I should add one thing and that is that the first image I ever shot with the 35/2 made a significant impression on me (as did many of the shots that followed) - something that the 35L never managed to do. I had gone to the bathroom to find some scissors to open the box with the lens so my first test shot was just of a towel. I was however really awestruck by how it popped right on that small camera screen. I had never seen such an effect on such a small screen. This was the image (just resized):
Back to Zeiss Landscapes - use a zoom - grand vistas, hiking, walk around, following the family in the park - the scene is always changing - Contax 24-85 "N" or C/Y 35-70 - add a C/Y 28/2.8 if you need to go wider. The Canon 100/2 - said by many on the Canon Forums to be 95% of the 135 "L" - with much more manageable FL - you'll still have a few bucks left to add a Samyang 85/1.4 if you want a more intimate lens for portraits.
The zeiss ZE 35/2 obviously is one of the best. The runner up would be the Leica R 35/2 ROM version or the late serial pre-ROM version which shares the same identical optics and coating as the ROM version which you can get for cheaper than the ZE 35/2.
If you want the sharpest landscape and sports telephoto lens, you should also consider the Canon zoom 70-200/ F4 IS and F2.8 IS mk2 (sharper than 135L at 2.8 plus 4 stop IS ) . It is far more useful than just one focal length.
I have both lenses, and I'm going to make them my light weight walk around lens kit.
Haven't used the zeiss 35 much, but so far I like it. The 135L OTOH I've it for quite some time now and I really love it. AF is really fast it won't have problem keeping up with kids, sharp and I love the bokeh it produces.
What I don't like about it, due to the focal length I have to keep the shutter speed high at least 1/200, cause I don't have steady hands.
So, IMHO those lenses (35 and 135) will make a really nice kit. The alternative to 135L is canon's 100 f/2.
Ok, I went back and forth on this several times yesterday and here is what I will do:
35mm:
[1]: Collect and bookmark all links to sample images with the Zeiss
[2]: Rent out and try the 35L for a week. I will be doing some long hikes next month. I will see how the Canon performs at apertures from 1.4 to 2.8 and at distances from MFD to 5m. I know the Zeiss will do well in this, but if the Canon impresses me, then good. : Wait for a while!
--> Lloyd Chambers has got a 35mm f/1.4 prototype from Zeiss and is due to comment/test it by the end of the month. Might be moot for me since the price is ~ $1800 USD [approx]
--> Samyang 35 f1.4 is announced. No samples, pricing info yet. I don't expect it to outshine the Zeiss or the 35L, but I am stopping myself from jumping to that conclusion - have to reserve my judgement until I know better :-)
---> Canon may/may not announce the 35L II. Even if they did, it would be close to $1800 [speculating]. so it is ruled out for me anyway :-)
So really the only thing I am waiting for is to validate for the Samyang's performance [good or bad].That way I won't feel like a dummy after I've spent 1k on the prime contenders!!
135/100mm:
The 100 C/Y Planar is definitely interesting and is good enough for me to stop and consider it properly! I lose autofocus though [some concern] and there is 35mm of FL difference [fine with me]. I read more about it on pebbleplace.com . The author is actually is located pretty close to where I live - got to contact him!! Some good info and great pictures there.
The author says he observed that the 100mm f/2 planar had shallower DoF than the 135mm f/2 despite that being counter-intuitive to an extent. He also observed that the older C/Y planar gave a more 3d rendering than the 100 MP ZE. He did say that his observation might be due to his limited time with the MP more than anything else. I don't want to dive in to a DoF/FoV/framing discussion right away, but I do have to read the Zeiss article on the same. I would still be interested in trying this lens. Sadly I can't rent it from any of the common places
The 100 C/Y Planar is definitely interesting and is good enough for me to stop and consider it properly! I lose autofocus though [some concern] and there is 35mm of FL difference [fine with me]. I read more about it on pebbleplace.com . The author is actually is located pretty close to where I live - got to contact him!! Some good info and great pictures there.
The author says he observed that the 100mm f/2 planar had shallower DoF than the 135mm f/2 despite that being counter-intuitive to an extent. He also observed that the older C/Y planar gave a more 3d rendering than the 100 MP ZE. He did say that his observation might be due to his limited time with the MP more than anything else. I don't want to dive in to a DoF/FoV/framing discussion right away, but I do have to read the Zeiss article on the same. I would still be interested in trying this lens. Sadly I can't rent it from any of the common places
Just a personal experience on this decision problem: I had both lenses for a longer period at the same time and tried to figure out which of these lenses fits my shooting style better and in contrast to the 35mm decision this has been a surprising easy one: I kept the 135L and sold the C/Y 100. Not that the C/Y isn't a good lens, it is very good, but the 135L was just better for wide open sharpness, for color rendition (to my liking at least), CA wide open (especially outside the focus frame) and for bokeh. The C/Y shines under certain circumstances stopped down. The 135L shines in about every respect. And AF for a long lens was much more important for me than in a wide lens. The keeper rate from the 135L was so much higher for me. The 135L also excels as a quasi-macro and has a lower MFD than the Zeiss.And if I look through published sample pictures, I've seen a lot of very good 135mm pictures, but except the few popular and very good pebblesplace pictures, I haven't seen many good samples from the 100mm (especially wide open and 100% crops). Maybe my copy of the 100mm (mint MM-version) was sub-par (on a high level), but I've yet to be convinced by good direct comparison examples.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Could you please post some comparison pics, if possible? [I am finding it difficult to setup a side-by-side evaluation]
Last year when I had the 135L, I almost always shot it at f/2 and wasn't disappointed. And yes, AF on a longer lens does indeed become increasingly useful.
Is there any known difference (IQ-wise) between the AE and the MM versions of the C/Y? I remember reading somewhere that Zeiss no longer services MM versions.
Abhi, I haven't done any systematic comparisons between both lenses - its just my experience from using both lenses in different situations. I scrolled through some of my 100mm photos and its easily the lens with the most OOF-pictures that I ever had, which confirms the finding that its DOF is very shallow. Although with live-view (which I didn't have at that time) this shouldn't be a big problem, at least for static motives.
I haven't heard of any differences between AE and MM versions. Actually I don't now for sure if there exists an AE version for this lens at all. In general, if there's a difference between AE and MM versions, the MM versions have better coatings.
Ulff wrote:
Abhi, I haven't done any systematic comparisons between both lenses - its just my experience from using both lenses in different situations. I scrolled through some of my 100mm photos and its easily the lens with the most OOF-pictures that I ever had, which confirms the finding that its DOF is very shallow. Although with live-view (which I didn't have at that time) this shouldn't be a big problem, at least for static motives.
I haven't heard of any differences between AE and MM versions. Actually I don't now for sure if there exists an AE version for this lens at all. In general, if there's a difference between AE and MM versions, the MM versions have better coatings....Show more →
So it isn't just me? I have the hardest time focusing with my 100/2 even with AF confirm or Eg-S screen. So many OOF pictures... I think the OOF transition drops off pretty rapidly which doesn't help
abhijeeth wrote:
I tried this lens out in a local store on a 5d2 and although my "trial" was short, I saw enough to be happy with it . But I found the focusing ring too stiff and the throw disappointingly shorter than the generous throw of the 21 ZE . I haven't heard any complaints of this online, so I am wondering if it is typical or if I ended up playing with a lemon sample?
Anyway, has anybody used it for photographing kids? I expect that to be challenging; trying to get correct focus manually, even with the Eg-S screen. IMHO, this might be my main difficulty when using this lens. This is the only thing that makes me wonder if I should rather get the AF capabilities and the relatively flat, (but otherwise good)clinical performance of the 35L? Sigh! Decisions, decisions! ...Show more →
Have a ZF 35/2, ring is not stiff. Little bit stiffer than my nikkor MF glass....but those are much older and more broken in.
Kid shooting....will be hard. TBH I still keep an AF capable 35mm lens around for shooting my kid (had the AF before the zeiss for many years). On a good day, he might give me 2 seconds of sitting still before seeing my camera and crawling over with super human speed. Only a problem close range. Is the cheat of putting your moving subjects out to infinity for not so close range. At that point not much focus adjustment needed.
hidden_Markov wrote:
Have a ZF 35/2, ring is not stiff. Little bit stiffer than my nikkor MF glass....but those are much older and more broken in.
Kid shooting....will be hard. TBH I still keep an AF capable 35mm lens around for shooting my kid (had the AF before the zeiss for many years). On a good day, he might give me 2 seconds of sitting still before seeing my camera and crawling over with super human speed. Only a problem close range. Is the cheat of putting your moving subjects out to infinity for not so close range. At that point not much focus adjustment needed. ...Show more →
Lol w.r.t photographing kids. Thanks for the comment about the stiffness too.
[phidong]: perhaps the fast transition from in focus to OOF is why it may have a more of a 3D pop ?
[markus]: No problem w.r.t comparision tests. Your opinions and observations were still very helpful.
