ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
p.500 #2ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Curiosity finally took over.
ZF.2 35/1.4
ZF.2 35/1.4
Dec 11, 2011 at 03:18 PM
p.500 #3ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
akul wrote:
Curiosity finally took over.
ZF.2 35/1.4
Great, congrats on your new lens. Nice shots. Cant wait to see more shots!
How do you feel about it ? Gonna keep both versions
? I am going to sell my 35mm f2.0 soon.
Curiosity finally took over.
ZF.2 35/1.4
Great, congrats on your new lens. Nice shots. Cant wait to see more shots!
How do you feel about it ? Gonna keep both versions
? I am going to sell my 35mm f2.0 soon.Dec 11, 2011 at 03:29 PM
p.500 #4ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
ltruong8 wrote:
ZF.2 35/1.4Great, congrats on your new lens. Nice shots. Cant wait to see more shots!
+1 congrats
akul wrote
Curiosity finally took over.ZF.2 35/1.4
+1 congrats
Dec 11, 2011 at 03:31 PM
p.500 #5ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Congratulations, Luka! First impressions? Great rendering on those two shots, especially the second one.
Dec 11, 2011 at 03:37 PM
p.500 #6ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
akul wrote:
Curiosity finally took over.
ZF.2 35/1.4
So you couldn't fight the temptation anymore?
Congrats Luka!
Please share your impressions. I really love mine.
Curiosity finally took over.
ZF.2 35/1.4
So you couldn't fight the temptation anymore?
Congrats Luka!
Please share your impressions. I really love mine.
Dec 11, 2011 at 05:07 PM
p.500 #7ZE/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.
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.
Dec 11, 2011 at 09:16 PM
p.500 #8ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Very interesting user review. Thanks for sharing your thoughts , Akul! It would awesome to see actual images for comparison between the 2 lenses.
Dec 11, 2011 at 10:32 PM
p.500 #9ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Smridevan wrote:
Very interesting user review. Thanks for sharing your thoughts , Akul! It would awesome to see actual images for comparison between the 2 lenses.
+1
Very interesting user review. Thanks for sharing your thoughts , Akul! It would awesome to see actual images for comparison between the 2 lenses.
+1
Dec 12, 2011 at 01:16 AM
p.500 #10ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Thanks for the review Akul. Congrats on your lens.
Dec 12, 2011 at 01:34 AM
|
p.500 #11ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Congratulations on your new lens, Luka!
A couple of comments on your interesting review. "reduced DOF": I agree with your feeling. My guess is that the f:1.4 is much more spatially correct and resolving than the f:2.0, which is why the transition between in-focus and out-of-focus is much more gradual, but also the in-focus part is more strictly defined, which means it feels reduced.
Overall, I feel that the f:1.4's major positive difference over the f:2.0 is this abundance of small detail, including in the OOF areas, which makes it much more "interesting", probably the same as what you elegantly call "transparent". It took me a while to "see" it fully, but once I was there, there was no turning back. This lens is the one reason I am not going all-NEX, and my guess is, reading between the lines the public part of Lloyd Chambers' comment on the 25 f:2.0, that this new lens is at least as good or even better in this key area.
And yes, I also stopped using my 100MP for close-ups to the point that I actually sold it, the 35 is so good for this.
I am not so sure about the distortion. Maybe I am just blind to it, in which case, I want to keep this blindness
Exposure. Again, not sure. My f:2.0 was gone many months before I got the f:1.4, but I did not notice the 35 being out of whack with my other ZEs.
Colours. You did not comment very much, whereas I think the f:1.4 has very subtle, beautiful colours, more so than other ZEs. Less seductive than the other two f:1.4, maybe. Less spectacular than the formidable 21mm, possibly. But my preference is now for the 35 f:1.4 for that very important criterion (IMHO) as well.
Am I in love? YES!!!
A couple of comments on your interesting review. "reduced DOF": I agree with your feeling. My guess is that the f:1.4 is much more spatially correct and resolving than the f:2.0, which is why the transition between in-focus and out-of-focus is much more gradual, but also the in-focus part is more strictly defined, which means it feels reduced.
Overall, I feel that the f:1.4's major positive difference over the f:2.0 is this abundance of small detail, including in the OOF areas, which makes it much more "interesting", probably the same as what you elegantly call "transparent". It took me a while to "see" it fully, but once I was there, there was no turning back. This lens is the one reason I am not going all-NEX, and my guess is, reading between the lines the public part of Lloyd Chambers' comment on the 25 f:2.0, that this new lens is at least as good or even better in this key area.
And yes, I also stopped using my 100MP for close-ups to the point that I actually sold it, the 35 is so good for this.
I am not so sure about the distortion. Maybe I am just blind to it, in which case, I want to keep this blindness
Exposure. Again, not sure. My f:2.0 was gone many months before I got the f:1.4, but I did not notice the 35 being out of whack with my other ZEs.
Colours. You did not comment very much, whereas I think the f:1.4 has very subtle, beautiful colours, more so than other ZEs. Less seductive than the other two f:1.4, maybe. Less spectacular than the formidable 21mm, possibly. But my preference is now for the 35 f:1.4 for that very important criterion (IMHO) as well.
Am I in love? YES!!!
Dec 12, 2011 at 01:50 AM
p.500 #12ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Gee Akul and it looks nice in your hands. 35mm fits you so beautifully. A lens to experiment and learn with ...thats quite a combination. You will do stuff that you haven't done before with a lens you haven't used before. I'd say thats double your money right there ...and we get to watch you for free (something not quite right there).
Just Beautiful Reza, I'll visit this pic many times.
akul thats stunning art, the trees are a wallpaper. I'm in the pano thread oogling so it was nice to oogle some more.
Has Jim done anything good of late I'm going back some pages to see.
Z saw your street pics (of the child) in the Nikon forum ...very Z.
Ant.
Just Beautiful Reza, I'll visit this pic many times.
akul thats stunning art, the trees are a wallpaper. I'm in the pano thread oogling so it was nice to oogle some more.
Has Jim done anything good of late I'm going back some pages to see.
Z saw your street pics (of the child) in the Nikon forum ...very Z.
Ant.
Dec 12, 2011 at 02:29 AM
p.500 #13ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Thanks for the interesting review Luka. Always nice to see how someone else feels about a lens.
I have the same feeling as Philippe.
When the new 35/1.4 was released I started looking at photos shot with it. What I saw was a rendering that was more appealing to me than that of the f2 that I already had for about 1.5 year.
I just had to buy it
I think the f2 is really great, but I love the 1.4 more. Right out of the box.
Made big prints with both lenses and I see more fine details on the ones that were shot with the 1.4.
I think it's mainly the transition between in-focus and out-of-focus what I liked the least about the f2. The way the 1.4 does it just looks more pleasing to my eyes.
Distortion really is a non-issue for me. I don't have the feeling it's stronger than that of the f2 or any other 35mm lens I've had in the past.
I don't have problems with the haze when using LV. Maybe I haven't been in the 'right' situation yet to be annoyed by it (I don't shoot that many closeups with this lens).
The f2 has a punchier, more contrasty rendering (perfectly possible that someone would prefer this) but lacks the elegance and fine detail of the 1.4 IMO.
Luka, hopefully it grows on you.
This is for the ones that are interested in a 100% crop at f1.4
A quick testshot when I just got the lens:
100% crop:
I'm really happy with it and I think it already looks great wide open.
Edited on Dec 12, 2011 at 03:10 AM · View previous versions
I have the same feeling as Philippe.
When the new 35/1.4 was released I started looking at photos shot with it. What I saw was a rendering that was more appealing to me than that of the f2 that I already had for about 1.5 year.
I just had to buy it
I think the f2 is really great, but I love the 1.4 more. Right out of the box.
Made big prints with both lenses and I see more fine details on the ones that were shot with the 1.4.
I think it's mainly the transition between in-focus and out-of-focus what I liked the least about the f2. The way the 1.4 does it just looks more pleasing to my eyes.
Distortion really is a non-issue for me. I don't have the feeling it's stronger than that of the f2 or any other 35mm lens I've had in the past.
I don't have problems with the haze when using LV. Maybe I haven't been in the 'right' situation yet to be annoyed by it (I don't shoot that many closeups with this lens).
The f2 has a punchier, more contrasty rendering (perfectly possible that someone would prefer this) but lacks the elegance and fine detail of the 1.4 IMO.
Luka, hopefully it grows on you.
This is for the ones that are interested in a 100% crop at f1.4
A quick testshot when I just got the lens:
100% crop:
I'm really happy with it and I think it already looks great wide open.
Edited on Dec 12, 2011 at 03:10 AM · View previous versions
Dec 12, 2011 at 03:02 AM
p.500 #14ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Lovely shot, Jochen, really superb!
Dec 12, 2011 at 03:03 AM
p.500 #15ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
philber wrote:
Lovely shot, Jochen, really superb!
I just see it as a random test shot in my back yard. Only reason why I post it is to show a 100% crop @ f1.4, because maybe someone is interested in seeing one.
But nevertheless it's nice that you like it. Thanks
Lovely shot, Jochen, really superb!
I just see it as a random test shot in my back yard. Only reason why I post it is to show a 100% crop @ f1.4, because maybe someone is interested in seeing one.
But nevertheless it's nice that you like it. Thanks
Dec 12, 2011 at 03:24 AM
p.500 #16ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
and your street pic a couple of pages back Jochenb didnt go unnoticed either.
Ant.
Ant.
Dec 12, 2011 at 05:54 AM
p.500 #17ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
OneAnt wrote:
and your street pic a couple of pages back Jochenb didnt go unnoticed either.
Ant.
Thank you Ant
Frezeiss, great shots again! Second one is my favorite because the PP you did on the first one is not my cup of tea.
But seriously, your sensor needs cleaning. (I guess these are shot on the same day as the last shots you posted?). All those spots in the sky bother me.
and your street pic a couple of pages back Jochenb didnt go unnoticed either.
Ant.
Thank you Ant
Frezeiss, great shots again! Second one is my favorite because the PP you did on the first one is not my cup of tea.
But seriously, your sensor needs cleaning. (I guess these are shot on the same day as the last shots you posted?). All those spots in the sky bother me.
Dec 12, 2011 at 06:25 AM
p.500 #18ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
As somebody else here has mentioned, I have a heck of a time focusing on my ZM 35 2.8. Even compared to the Contax G 90 at the same apertures. Is the throw particularly short on this lens or something? Makes me think it's time to trade it in on a G 28 2.8.
ZM 35mm 2.8
ZM 35mm 2.8
Dec 12, 2011 at 08:51 AM
p.500 #19ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
loosh - very nice image! The focus throw on the ZM35 f/2.8 appears to be the same as the ZM50 f/2 (just compared both of mine side by side) but definitely shorter than the CV35 f/1.2 II, which has a very fat ring in comparison. When I used the 35 on the 5N I didn't really notice an issue, but it also wasn't a lens I used a lot on that camera. How are you usually focusing it? Peaking, magnified view, etc.?
I kind of gave up on peaking for most situations and instead used magnified view because I found that unless working with a very shallow plane of focus, peaking picked up too many areas of high contrast transition that were still out of focus, to make it difficult enough to pick up where the correct plane of focus should be.
For wider angle lenses I found the NEX to be fairly slow to focus accurately at wider apertures because of these reasons, especially compared to a rangefinder camera (though of course the cost of a digital M is very high and has its own range of issues).
Ron
I kind of gave up on peaking for most situations and instead used magnified view because I found that unless working with a very shallow plane of focus, peaking picked up too many areas of high contrast transition that were still out of focus, to make it difficult enough to pick up where the correct plane of focus should be.
For wider angle lenses I found the NEX to be fairly slow to focus accurately at wider apertures because of these reasons, especially compared to a rangefinder camera (though of course the cost of a digital M is very high and has its own range of issues).
Ron
Dec 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM
p.500 #20ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
I used magnified view and peaking most of the time. If the subject isn't moving, I'll turn peaking off. I haven't had great luck with just peaking either, unless the light is just right for it (overcast day, for example).
Even at f5.6 I end up having to fiddle with it more than I expect. Granted, I'm a newb when it comes to manual focus, but it makes me wonder if trying a different lens isn't a bad idea. It just surprises me when a setup with the wonky feel of the Contax G 90 + adapter results in a better experience.
Even at f5.6 I end up having to fiddle with it more than I expect. Granted, I'm a newb when it comes to manual focus, but it makes me wonder if trying a different lens isn't a bad idea. It just surprises me when a setup with the wonky feel of the Contax G 90 + adapter results in a better experience.
Dec 12, 2011 at 12:28 PM