OneAnt wrote:
I don't know why you lads are having so much trouble telling the zf35 from the 28 ...the 35 is for the head, the 28 is for the heart. And for those that think the zf35 is a close enough approximation to 28mm, it's not.
Yes it's at least the right focal length. I never felt in touch with my Canon 35L when outdoors.
First impression:
Plenty of resolution
Colors look right
Zeiss 3D
Bit more contrast than I'm used to with my Canons
Flare and ghosting are almost non existent when shooting into the sun.
Lens is medium/small. Bit like a Canon 85/1.8
Lens is built like a tank
I have to pull the "blacks" lever in Lightroom down from default 5 to 0-3 depending on subject.
Hopefully I will be able to shoot aurora in the next few days. I'm hoping I can shoot at f/2 for higher shutter speed and greater redition of the aurora.
j.liam wrote:
Who tests a lens without CRC and expects it to function in that fashion and then serves this up as the major caviat on the optic?
I can observe that my Nikkor 14-24 is a poor macro lens but the comment would be asinine and immaterial. Or to quote an old Yiddish adage, "If my grandmother had wheels, she could have been a trolley car".
True all, but remember that the ZF 35 is a floating element(CRC) lens after all. Zeiss failed to include mention of it in their literature for the first year or so, but now it's there...and, I checked mine when the subject came up recently elsewhere, and as you turn the focusing ring, you can see some of the internal elements move relative to each other. I then carried the ZF 35 on a few hikes in the desert southwest, and used it for very close shots of lichen on rocks, etc, and it's pretty good close up(say 1:10 down to 1:5 or so.). As good as the ZF50MP or ZF100MP? No, not that good...but...useable nonetheless.
I just love that your 1st pic is one to blow the wigs off.
That pic is absolutely the zf28 ...its like a familiar face.
I wish I had your confidence, when I bought the zf35 I was so unsure and as you know there is much pressure to go to the 35. The 28 is my favorite of the ZFs. I bought both which is not a bad thing and to some measure it saved me from the "No its not" - "Yes it is" battles that are fought online.
Its a hard one to recommend over the 35. The 35 is very matter of fact but the 28 is what your dreams look like while you sleep. (take that PZ)
I order them as 28,21,100,50/2,35 ...
but I suspect(know) your favorite would be the 21, try to resist as long as you can but eventually you will give in (grin). I would even suggest that it was designed with you in mind.
OneAnt wrote:
the 28 is what your dreams look like while you sleep.
Please show that in the Z* thread (or dedicated thread) then. I would really like to see it. Some of philber's images in that thread looked good, and so does Hrannar's shot here, but they don't make me think what you're saying here.
AhamB wrote:
Please show that in the Z* thread (or dedicated thread) then. I would really like to see it. Some of philber's images in that thread looked good, and so does Hrannar's shot here, but they don't make me think what you're saying here.
I think many of my dreams would not be suitable for showing in public! ...ehhumm!
Keith B. wrote:
True all, but remember that the ZF 35 is a floating element(CRC) lens after all. Zeiss failed to include mention of it in their literature for the first year or so, but now it's there...and, I checked mine when the subject came up recently elsewhere, and as you turn the focusing ring, you can see some of the internal elements move relative to each other. I then carried the ZF 35 on a few hikes in the desert southwest, and used it for very close shots of lichen on rocks, etc, and it's pretty good close up(say 1:10 down to 1:5 or so.). As good as the ZF50MP or ZF100MP? No, not that good...but...useable nonetheless. ...Show more →
Well, if it does have the correction and they haven't mentioned it, perhaps they feel that at that close range, it isnt up to the Zeiss standard and simply gloss over it.
The photos with the 28 are strikingly evocative! I can't say my sample behaved in such an exemplary fashion but it may have been my single sample.
j.liam wrote:
For shooting at f/5.6-11, far cheaper options abound & are likely just as good at small apertures. To me, the whole point of an expensive, fast, sharp lens is to tap into its high-resolution while shooting at wide-open apertures.
I have to disagree. I've shot with cheaper 28's and more expensive 28's. The microcontrast + sharpness in this lens produces quite interesting images in 35mm, especially with slow slide film, and without softness in the corners. I have Mamiya and Hasselblad MF wide angle images that might be sharper, but then they are medium format. I haven't used the Leica 28mm M or R's. I have owned and used the Leica 35/2 M (circa 1980's) and I'll take the Zeiss ZF 35/2 - which I currently have.
When using a film based SLR, one of the reasons for using a fast lens is to be able to see through the viewfinder.
One important difference between the 35/2 and the 28/2, which may seem obvious, is that for a given view, focus, and f-stop, the depth of focus is larger with the 28/2. If you're shooting a landscape at f8 with the 28/2, trees in the distance will be sharp as well as the branch 6 feet away. With the 35/2, the branch will be sharp but the trees in the distance will not be.
carlitos wrote:
I have to disagree. I've shot with cheaper 28's and more expensive 28's. The microcontrast + sharpness in this lens produces quite interesting images in 35mm, especially with slow slide film, and without softness in the corners. I have Mamiya and Hasselblad MF wide angle images that might be sharper, but then they are medium format. I haven't used the Leica 28mm M or R's. I have owned and used the Leica 35/2 M (circa 1980's) and I'll take the Zeiss ZF 35/2 - which I currently have.
When using a film based SLR, one of the reasons for using a fast lens is to be able to see through the viewfinder.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Not sure about "much better" but they're definitely "very different".
It's just a matter of taste really. People buy Zeiss for the way it renders color and contrast. For some the extra stop and auto focus is worth more, for some it's not. Both lenses are excellent, I had the 35L before getting the 2/28 ZE and it's amazingly different to use the lenses. I've also found it's rather easy to find focus with the Zeiss, even in darkness (with 1Ds2). Yesterday I was shooting indoors with a bounced flash in very low ambient light but was able to nail focus about 80%, witch is not far off the rate AF lenses. The 35L still is a great lens, but I don't miss it.
I would really like to see it. Some of philber's images in that thread looked good, and so does Hrannar's shot here, but they don't make me think what you're saying here.
