p.11 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
carlitos wrote:
OK, Thanks again. I have the ZF35/2, whose output I like.
This new Zeiss 35/1.4 may be a good lens for portraits or still lifes, yes?
I wouldn't just limit this lens to portraits.
Once the 35/1.4 is stopped down it is a very sharp lens, every bit as sharp as the 35/2. After looking at LC's shots perhaps it is even sharper. It also has very little CA, much less than the 35/2.
p.11 #2 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
LC did say it was very consistent across the entire frame and was impressed at the lack of CA characteristic of it's slower sibling. It does seem to be as sharp or perhaps sharper than the 35/2 when stopped down but that isn't the point of a lens like that.
p.11 #3 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
j.liam wrote:
... but that isn't the point of a lens like that.
Absolutely correct! But it is also good to know that the lens isn't a one trick pony. And it is quite possible to replace the 35/2 with the 35/1.4 if you only required one 35mm lens.
p.11 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
magiclight wrote:
Absolutely correct! But it is also good to know that the lens isn't a one trick pony. And it is quite possible to replace the 35/2 with the 35/1.4 if you only required one 35mm lens.
True enough.....and why I sold off my ZF 35 and put myself on a dealer's wait list for one, sight unseen
p.11 #6 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Been shooting with it for a bit. Love the lens' low light capabilities for cinema, but for all you folks who shoot photography, the weight seems like it would be an issue to handhold and hit focus at wider apertures during low light. Waiting to meet up with a friend who has my old 35 ZF f2 and then I can do some actual comparisons against this lens, the 35 f2, and the 17-35 vario sonnar for fun.
p.11 #10 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
j.liam wrote:
Its rendition, LC feels, makes it an alternative to the present trend in modern optical design goals as embodied in both the new Nikon 35/1.4 and the older Canon 35/1.4 that strive to maintain high-contrast at the widest apertures even in the smallest of image detail with as little veiling/haze as possible. The Z* 35/1.4 does not perform that way and in this respect, is more similar, he states, to older classic lenses in the way it renders wide open, such as the old DIstagon and other spherical designs (though the Z* 35/1.4 does contain an aspherical element, it seems). From the images he's posted, the gentleness of the bokeh and transition from in-focus to out of focus seems to be the greater concern of the designers rather than sheer resolving power. ...Show more →
This description sounds very un-zeiss like to me (the Distagons made for Hasselblad were of very high contrast for instance) and also reminds me of another lens which is often criticized for such rendering - the Minolta/Sony 35 1.4G. But since this has Zeiss on the barrel, perhaps it will be received better.
p.11 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
carstenw wrote:
Tariq, are you saying that because of the name Zeiss, not-so-great lenses are talked about as being great?
I'm saying that the Zeiss "halo effect" may allow some to appreciate qualities that are traditionally not associated with Zeiss lenses and that other brand lenses may have been dismissed exactly for having these same qualities.
I disagree with the characterization of "classic" Distagons given above. That was not the case with those made by Zeiss for medium format. Not the case with the 35mm 2.8 versions I have used made for Rollei or CY, though I never used the CY 35 1.4 (and perhaps this is the ONLY classic Distagon LC is referring to).
p.11 #13 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Just looked at the samples on diglloyd, and I'm more and more impressed. The haze is definitely there at 1.4, but the lens resolves better than the 35L at all apertures. The 35L samples are pixelated at high magnification (don't really understand why), and it also has comparatively objectionable color fringing.
By contrast, the near complete lack of CA on the ZE 1.4 is the most striking thing about the lens. It's nearly apochromatic. The samples at smaller apertures have a stunning clarity.
I didn't expect the ZE 1.4 to have these characteristics, but because it is so different from the ZE/ZF 35/2, I think it will complement my 35/2 nicely because I also like the bite and 3D rendering WO from the 35/2.
The only thing I'd love to know is whether the C/Y 35/1.4 is whether it has noticeably stronger contrast wide open than the new ZE. It's interesting because I have the C/Y 100/2, and the ZE/ZF 100/2 appears to have noticeably stronger contrast.
p.11 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Drhee, I tried the ZE 1,4 in comparison to the 2,0 and posted some pics. I had only 20mn to shoot them both, so I could not get into anything but the basics. My conclusion is that, except when opened more that f:2,8, the basic rendering of both lenses is strikingly similar, with only very minor différences of contrast, colour and detail. So I am not so sure about the two lenses complementing each other that well, except if you want to use them both mostly wide open or close.
Just my two cents....
p.11 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Also, some people here are giving so much detail about Lloyd Chambers' review that one wonders why anyone would bother subscribing. Is that really fair play?
p.11 #16 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I may be wrong, but I would imagine Lloyd is delighted. It's this kind of discussion that made me subscribe to his site to review the photos and comparisons for myself.
p.11 #17 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber, while I agree in general that perhaps I'm discussing subscription content too much in a public forum, I have to say I am just describing what I think I see in the samples. I haven't relayed any of the opinion on the site, and in fact I haven't really read much of the text. Just the same, I think I'll refrain from further mention of diglloyd's content, which by the way seems to be the only game in town at this time as far as an in depth review.
Also, while I think the ZE 1.4 definitely resembles the 35/2 in rendering style (especially in comparison to the non-zeiss lens), to me the differences are striking. The 35 1.4 has a pronounced haze WO and is clearly superior stopped down.
p.11 #19 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This description sounds very un-zeiss like to me (the Distagons made for Hasselblad were of very high contrast for instance) and also reminds me of another lens which is often criticized for such rendering - the Minolta/Sony 35 1.4G. But since this has Zeiss on the barrel, perhaps it will be received better.
Interesting thought, Tariq.
This also reminds me of Erwin Puts article about Zeiss characteristics vs Leica. It seems high resolution and apparent sharpness cannot coexist on one lens. High micro contrast that gives an apparent high sharpness at normal printing sizes, also kills high resolution. High resolution needs a somewhat low micro contrast which also reduces the apparent sharpness. While Zeiss went traditionally for high micro contrast, Leica went for high resolution, but it seems that Leica recently started copying Zeiss.
I feel that there is a lot of this happening in the new 35/1.4.
Also it is interesting to mention that the high resolution of the Sony 35G is somewhat compromised by the high CA that also kills some of the apparent sharpness.
p.11 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Wayne, I see some difference there, but images #3 and #4 have to be two shots both at 1.4, since they appear to have the exact same DOF.
Would you mind posting wide-open 100% crops of the 35 1.4 vs the 35/2 in your image of the keeling tree trunks? I'd love to see a comparison without the amazing sharpening technique that you employed.
