This is really surprising to me. Can you post a 100% crop? My copy of the distagon is significantly sharper at f1.8 than all 3 copies of my rokkor 35/1.8.
This example makes me want Rokkor. Zeiss is great and I use it all the time, but at least in these two shots the Rokkor delivers more punch, makes bolder statement about the subject
Thanks for the comparison. I think it is pretty interesting. I think what you see here mostly is f/1.4 has a lot more blur than f/1.8. The Zeiss is a nicer lens, but it also costs three or four times as much. I am quite happy with my 35 f/1.8 Rokkor, but although mine is good wide open by f/2.8 it is even better. There is a bit of spherical aberrations and veiling flare wide open.
from what I see its the other way around... second pic has the more blur that is also smoother and that's the zeiss pic (unless I'm missing something?).
tell wrote:
I like the Rokkor shot a lot more. Buttery bokeh with the Rokkor at 1.8. Choppy bokeh at 1.4 with the Zeiss.
edit: I misread the labels. Zeiss is way smoother. My bad.
The Rokkor is so much smoother it's on a different planet. I'd imagine that in shots consisting of more than defocussed highlights and a metal pole I'd prefer the Zeiss, but here it's pretty ugly.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
They seem pretty close from this one shot, at least close enough that I'd not spend 10x as much for the Zeiss.
the bokeh difference is pretty staggering - if they were shot at the same aperture. since they're not this just tells me that the rokkor isn't a good f/1.4 replacement.
believe me,
the zeiss was the lens which was most sadly and hard to sell.
but i use the ultron 40/2 much more, simply because
of its low weight.
and if i need great bokeh i use the samyang 85mm
but that a different story ...
rsrsrs wrote:
believe me,
it was the lens which was most sadly and hard to sell.
but i use the ultron 40/2 much more, simply because
of its low weight.
and if i need great bokeh i use the samyang 85mm
but that a different story ...
