denoir wrote:
Indeed. 112 mm (135L) vs 120mm (35/1.4 ZE).
Wow, that does kind of suck. I love how Zeiss lenses render but I'll have to rent one, and it will have to be awesome, for me to purchase it over the new Nikon. That size is ridiculous.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Well, that's the plan. Get rich first, then buy the $7k M9 -- it would only make sense to me when $7K no longer seems like a great deal of money.
agreed, since i've taken a vow of poverty i'm hoping for some non-leica company making a mirrorless FF non-rangefinder i can stick leica or equiv lenses on.
pdmphoto wrote:
Indeed, that is the main reason I sold my Zeiss ZE 21. I can't imagine having a 21/35/100ZE kit? Great performance but the size and weight are over the top for me. I'll keep the Nikon 20/4, Rollei 35/1.4, and Olympus 90/2 as smaller lighter alternatives.
This made me smile. I find the 21, 35/2 and 100MP to be so much more compact (and lighter) than my canon 16-35, 24-70, 70-200. Obviously not quite a similar comparison (zooms/primes) but a matter of where you came from and what you're used to.
Jan 17, 2011 at 08:03 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
ulrikft2 wrote:
I know, I just prefer manual focus over af. But in this case I might have to rethink that strategy. Both of the competing lenses are bigger, heavier and in general more clumsy.
When it comes to look, I'm not that big a fan of the "general" zeiss-look. I like what people do with the 35 1.4 though, and I would love to have a go at it. To me, the 35 1.4 (old version) seems a bit atypical zeiss, but I guess most people would disagree with me there.
I suspect that the new zeiss 35 1.4 and the nikon 35 1.4 af-s will have a very similar look, the samples posted from both so far indicate that at least. ...Show more →
You might also want to wait for the Samyang 35 1.4, that is supposed to come out next month. It is significantly smaller, 600g, so in the size range of the Nikon and given their track record, it seems to me Samyang is worth considering.
sebboh wrote:
there's no kit from leitax for it but from what i've seen of the mount and design the contax 35/1.4 should be as convertable to nikon as your rokkor 58/1.2.
There is the m42 "solution" (for the Contax 35/1.4 and 85/1.4), but that doesn't give you infinity on Nikon, unfortunately.
Hmm, that would be sub-par for me. I guess the Samyang might be an alternative, but the close focus issues I have with the 85 (it does not focus close :P ) makes me a it hesitant. As I understand it, the 35 1.4 from Samyang also is bad when it comes to minimum focusing distance?
ulrikft2 wrote:
Hmm, that would be sub-par for me. I guess the Samyang might be an alternative, but the close focus issues I have with the 85 (it does not focus close :P ) makes me a it hesitant. As I understand it, the 35 1.4 from Samyang also is bad when it comes to minimum focusing distance?
rji2goleez wrote:
This made me smile. I find the 21, 35/2 and 100MP to be so much more compact (and lighter) than my canon 16-35, 24-70, 70-200. Obviously not quite a similar comparison (zooms/primes) but a matter of where you came from and what you're used to.
But you don't have the ZE 35/1.4
I actually liked the Canon 16-35II for it's weight and size - compared to the Zeiss 21/2.8. Pair the Zeiss ZE 21 and 35mm primes and the Canon zoom is downright light by comparison.
Jan 17, 2011 at 10:37 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
ulrikft2 wrote:
But from the front of the glass, not the sensor. Making it closer to 40-50cm in reality, as I understand it. That is how they measure it on the 85mm.
I don't know. The 35mm has a floating element so should be a lot better for close focus than the 85mm that doesn't have one. I suspect that it will be a real .3m, but we will have to wait and see.
To date, the lens coatings on the Samyangs seem to be pre-1980's. I know they are listed as being MC, but the (visual) color of the coatings and performance in bright light are not impressive. That keeps me from being too interested in any of their offerings.
AhamB wrote:
There is the m42 "solution" (for the Contax 35/1.4 and 85/1.4), but that doesn't give you infinity on Nikon, unfortunately.
i asked david from leitax about that, it seems that the m42 solution isn't due something about the lenses not being compatible with a sony or nikon conversion. he just made m42 one to allow as many different mounts as possible with one kit. obviously the standard contax to nikon conversion kit won't work on the lenses but i think from looking at the description of the m42 conversion that it should be possible to make a custom one for nikon.
pdmphoto wrote:
To date, the lens coatings on the Samyangs seem to be pre-1980's. I know they are listed as being MC, but the (visual) color of the coatings and performance in bright light are not impressive. That keeps me from being too interested in any of their offerings.
Basically, either the new 35mm f:1.4 is at least as good as its 21mm and 100mm siblings, or even better, and then a number of us will forgive price and weight, or it isn't, and Zeiss will have designed a nice boat anchor.
Having used the 24-70L as a walk-around on my 40D, I am more than hesitant to buy a lens of the same weight on my 5D II. But the pictures I have seen, and Lloyd Chambers' early account lead me to think that the forthcoming lens will indeed be a class leader in what matters most to me: colours, contrast, drawing style.
As to comparing it with the forthcoming Samyang, if the 85 is anything to go by, the Samyang will not be my cup of tea. I really do not like its colour palette. That does not stop it from being a true bargain and the lens of choice for others.
philber wrote:
Basically, either the new 35mm f:1.4 is at least as good as its 21mm and 100mm siblings, or even better, and then a number of us will forgive price and weight, or it isn't, and Zeiss will have designed a nice boat anchor.
+1
The new lens would better justify the increase in size and weight in IQ improvement. The Contax/Rollei counterpart wasn't exactly a bad lens.
Thanks theSuede for the earlier MTF test conditions info done by each vendor. I knew that you can not compare MTF's between vendors, so I was surprised that Lloyd was making the statement about the Nikon having more contrast wide open.
This lens is big for its wide open IQ which is quite a bit better than the old Contax 35/1.4.
But it is only a little bit sharper in the center at f4 than the ZE 35/2 but then has that big zone b dip at 15mm. For stopped down landscape shooting, I don't see this lens being better than the 35/2 if you care about even across the frame performance.
There is still the questions about how this lens renders vs. the old 35/1.4, especially how quickly the sharpness falls off from the point of focus and how much 3-d look it renders.
I think that the Zeiss will have smoother bokeh than the Nikon but I will wait for the comparison shots to confirm that. Hope Lloyd does bokeh comparisons in his upcoming review of this lens.
Right now it looks like all three Zeiss 35's, CZ 35/1.4,ZE 35/2, and ZE 35/1.4 have different strengths and weaknesses so you may end up with all of them.
I have the first two, now waiting to see more to see if I want the 3rd one, even though the price and size are a little hard to go for.
theSuede wrote:
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)
It looked a bit strange to me first time I read it, but had no time to think more about it. I thought that Leica publishes measured MTF charts as well, with more graphs. I checked the site and indeed that is what they say:
"The MTF is indicated both at full aperture and at f/5.6 at long taking distances (infinity). Shown is the contrast in percentage for 5, 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm accross the height of the 35 mm film format, for tangential (dotted line) and sagittal (solid line) structures, in white light."
Where did you get your info?
Regarding measured vs. theoretical, if the MTF charts I am looking at are indeed theoretical maximum, then Leica has some of the worst lenses in the business... this HAS to be measured.
