It would be interesting to see a comparative analysis of these lenses. One thing that stands out, is that the lenses designed in the digital era are noticeably bigger than those designed in the film era. The optical designs of the ZE and the Nikon are really similar in length with the Nikon (apparently from these images) sits closer to the film plane. The difference in weight between the 2 is most like due to different barrel construction materials.
Jan 19, 2011 at 10:09 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
denoir wrote:
It's 76mm with lens caps while the Zeiss is 120mm without lens caps. Yes indeed, for an SLR 35/1.4 it can be considered fairly compact. Not light, but compact - about the same size of the old Zeiss 35/1.4 or the newer Zeiss 35/2.
You are wrong. The Zeiss is not 120 without lens caps. Just read on their website.
The one thing you can see immediately is that the new Zeiss is the most "digital ready" of them all. Most of the increase in length comes from the increased exit pupil distance.
If you do a quick trace of the lens in your head you will see that it's basically an extended planar - classic double Gauss (looks to be around ~60-70mm), with two field flatteners closest to the aperture, and a split last element - with a wide converter stuck to the front end...
-As is the Leica. Look closer and you'll see a carbon copy of the Zeiss Contarex 55/1.4 from 1958 (the last six elements), with a very stock-looking 4-element wide-converter in front... :-)
I'd also like to see a more thorough examination/comparison of the four (five if you include the Canon). Considering the prohibitive cost, that seems unlikely though.
Lotusm50 wrote:
It would be interesting to see a comparative analysis of these lenses. One thing that stands out, is that the lenses designed in the digital era are noticeably bigger than those designed in the film era. The optical designs of the ZE and the Nikon are really similar in length with the Nikon (apparently from these images) sits closer to the film plane. The difference in weight between the 2 is most like due to different barrel construction materials.
that definitely looks a bit more reasonable than ~120mm. how much of the nikons deeper extension towards the 'film' plane is counteracted by nikons longer registration distance?
Jan 19, 2011 at 11:59 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Doesn't the Contax lens extend when focusing also ?
i believe they all contain floating elements (not positive about the leica but both zeisses do). this doesn't necessarily mean there is no extension, but it is probably not a large extension. i assume somebody with actual experience with the lenses can chime in.
theSuede wrote:
My first reaction to the size as reported by numbers was .."WHAT??!!?"
Then i simmered down and realized that the measurements were all wrong. No way the mockup I saw was that big. Then I read the ENTIRE SENTENCE in the Zeiss data flyer, and my eyes stuck on the phrase:
-"....including end caps...."
Ah......
The real length of the lens is ~96mm. Not 122mm, as the initial report says. Still freaking huge for a DSLR 35mm lens (but in filmatic lenses so tiny that you'd be afraid that it should fly away in the breeze if shooting outdoors...)
I made this comparison a bit quickly, but i think I got the individual scales right. The numbers are correct in any way. ...Show more →
Hmm. Yes, you seem to be right. It's the Canon measurements that were without the lens caps (112 mm for the 135L).
A very simple way of "simulating" the size of the new 35 is to take your 100 MP and focus to about 1.5 meters. It will give you a length of 120mm with lens caps:
From left to right Zeiss 35/1.4 Rollei, Zeiss 35/2 ZE, Zeiss 100 MP extended to the size of the new 35/1.4 ZE, 21/2.8 ZE.
The 100 MP weigs 200 g less than the new 35.
theSuede wrote:
If you do a quick trace of the lens in your head you will see that it's basically an extended planar - classic double Gauss (looks to be around ~60-70mm), with two field flatteners closest to the aperture, and a split last element - with a wide converter stuck to the front end...
It's a Distagon, so it it's per definition a retrofocus lens - i.e. inverted tele. Zeiss also produces non-retrofocus designs such as the Biogons.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Thanks theSuede, 96mm sounds much more reasonable!
Still lighter than my beloved heavyweight Zeiss lens, the ZA 135/1.8
which is 89x115 and 1050g.
115m with lens caps. So it's slightly shorter than the 35/1.4 ZE which is 120mm with lens caps.
denoir wrote:
115m with lens caps. So it's slightly shorter than the 35/1.4 ZE which is 120mm with lens caps.
Are we talking lens cap or lens shade?
The ZA 135/1.8 measures about 112mm without lens cap, 115mm with lens cap, and ~180mm with lens hood on.
The difference between 120mm and 96mm for the new 35/1.4 must be due to lens shade, not the lens cap, right?
Personally I was hoping for something like the old Zeiss 35/1.4 but with ZE mount and the benefits that come with that. I don't need improved corners and am willing to live with a few sacrifices to keep the size down, as long as I get the Zeiss colors and contrast. I understand that others have other priorities though.
I think that I'll get one of the old 35/1.4s instead, and keep my 35L.
denoir, you need a new ruler, that one looks to be a relic from school days.
pdm, is the Rollei version significantly better in the corners than the regular Contax 1.4/35 Distagon? Because the Contax vsn MTF sheet does not give much confidence that this lens is up to much for corner-critical landscape work, with a big drop off the cliff for 40lpmm before even the long edge is reached (@f5.6).
Non-tele lens length does not matter that much within reasonable bounds, it's more its balance that suffers, especially for moderate weight/size bodies. I guess CZ figured Canon and Nikon are in the business of building massive DSLRs (the 5dII is an honourable exception) so why not get on board and make mass a low order priority.
Consider a Sony A900 plus Contax 1.4/35mm is ~1500 grams, a Canon D60 with ZE 1.4/35mm is all of ~1700 grams (for a crop sensor cam), and a Nikon D700 with Zf 1.4/35 will tip the scales at an alarming 1925 grams, and 50 grams more if Lloyd's 900 gram figure is correct...
It all feeds into tripod/head loads also - I find around 1800g-2kg is a critical threshold for IQ and handling with lightish heads, especially for verticals. Ironically, the new one looks pretty good at f4 and should make a much better detailed landscape (tripod) lens than the predecessor for sure by f5.6-f8, strange FC notwithstanding, and leaving character differences out of it.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Are we talking lens cap or lens shade?
The ZA 135/1.8 measures about 112mm without lens cap, 115mm with lens cap, and ~180mm with lens hood on.
The difference between 120mm and 96mm for the new 35/1.4 must be due to lens shade, not the lens cap, right?
Lens cap not shade. The new 35/1.4 Distagon is 120 (infinity) -122 (MFD) mm with lens caps.
I'm skeptical to the 96mm w/o lens caps number. It doesn't add up. It should be at least 105 mm w/o lens caps.
You should probably measure from the lens mount as the rear elements will be inside the camera body.
Actually looked at Lloyd's preview and he mentions the length of 120mm.
So it is what it is.
He mentions that zeiss claim a long focus throw for this lens for pin point focusing.
Wonder if that is some of the cause in the long length?
