Lars Johnsson wrote:
Show us any small Leica f/1,4 lens with canon mount then. Just a ridiculous comparison
you do realize not everyone on this forum shoots canon right? nevertheless there is at least one person here who shoots a leica 35/1.4 on a canon after comparing it to the old c/y 35/1.4 (also on canon).
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
Read what he wrote again. "Good build quality doesn't have to make a lens big"
And this lens is also big even if it's smaller than the other. It also has less good build quality IMO
Yes, but this is not a rangefinder lens. The Summilux-R is an SLR lens, just like the new Distagon and as such comparable. As for build quality, Leica-R is as good as Leica-M and as good if not better than Zeiss Z* lenses.
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
I was rererring to the new lenses, not some adaptable stuff which cost more than the new ZE 35/1.4 and which is not easily recoverable with another when something happens to it.
+1 and even more so when this one also is a big lens.
denoir wrote:
Yes, but this is not a rangefinder lens. The Summilux-R is an SLR lens, just like the new Distagon and as such comparable. As for build quality, Leica-R is as good as Leica-M and as good if not better than Zeiss Z* lenses.
Yes but he wrote it doesn't have to be big. And this lens is big. And with adapter even more big/heavy. so actually it seems like good build and f/1,4 has to be rather large
The 35 Lux-R is slightly shorter than the third lens from the left (old 35/1.4 Distagon) while the new Distagon is as large as the rightmost lens plus one cm.
Anyway, I'm sure Zeiss had a very good reason for the design they chose. I'm really interested in seeing more pictures from it.
It's nearly 700 gr without adapter. And more than slightly over half the lenght if the new Zeiss is shorter than 15 cm.
Are you really saying this lens is a small 35mm lens
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.
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
It's also more heavy/longer when used on a Canon like you wrote before
Not necessarily. The 35 Lux-R has an exchangeable bayonet mount, originally intended to allow the users to switch between R3 and R9 mount but I'm guessing that is what you exchange for a Canon mount. So it shouldn't add much if anything in length/weight. Having said that, on Canon, the Leica isn't problem free. I think you must shave the mirror on a FF camera for it to work.
An important difference is that the new (and old) Zeiss 35/1.4 have an MFD of 0.3 meters while the 35 Lux-R has a 0.5 m limit.
Ultimately the main reference for comparison will have to be the old Zeiss 35/1.4.
Ok, it covers a larger format, but many here have been using MF lenses for the purpose of getting excellent performance across the frame. I believe that is what Zeiss is aiming at with the new ZE.
I don't get it. Everybody know that the Zeiss 35/2 lens is 530 gr. And then the new Zeiss 35/1,4 lens is coming out. And a lot of people here are so surprised and nearly offended because it's larger & heavier Look at Canon, Nikon and others that have one fast f/1,4 and one slower f/2 and see the huge difference in weight/size.
because I made my first post saying that I cared more about the image and build quality than weight/size, about 10 posts start to attack me. Just really ridiculous
Don't worry, Sven. Poeple have all kind of reasons for not buying/not wanting to buy a product. That, with some people (note: only some people, not all) translates into attacks on the manufacturer who has dared to make a product not to their liking/not make a product that they lusted after.
I distinctly remember the incredible abuse hurled at Canon when the 5D II was released. Except, it wasn't an Edsel, like the offended/offenders woula have had the world believe, but a runaway success. Just goes to show how seriously Internet forum talk should be taken -NOT-!
Still, I wish the new lens weren't that heavy...
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
I don't get it. Everybody know that the Zeiss 35/2 lens is 530 gr. And then the new Zeiss 35/1,4 lens is coming out. And a lot of people here are so surprised and nearly offended because it's larger & heavier
It's not the 35/2 people are comparing it to but the legendary Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon, i.e the previous version of the lens. It's one of the most valued primes around here and very likely the most appreciated 35mm lens. So it's perfectly natural that people are surprised by the significant difference in physical dimensions and weight of the new one.
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
because I made my first post saying that I cared more about the image and build quality than weight/size, about 10 posts start to attack me. Just really ridiculous
No, it's because you made a couple of inaccurate statements that people have been correcting you. I'm sure most people here agree that image quality trumps size/weight issues at least within reason. The MTF charts look good but apart from that we don't have much to go on yet. The samples that we've seen so far have not been adequate to give a good idea of the general character and performance of the lens. So we discuss what we know about it - i.e that it's unusually large and heavy.
It's nothing, you should wait for when the images come in when there will be a widespread condemnation of the new one for not being like the old one. It's a law of nature.
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
I don't get it. Everybody know that the Zeiss 35/2 lens is 530 gr. And then the new Zeiss 35/1,4 lens is coming out. And a lot of people here are so surprised and nearly offended because it's larger & heavier Look at Canon, Nikon and others that have one fast f/1,4 and one slower f/2 and see the huge difference in weight/size.
because I made my first post saying that I cared more about the image and build quality than weight/size, about 10 posts start to attack me. Just really ridiculous
maybe i wasn't paying much attention, but i didn't realize saying one wasn't interested in buying a lens that big constituted an attack. everybody has there own unique criteria for what they are looking for in a lens, and obviously this one won't fit everyones. for me size is an important factor (weight is not), that doesn't mean i think everybody does or should feel the way i do.
It is interesting that Summilux R 35 f1.4 is being thrown as an example of good build quality AND good picture quality. I haven't used it, but the MTF Lloyd posted is not even on the same planet with Zeiss MTF chart. Even if it has good picture quality, it seems to have been designed for completely different kind of shooting.
Edit: My point is, that just from the MTF charts, the size difference between the two lenses is expected.
trdonja wrote:
Edit: My point is, that just from the MTF charts, the size difference between the two lenses is expected.
You might want to clarify that point, or explain to your readers why you think that, "just from the MTF charts, the size difference between the two lenses is expected."
