philip_pj wrote:
...
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).
...
Maybe so, or maybe the adapter or digital makes a difference? Here's two FF, first with the Kodak SLR/c, second pic Canon 5DII:
Xavier Rival wrote:
Just found some pricing news on this lens; it definetely does not deserve another thread, so I'd rather post it here, I hope it is not inappropriate.
I just saw a French store offering the ZE 1.4 and quoting a price : 1961 euros !!!
I usually find this store offers quite decent prices, but am shocked at this one. At this store, I expected it to be closer to 1500 than to 2000 for sure. Lesson (1): I will probably pass on this one, there is no way I would get a 2k lens (I will get a 85ZE or a Canon 135/2 before); Lesson (2): I am extremely happy I got my 35ZE a couple of months ago; that lens is actually becoming my favorite......Show more →
This store can be expensive when they have an "exclusive", or cheap (by French photo market standards) when they need to compete on price with traditional stores. So I am not surprised to see the lens at that price, and I can get it for less, hould I want one (I guess I do, but I need to see some pics and get reacquainted with a 850g lens. My guess is, if I get it, my 28 will go, which will save me some space and weight. Because I will only get it if it is remarkable, meaning that my 28 would get a lot less work from then on...
Thanks for your insight, Philippe and Lars.
I was aware this store could be quite cheap (I bought my 21 ZE there, at a great price), but not that it could be quite expensive on items they can provide while most other stores can't.
I had not checked fotokonijnenberg for a while, and that was the first price I saw on the 35ZE/1.4. Now, the links you all provided are more in line with my initial expectations. I will not rule it out then, but would really have to be convinced by the quality of the lens (I often wish I could open my 35ZE beyond f/2, but have a hard time justifying the price and am not really prepared to the weight). I will see (this thread is very interesting read actually).
pdmphoto wrote:
Maybe so, or maybe the adapter or digital makes a difference? Here's two FF, first with the Kodak SLR/c, second pic Canon 5DII:
Those MTF curves are flat-field, not optimal field.
This means that if you have a curved field of focus (as most lenses have, especially <85mm lenses) then the chart doesn't show you the "maximum" sharpness of the lens. Since the lens is tested at infinity focus distance, you COULD make an educated guess at that it would show a very much better corner result if you measured the corners at 300m focusing distance and the center at infinity distance.
The result is that in pictures like your samples, you don' see that "defect" very much since there will be something at "the right distance" looking very sharp - even in the extreme corners.
An extremely curved field might be a problem in a real photo, normal amounts of curvature doesn't really show that much until you really know what to look for - and then it's mostly of academic interest. Unless you do art-repro of course... And in 40lp/mm measurements!
+1
I have both zf 35/2 and CZ 35/1.4 and I was pleasantly surprised at how good the 35/1.4 was at stopped down landscape shooting once I got the right thickness adapter, as the one that came with the lens didn't allow proper infinity focus.
Nice shots Paul! Need to travel north sometime and explore Oregon.
The two 35's have different rendering and especially different through-focus transition rates which affect DOF and subject 3-d ness/isolation.Jury is still out on the rendering of the new 35/1.4 but we should hopefully know soon.
Lotusm50 wrote:
That's the one. I'm going to have to find out how much they cost. There are a couple of manufacturers of similar test benches, but I think Zeiss would be the way to go. ;-).
and
theSuede wrote:
There are other testbenches to try, CI-systems, TriOptics, Wells, and several German/Austrian manufacturers make manual systems that you can land for a fraction of the price of a complete automated K8 system. I don't have a quote for the K8 since it varies greatly with configuration, and is "on quote only". But yes, if you have to ask....
Just to conclude this tangent of the discussion, I asked Zeiss for a price quote on the K8 lens testing station and I just got a response. The K8 Lens Tester costs 194.700,- Euros. There are a few options which are: Image height measuring option, 4.100,-; Azimuth measuring option, 4.100,-; Collimator option 150mm f= 1.2m, 7.800,-; Collimator option 150mm f= 2.25m; "on request". So in US Dollars, figure about $280K. That's not as bad as I expected. Its not cheap, but should be do-able.
The K9 is less than half of that, but has a lot less flexibility (and it's also bech-mountable - not a bench in it's own right...)
200K Euro isn't really a cost that you can swing as a "normal" magazine or reviewing centre, most of the reviewing centres that magazines use for testing have simplified this down to the use of camera-based measurements unfortunately. Even the large international magazines have reverted to this kind of testing - all a part of cost-cutting actions to make the magazines survive.
There's only a few outposts left, and the swedish mag "Foto" is one of them. My only regret with Foto right now is that they only PUBLISH 20lp/mm for FF lenses (30lp/mm if DX/crop only lenses, 40lp/mm if 4/3 format lenses). I have access to the complete measurements in some cases, but are under strict orders not to relay anything. They (the measurements) are their intellectual property (as is the old Photodo database) - and rightly so since they pay for them.
Well, I guessed around 100.000 EUR purely looking at the components on the table. I have to admit that I have really no clue what the optical component cost. Another question is how they price in the software part.
One interesting point I got from the spec sheet:
They quote a 5% repeatability. That'll usually mean you'd have to have at least 25% tolerance.
Note: I wrote that before theSuede's answer. How does the K9 differ from the K8?
You could say (I've built stuff like this) that the construction of the bench in itself (with motors, linears and frame, without optical components) and the setup/nivelation/calibration of the mechanical parts are at least 40-60.000 of the price. The K9 has one degree of freedom less (on-axis only measurements) and therefore it has a lot less complex mechanical setup.
The measurement repeatability is normally 1%, and 5% is the maximum spec. As far as I know this isn't some sort of dream value - stuff transfered from Germany to us typically stay within 2% MTF differences (0.02 contrast units) - worst case. This is largely negligible.
The optical components? You could buy the mountings and the glass for ~5000€, including a linear slide. This is the collimator part, not the measurement part.
I hope to have done my testing before that, because there is no way that I am am going for this of weight, bulk and cost unless I really like the result clearly more than what I would get from replacing my f:2.0.
But yes, if it is that good, and I have a feeling that it is, then it will make it to the Lofoten.
abam wrote:
so, it's not sharper than the competition, it's roughly just as expensive, it's relatively large and heavy and would require that i give up AF.
does it come with bacon?
Wide open, it will have much better microcontrast than the Canon 35 1.4.
abam wrote:
so, it's not sharper than the competition, it's roughly just as expensive, it's relatively large and heavy and would require that i give up AF.
does it come with bacon?
On what do you base your statment that it's not sharper than the competition?
