Does anyone here think I am stupid for putting my 35 F2 ZE lens up for sale to buy a Contax 35 1.4? Am I improving my lens lineup or making a big mistake? I really love the look of 35mm 1.4 shots at 1.4, and really crave the aperture, but am I giving up anything too important just for the faster lens?
I need some reassurance I am doing the right thing, I want 1.4 and 3D pop the most from my 35mm images!
R. Young -- I only own the ZE 35/2, but I find it completely adequete in IQ and speed. I think you would do better to invest that money in a different focal length of similar quality. Do you already own a Canon 85/1.2L or 24TS II? Or maybe some other ZE or Leica lens?
Hmmm, well I am pretty much set on getting a 35 1.4!
I have turned down the Canon L as it isn't a Zeiss, and my 35f2 + 21f2.8 have converted me with their rendering, colours and pop.
The new Zeiss 35 1.4 ZE is just too expensive, and I heard from others on this site that the CY has more 3D pop, its just the corner resolution wide open that is not better with the CY.
The Samyang sure looks nice, but again lacks the Zeiss character than I am looking for.
I've just a little worried about the stop down metering and corner sharpness of the CY would be disappointing compared to the 35f2 I have gotten used to. I am just getting a little nervous and need some advice.
It maybe doesn't help that I have just put up for sale my Canon 200mm 2.8 L as I have just bought a CY 100mm f2... When the 100 arrives maybe I will realise that CY is the way forward for me?
I currently own:
Canon 1Ds2
21 ZE
35f2 ZE
Canon 50mm 1.4 - soon to sell for a Rokkor 58 1.2
Canon 200mm 2.8 L II - Up for sale, being replaced by;
CY 100 f2 - arriving any day now.
Personally, I prefer a full functioning AF/IS lenses that match my bodies, all else being equal. After that, I love auto-aperture and focus confirming in a manual lens. Lastly, I will tolerate a fully MF, manual aperture, non-exif totally Alt lens. I find it a pain to always focus wide open, then close aperture to the desired setting before taking a picture. For me that means Canon lenses as first priority, followed by ZE (and similar auto-aperture) lenses, and finally the range of Nikon, Zeiss, and Leica manual lenses. But that's me.
I moved away from view cameras, and even medium format manual systems, and now bask in modern imaging.
So, when you ask such a broad question as: "Does this make sense?", I can only answer, "Yes!," for your requirements, since they seem etched in stone. It's sort of surprising you are asking the question.
I do think it makes sense, based on the fact that you enjoy manual focusing, but I would keep one flexible AF lens around, in case you need something a little faster.
It does seem a little strange that I first got my 1ds2 over a 5d classic because of the better AF system, and then I go and sell all my AF lenses! But I am looking closely at getting a 5d3 if it ever gets released as I do really love these Zeiss lenses and find myself taking less quick snapshots and more landscape and carefully planned shots. My 50 1.4 is not up for sale yet, and it might be a good idea to hold onto it as carstenw suggests.
I just looked through the Zeiss 35 1.4 thread again and am pretty much made up, it looks like an amazing lens!
I currently own:
Canon 1Ds2
21 ZE
35f2 ZE
Canon 50mm 1.4 - soon to sell for a Rokkor 58 1.2
Canon 200mm 2.8 L II - Up for sale, being replaced by;
CY 100 f2 - arriving any day now.
So will hopefully end up with:
21ZE
35 1.4 CY
58 1.2 Rokkor
100 f2
Does that line up make sense?
Only thing i see missing is a macro of some sort.Might think about replacing the 100f2 C/Y with a 100 f2 ZE.its a very versatile lens with few if any weaknesses.
-Jim
I shoot Canon 5d2, and currently have the Canon 35L. I'm accustomed to live view focusing from a tripod, and use that with my Canon TS-E 90 mm, among others. I am extremely happy with that lens, and prefer the image quality I get with it to that from the 35 L, which, good as it is, seems borderline for my landscape work. I'm looking for a landscape solution, with a shooting style that keeps everything sharp. I make and sell prints pushed to the max for size, up to 30 inches wide, sometimes larger. I'm very demanding, and display my work in galleries that also show work from 8x10 view cameras, so I'm under the gun on image quality in my prints. I have to get the maximum possible out of my light and my lens or my images won't stand up to the competition.
I need a 50 mm to replace my broken Canon f/1.4, and have decided to buy the 50 MP, hoping it will match the Canon 90 for image quality. The Canon 50 f/1.4 is not in the same class, even when it works. It's very sharp in middling f/stops, but color and contrast are drab compared to the Canon 90. I'm looking for more of the latter, but in different focal lengths.
I have reviewed images on these threads and come away with the impression that the colors and contrast of the 35 f/2 are similar to those of the 50 MP. I also think it may be true that the Zeiss 35 1.4 delivers softer (but superb) colors and contrast compared to the Zeiss 35f/2. If so, I see that as a potential advantage for the f/1.4, given that the 50 MP would be there for the other effect, and the focal lengths are not too far apart to be an either/or in some cases.
So here are the questions:
Am I correct in my characterization of the color and contrast differences of these two Zeiss 35 mm lenses if shot at f/5.6 - f/14?
Am I correct in thinking the 50 MP and the Zeiss 35 f/2 produce similar style images, and the Zeiss 35 f/1.4 is notably different—all when shot around f/5.6 or smaller? I suspect I might be wrong about that at the smaller apertures I'm accustomed to using, even if it is true closer to wide open.
Am I foolish to think that using a Zeiss 35 will notably improve the results a picky person observes in a large print, compared to the good copy of the 35L which I already have?
I would welcome hearing from anyone who has first-hand experience that seems relevant to the comparisons I'm asking about, but it's specifically comparative information I'm looking for, however subjective. No need to tell me that Zeiss lenses deliver great color and contrast, or that they are well built.
splathrop - I can't answer your question as I shoot ZF35 f2 with Nikon system with no exprience with 35 1.4, 50MP or Canon lenses. However, from photos posted on this thread, it is fair to say 35 f1.4 has shown greater detail rendition compare to ZF35 f2 at least in certain conditions. Philber has experience with both Zeiss 35s, so hopefully he jumps in.
Jim - Knowing how East River looks, I am amazed how you could make the water looks so good. Also beautiful color and composition on your door shot.
Ulff - Wow, you just made my day. Thank you so much for sharing your photos of Katsura. I am happy that you could even get in. Beautiful shots.
