The question many people here is asking, is probably whether the ZE has lost the special traits of the CZ. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the ZE will in my opinion be more of a mainstream lens, and the CZ a niche lens for connoisseurs.
Some people with regret this, and other people will be happy. I see myself in the happy camp.
Hmm. To be honest the MTF chart at f/1.4 is good but certainly not exceptional. From the MTF charts one can see that it significantly lags behind the Leica 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH and subsequently also the new Nikon 35/1.4 in wide open sharpness.
Zeiss seems to have managed to get a pretty good performance across the whole frame but nothing really astounding.
Now, sharpness wide open is in my opinion one of the less important factors of a 35/1.4. Yes, it should not be soft, but it doesn't have to be über-sharp. You won't be shooting landscapes at infinity with it wide open. The older Contax/Rollei isn't extremely sharp at f/1.4, but it's not soft either. So to me the biggest issue with the new ZE is its size and weight. If they have not insisted on taking the lead in sharpness, why the massive size?
Take a look at this image, these are my 35mm primes plus the Canon 135L which is approximately the size of the new 35/14 Distagon ZE (the Zeiss is actually about one cm longer):
From left to right, Zeiss 35/2 Biogon ZM, Leica 35/2 Summilux-M ASPH, Zeiss 35/1.4 Rollei, Zeiss 35/2 Distagon ZE and the Canon 135/2.
It's kind of absurd to have moderate manual focus wide angle that is larger than a tele lens with an AF motor. I really don't get what Zeiss was thinking, but I know they are pretty good at what they do. So I suppose there must be a reason for the size/weight that has not been discovered yet. Judging from the MTF charts, it's definitely not about sharpness.
Actually some people like me would love to shoot city/landscapes wide open with 35/1.4 lens. If I would use 35mm lens stopped down, my CY 35/2.8 is sharp enough for 50cm wide prints. Also other kind of low dof shots tend to be more interesting when the sharp portion is not in the middle of the frame. Including half body portraits and nude shots.
I plan to wait for good tests about border sharpness of the new ZE 35/1.4 and the new Samyang 35/1.4 before making any shopping decisions. Hope they are both better than the 35L
denoir wrote:
Hmm. To be honest the MTF chart at f/1.4 is good but certainly not exceptional. From the MTF charts one can see that it significantly lags behind the Leica 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH and subsequently also the new Nikon 35/1.4 in wide open sharpness.
MTF-figures of Nikon-lenses are never real world values, but are calculated (the theoretically optimal results based on the design), so these numbers can't be compared with those of the Zeiss.
alundeb wrote:
Is the summilux ASPH available as R?
Otherwise, it is of little interest for Canon users to compare with that lens.
There is a Leica 35mm Summilux-R, but it's not ASPH as far as I know. The design (and measured MTF) will be completely different from the Summilux-M I'm sure.
wiseguy010 wrote:
MTF-figures of Nikon-lenses are never real world values, but are calculated (the theoretically optimal results based on the design), so theses numbers can't be compared with those of the Zeiss.
Not only that but if I am not mistaken Zeiss actually stands by their MTF charts and every lens must be very close to the published charts or else it doesn't get approved. we know very well that companies that are publishing theoretical MTF charts can have very varied REAL MTF results because of lower quality checks.
Anyway, why mentioning only NIkon 35mm if MTF is that important? Canon 35/1.4L looks much better than both, doesn't it?
trdonja wrote:
Anyway, why mentioning only NIkon 35mm if MTF is that important? Canon 35/1.4L looks much better than both, doesn't it?
Sorry - No.
The Canon blue lines represent f/8 and none of the others show f/8.
The Canon black lines represent 10 lp/mm (thick) and 30 lp/mm (thin), whereas the Zeiss MTF are at 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm. The Zeiss 30 lp/mm MTF can be interpolated between 20 and 40, and will certainly not be worse than Canon.
Hm, silly by me, I assument Canon was wide open as well. I would expect to have the wide open MTF if only ONE was published. You are right... are there any MTF charts that can be compared to Nikon?
AhamB wrote:
There is a Leica 35mm Summilux-R, but it's not ASPH as far as I know. The design (and measured MTF) will be completely different from the Summilux-M I'm sure.
Leica 35mm Summilux-R is ASPH but not marketed as such (Per Thrice). Regardless, per Putt "But also compared to the current Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. the performance attainable in practise is almost equal. The M-version shows somewhat better definition and the very fine structural details only at the outer zones ." Note that "current Lux M" is now the older version.
I have bought Canon 35mm 1.4L, Zeiss ZE 35mm f2, Zeiss 35mm 1.4, and Leica 35mm R 1.4 and AB tests (but not all 4 at the same time). My preference? I shaved my 5D Mk2's mirror so that I can use Leica 35mm 1.4 R.
Nope. Never "compare" two maker's MTF graphs without putting on your BS-filtered spectacles.
Canon - Theoretical maximum, limited light bandwidth (green light), no diffraction effect and 10/30 @ wide open & F/8
Nikon - Theoretical maximum, D-weighted light (daylight), no diffraction effect and 10/30 @ wide open
Leica - Theoretical maximum, D-weighted light (with extreme ends brick-wall filtered it seems), with diffraction and 10/20/40 @ WO and F/5.6 (or F/8 if it's a slow lens)
Zeiss - Measured on actual lens, D-weighted light at 10/20/40 @ WO and F/5.6 (or F/8 if it's a slow lens)
Olympus seem to follow the Nikon methodology, but they give you the 20/60 lp/mm TF's in stead (as the lens needs to be twice at sharp, their sensors being half-size).
I don't have the measured Summi-M 35 MTF here, but I can ask for them. Just like all other Leica MTF's, they will be a lot worse than the official graphs.
theSuede wrote:
Nope. Never "compare" two maker's MTF graphs without putting on your BS-filtered spectacles.
...
I don't have the measured Summi-M 35 MTF here, but I can ask for them. Just like all other Leica MTF's, they will be a lot worse than the official graphs.
Interesting. So how does one go about finding actual measured MTF curves?
abam wrote: "...the Canon 135L which is approximately the size of the new 35/14 Distagon ZE (the Zeiss is actually about one cm longer)..."
the new distagon is larger than a 135L? great googly moogly.
