imagine (the @ss end of the truck, no less) and coming up with this composition merging form and color is brilliant. Great eye.
Lars, for over $1800 for a prime lens in this recession, I think I deserve at least the right to complain if it isn't close to perfect. But my experience is just one input, one data point in the gaussian distribution. Don't get me wrong, I love the color out of this lens. If I didn't like Zeiss, I wouldn't be getting another one.
Cartenw, I tried focusing in the front slightly and still got about the same result. I may be guilty of pixel peeping. I think they're pretty close and for real world purposes you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. When I say sharpness is lower, I should say very very slightly lower. The difference is almost negligible. Maybe it's not even lower but just a different look (slightly softer, glossier look).
I agree that it is probably slightly softer, but I don't think that this makes the lens not worth it. I am surprised you sent it back after a simple test like this. Did you also do some real photos?
I did take some shots of plants at f/1.4 but edges look kind of fuzzy at 100%. I couldn't sharpen it to completely eliminate the soft edges....maybe I was expecting too much. I guess looking at all the awesome images (which may be processed enough that you don't see any weakness) on this forum has skewed my view of how sharp it should be.
My point is not so much that it isn't sharp enough, but that you may not find out how good the lens is by shooting hair dryers and plants. The real test is always real photos, not test shots.
