So, I've done some first test with the 35/2. Quite a different rendering style from the Makro Planars and a much more useful focal length than the 21. I love it.
Of course as I was to test it, the weather turned crap. First overcast, then rain so these first test photos are not very exciting.
Starting with first ever 35/2 shot.. Already looking at the LCD I was surprised by the spatial qualities of the rendering.
This is one of the few lenses, that when I see a picture it's taken, I know already it's the 35/2 without looking first at the description. It has an extremely characteristic sense of being there, more so than the rest. Your photos definitely bring that to life.
philber wrote:
Congatulations on your new lens, Luka!
Thanks Philippe. Now my Zeiss quartet is complete.
Anden wrote:
Haha! I hate my 21 cap too...
I have a theory about that. You know the experiments with monkeys where they have square and round objects that they are supposed to put into square and round holes.. I strongly suspect that the Zeiss lens caps were designed by a monkey removed from such an experiment because of its terrible performance.
erichard wrote:
This is one of the few lenses, that when I see a picture it's taken, I know already it's the 35/2 without looking first at the description. It has an extremely characteristic sense of being there, more so than the rest. Your photos definitely bring that to life.
Yes, it really does have a striking rendering style. I was actually very surprised to see how much it differs from the 50 & 100 MPs. I think it is more similar in style to the 21/2.8 but that there is still a significant difference in the images because of the difference in focal length. The ultra wide angle makes it more difficult to get the type of realism and spatial style of the 35/2.
denoir wrote:
Funny you should feel that way, Luka. My own opinion is that the 21 and 35 are actually quite different. There is a demonstrative, almost hollywod-esque side to the 21 that makes every shot "dramatic". In contrast, the 35 seems to me much more analytical (the FL plays a part in the difference of perception, of course), where it is impossible not to notice its sharpness. Somehow, I relate that to the 50 and 100MP much more than to the 21.
Still, a very fine lens, without a doubt. But I lay in wait in the hope that Zeiss will release a 35 f:1.4 that will be a bit more like my 50 and 85 f:1.4...Show more →
philber wrote:
Funny you should feel that way, Luka. My own opinion is that the 21 and 35 are actually quite different. There is a demonstrative, almost hollywod-esque side to the 21 that makes every shot "dramatic". In contrast, the 35 seems to me much more analytical (the FL plays a part in the difference of perception, of course), where it is impossible not to notice its sharpness. Somehow, I relate that to the 50 and 100MP much more than to the 21.
Still, a very fine lens, without a doubt. But I lay in wait in the hope that Zeiss will release a 35 f:1.4 that will be a bit more like my 50 and 85 f:1.4...Show more →
Well, I shouldn't judge too quickly as I've only had it for a day now but what struck me immediately with it was the 3D appearance of the images. The Makro Planars have a version of their own, but it's quite different. There it's more a question of ultra sharpness of the region in focus with a graceful DOF falloff into bokeh. Also with the MPs, I basically have to engineer the setup with appropriate distances to get the effect.
The 21 is a bit more complex. I primarily associate the extraction of fine detail with it. Micro contrast rather than resolution. Getting 3D appearance with it is a bit more complicated and you have to play with foreground objects - and preferably arranged in a way that imply perspective.
The 35/2 on the other hand it seems to me can't produce a flat image. You get the 3D depth (almost) regardless of subject distance, aperture and DOF. At the same time I'm not seeing the fine detail of the 21 or the resolution of the MPs. I am however more inclined to put it together with the 21 than the MPs. The latter have a very distinct style shared by both the 50 & 100. The bokeh of the 35/2 is similar in style to what you get from the 21 but quite different from the MPs (of course FL is an important factor here).
Anyway, I was very positively surprised with it because it is not like the other lenses I have. I was sort of expecting a 35mm version of the 50 MP. As great as the MPs are, having two of them is enough so I'm very pleased that the 35 has a style of its own.
I too would love a 35/1.4 and will in the future explore the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. In this first round of Zeiss glass I chose the safe alternatives - that are basically excellent at all apertures and at all ranges. For the next round I'll explore the more specialized f/1.4 lenses. It will wait a bit with that though. I have now purchased four Zeiss ZE lenses in four weeks. (One Zeiss a week to keep the images sleek ) It is time to for me to stop collecting lenses and start using them to properly get to know them
My current lens stats (number of images) for the Zeiss four:
denoir wrote:
Well, I shouldn't judge too quickly as I've only had it for a day now but what struck me immediately with it was the 3D appearance of the images. The Makro Planars have a version of their own, but it's quite different. There it's more a question of ultra sharpness of the region in focus with a graceful DOF falloff into bokeh. Also with the MPs, I basically have to engineer the setup with appropriate distances to get the effect.
The 21 is a bit more complex. I primarily associate the extraction of fine detail with it. Micro contrast rather than resolution. Getting 3D appearance with it is a bit more complicated and you have to play with foreground objects - and preferably arranged in a way that imply perspective.
The 35/2 on the other hand it seems to me can't produce a flat image. You get the 3D depth (almost) regardless of subject distance, aperture and DOF. At the same time I'm not seeing the fine detail of the 21 or the resolution of the MPs. I am however more inclined to put it together with the 21 than the MPs. The latter have a very distinct style shared by both the 50 & 100. The bokeh of the 35/2 is similar in style to what you get from the 21 but quite different from the MPs (of course FL is an important factor here).
Anyway, I was very positively surprised with it because it is not like the other lenses I have. I was sort of expecting a 35mm version of the 50 MP. As great as the MPs are, having two of them is enough so I'm very pleased that the 35 has a style of its own.
I too would love a 35/1.4 and will in the future explore the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. In this first round of Zeiss glass I chose the safe alternatives - that are basically excellent at all apertures and at all ranges. For the next round I'll explore the more specialized f/1.4 lenses. It will wait a bit with that though. I have now purchased four Zeiss ZE lenses in four weeks. (One Zeiss a week to keep the images sleek ) It is time to for me to stop collecting lenses and start using them to properly get to know them
Denoir,
Congrats on your new ZE 35/2 and that is a nice set of ZE lenses you have now.
I don't have the 21 but I agree with Philippe and feel the 35/2 is closer to the 50MP than 50/1.4 because the 35/2 transitions slower from in focus to OOF than the C/Y 35/1.4 that I just got and the bokeh is more like the 50MP. I feel the C/Y 35/1.4 is more like the 50/1.4 in how it transitions quicker to OOF, with more 3-d pop.
But the 35/1.4 doesn't have the wideopen, close focus (like portraits) sharpness problem that the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 seem to have. Bokeh seems to me like 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 style.
I just saw the datasheet for the 35/1.4 and it mentions a floating lens group design as well as using an aspherical element. Is this the only Zeiss lens with an aspherical element?
These are only initial impressions of 35/1.4 and I need to shoot alot more, especially stopped down shots.
Like people mentioned in the 35/1.4 thread, I seem to have a hard time not shooting that lens wideopen.
I think the 35/1.4 has Philippe's and Samuli's name on it.
It seems harder to focus w/ this lens for some reason. The focusing ring is much looser than any other MF lens I've tried. I hope I didn't get a lemon.
Anyways, first shot with the ZE 21 wide open. Sorry I don't know how to post w/ Exif.
I took this around the bend from my apt. in Lafayette, Ca.
I changed the pic, I think the last shot was a bit out of focus.
So, I've done some first test with the 35/2. Quite a different rendering style from the Makro Planars and a much more useful focal length than the 21. I love it.
Of course as I was to test it, the weather turned crap. First overcast, then rain so these first test photos are not very exciting.
Starting with first ever 35/2 shot.. Already looking at the LCD I was surprised by the spatial qualities of the rendering.
Well, I do have one negative comment. What #!@*! idiot designed the lens caps to these things?? It was bad on the 21, horrible on the 50/100 MP and a disaster on the 35/2....Show more →
The location on the last picture looks familiar to me: was it in front of a restaurant in St. Eriksgatan?
Regarding Zeiss' lens caps: you're absolutely right! I share the lens cap of my 90 TS-E with the Zeiss 35 to avoid using the original one...
johnahill wrote:
Just a quick question, anyone here use UV or clear filters to proect their Zeiss glass?
Yeah, I use a fairly cheap Hama 58 mm UV filter on my 35 and 50, but only when it rains. It doesn't seem to do anything bad, except for the usual additional flares when the light is intense. Not a problem when it rains of course.
Edit: BTW, pictures #1 & 2 of the above are shot with the Hama filter attached.
I used Hoya until one day I put one down pn a piece of white paper, and I saw that the colour through the "clear" filter was now off-white. So I switched to B+W, which leaves white paper looking... white.
) It is time to for me to stop collecting lenses and start using them to properly get to know them 
