akul
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.500 #7 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!) | |
ltruong8, Lars, Carstn, Jochen - Thanks.
My unscientific first impressions.
0. I was most reminded how talented you all here with 35 1.4 are. It is a common sense, it is not the lens, it is the photographer who either makes the lens sing or kill it. Your images lured me into acquiring this lens, but it takes craft, skills, technique, talent to achieve what you have been showing. It will take a while until I can produce something reasonable.
1. Weight - Compare to Nikkor 24-70, weight distribution is much tigher, closer to body. So, although they weigh about the same, 35 1.4 does not feel nearly as heavy as Nikkor. Big +
2. Size - Similar to weight. It is not as big as I feared. I even took it to a trail and it was quite doable. So I am much less concerned about weight now. When / If I want to go light, I have an alternative (CY 28/ 2.8)
3. IQ - I am not at all knowledgeable in optical design like many members here. So it won't be as scientific here.
Haze - is strong when focusing with Live View. I agree with Lloyd Chambers on this part. Especially with bright light, quite hard to be sure whether I have the focus or not. Big difference from f2.
Focusing with OVF - Once I learned the correlation to the focus indicator and actual focus ( they are a bit off ), it became much easier to focus. To my surprise, focusing was not as forgiving than I imagined compare to f2.
Distortion - Jochen was right. DIstortion of 1.4 is about the same as f2 in medium to long distance. However, it seems distortion may be slightly stronger in close range ( less than 3' ). Nikkor 24-70 has much less distortion at 35, both zf have more 'barreled' feel to their images in comparison.
Vignette is much less pronounced compare to f2 even at 1.4. f2 seems to render darker with my camera body at least 2/3 stops. In other words, same speed and aperture result in darker image with f2.
DOF - Is it crazy to say it feel like it has shallower dof at same aperture ? It seems 1.4 has much less DOF. Medium distance shot (± 20 feet ) with f5.6, resulted in blurred background at infinity. f2 has a little more focus, Nikkor24-70 was almost in focus by 5.6. May be due to field curvature, but shooting pavement didn't quite give me enough understanding of field curvature.
Bokeh - is very nice. Certainly better than f2, which I always quite liked ( not everybody's taste ). f2's bokeh sometimes has strong contrasty saturated rendition. 1.4 is much more subtle and natural. A big plus.
Fringes ( CAs ) - Let me skip this one as I still can't quite tell the difference between Lateral and Logitudinal abberation.
Color / Contrast / Resoulton- As f2 tends to render darker, color on f2 is more saturated than 1.4 . F2 has been showing overall more contrasty images compare to 1.4. However, contrast in detail is the opposite. 1.4 seems to give more finer contrast in detail than f2. Areas f2 gets muddy feels still clear and clean with 1.4 So overall, it feel like glass is more transparent with 1.4 As I shoot with 12MP camera (D700), I am probably not seeing as much difference that people with more mp may be noticing.
3D - Let me skip this one too. As I still don't quite understand what '3D' is. However, closer range rendition of volumetric subject, tree trunks, statue - f2 has amazing rendition. I feel I have not got that quite nailed with 1.4 just yet. I need more time with the lens to really know how this differs to f2.
Landscape (y) shots - As detail increases in distance, I had experienced occasional frustration with f2. Sometimes it comes out crisp, but sometimes muddy. 1.4 seems more consistent. If I ignore the FOV, I can go to trails with 35 and leave 21 at home.
Close focusing - is wonderful. I have not quite explored this as much but once again, I feel like I can leave 100MP at home sometime.
4 -
1.4 - Yes, it is quite wonderful to have the 1.4 aperture with 35mm fov. Focusing is still a bit of a challenge but that is true to all MF lens. IOW, to me focusing is a non-issue.
So, have I fallen in love ? Well, that is the thing. I wasn't. The amount of distortion 1.4 presented was my biggest disappointment, and the differences I described above between f2 and f1.4 were less than hugely dramatic. It is a wonderful lens, but did not blow me away in the way I wanted it to ( As it was not a cheap lens). So, my first impression was, hmmm, did I make a mistake? However, it has been about 6 days now, and I must admit it is growing on me rapidly. I started noticing things like fine details I had hard time achieving with f2, which makes me go 'hmm' again. If it continues to grow in the rate it is now, then I may end up selling the f2 (!!!!! that would be my first ). Time will tell. Right now, I am just enjoying the new lens. 
|
? I am going to sell my 35mm f2.0 soon.
