p.12 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
drhee39 wrote:
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.
Yes, #4 was taken at f1.4. It was a mistake as it should have been at f8.
All the other shot info's are correct.
You can see that the f1.4 shots don't have the amount of SA that the new ZE 35/1.4 has as shown in LC's review.
The fallen tree shots not only show the narrower DOF behavior of the 35/1.4 relative to the 35/2 (see the trees in the background), they show the relative sharpness as you can see by the following center crops from the shots which are 100% crops with no sharpening in PS, they just have default level of input sharpening in LR.
p.12 #2 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I just saw LC's latest f8 comparisons and I now take back my earlier belief that the new 35/1.4 had the same quicker transition to OOF through the DOF behavior like the old 35/1.4 and see it is more like the 35/2 and has more contrasty bokeh too.
@Tariq, when I first saw the amount of SA wide open of the new ZE 35/1.4, I thought of the Sony 35G too.
Looks like Zeiss designed a better 35/2 lens which is much worse at f1.4 than their old contax version and is much heavier and expensive than both these other two 35's. Could be wrong but that is what I see right now.
p.12 #5 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
sebboh wrote:
interesting, the 35/2 seems to have noticeably more dof at f/8 than the c/y 35/1.4 at f/8.
Yes, that behavior, quicker transition to OOF from focus point through rest of DOF is a main difference and what I try to explain to people.
This is same between my Contax N 50/1.4 and my ZE 50/2 MP.
p.12 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Wayne, please forgive any misunerstanding of what you write. If the theoretical DOF is, as I believe, lens independent, then is the only cause of varying DOFs between lenses of equal focal length not field curvature? I seem to understand that you suggest that the way in which a lens transitions from in-focus to OOF affects DOF...
Though, I would not be surprised to find DOF variations between the ZE f:1.4 and 2.0, between they do indeed have different characteristics regarding field curvature
p.12 #8 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber wrote:
Wayne, please forgive any misunerstanding of what you write. If the theoretical DOF is, as I believe, lens independent, then is the only cause of varying DOFs between lenses of equal focal length not field curvature? I seem to understand that you suggest that the way in which a lens transitions from in-focus to OOF affects DOF...
Though, I would not be surprised to find DOF variations between the ZE f:1.4 and 2.0, between they do indeed have different characteristics regarding field curvature
theoretical dof is based on an ideal single element lens if i recall correctly. there are wide variations due to lens design in actual dof.
p.12 #9 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
denoir has been saying so for some time, I recall...and I have read the same elsewhere from others - the OOF transition of the 35/1.4 I mean.
fife, the 21mm holds great detail, but the important point about it, from my viewpoint, is that it does so over the huge angle of view a 21mm FF lens covers - it can be hyper-real at times.
Thanks Wayne, I like the subtle colour palette and contrast differences we see in different CZ lenses, on display here as well.
p.12 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
Sorry to ask, Edward, but what do you/Erwin Pus find lacking in the Distagon 21 f:2.8: detail, or apparent sharpness? I have but to look at Wayne's shots to see both present. Actually, to my eye, the 21 shots are easily the best from the first lot (broken tree).
p.12 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Jonas B wrote:
Wayne, thank you for the demo!
+1!
But I still think, though, that itīs close to impossible to assess such minute differences without a side by side comparison with the actual lenses. The field of sharp focus must be _exactly_ the same, which I find almost impossible to do without focus bracketing.
The high colour correction of the new 35 makes it very interesting by itself. Add f/1.4 at that. The more I see of the new 35, the more I like it. And I was not negative to start with.
Mar 28, 2011 at 02:47 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #13 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber wrote:
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?
Yes it's fair play And I also belive he will gain a lot when people do that. I can imagine that many people here have started a subscription just because they have been reading about his reviews. It's not like you have a obligation to observe silence about your reading.
And remember when you buy a photo magazine with reviews. Then you often both talk about it, give it away or let somebody else read it
p.12 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
sebboh wrote:
theoretical dof is based on an ideal single element lens if i recall correctly. there are wide variations due to lens design in actual dof.
Yes, I remember FM'er theSuede confirming this.
To me FC affects the sharpness in the corners mostly and I feel has no affect on sharpness of background or foregound in the center of the shot. Right?
This is a problem I see with comparison shots of large DOF scenes vs. a planar wall comparison shot. When you look at objects farther back or in front of the focus point, then the lens with the quicker OOF focus transition will look less sharp relative to the lens with the slower transition.
Yes, then on top of that you have FC which then pushes the optimum corner sharpness point further back or further forward in the scene.
For those that are interested in the 50/1.4 vs. the 50/2 MP and this faster transition behavior pls look at Samuli's shots and our discussion on this page: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/57
This was before Luka and I got our 35/1.4's.
Mar 28, 2011 at 03:03 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.12 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
p.12 #16 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Z250SA wrote:
+1!
But I still think, though, that itīs close to impossible to assess such minute differences without a side by side comparison with the actual lenses. The field of sharp focus must be _exactly_ the same, which I find almost impossible to do without focus bracketing.
The high colour correction of the new 35 makes it very interesting by itself. Add f/1.4 at that. The more I see of the new 35, the more I like it. And I was not negative to start with.
Sounds like you prefer the slightly less CA and LoCA (higher color resolution) vs.a lot less SA wide open? To me the amount of SA of the new 35/1.4 wide open at that price is not very appealing.
p.12 #17 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Yes, that might just be the case. I have been learning a lots about _my_ IQ preferences of this thread, thanks all! Though, I think I just want it ALL!
p.12 #18 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Isn't the pronounced SA related to the attractive bokeh at f/1.4 and not as much to performance stopped down? Wouldn't better corrected SA yield a different bokeh, and thus ruin that special character?
Isn't this lens as good as it gets for it's two main tricks: The bokeh wide open and the raw perfection stopped down?
The "missing trick", sharpness at wide apertures, wasn't that what people on this board feared the most in this new lens? Something you could get from the mainstream brands?
Mar 28, 2011 at 03:52 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.12 #19 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
It may seem like an odd comparison, but the behavior of this lens calls to mind, for me anyway, the Leica R 80 Summilux. Wide open a bit soft but with nice bokeh. Stopped down it maintains the nice bokeh, but is very sharp. Across the board low CA. It too has fairly high spherical aberrations that clear up nicely as it is stopped down. The two lenses are even close in size. The new Zeiss 35 1.4 seems to have even lower CA than the Leica 80. People have described the Leica 80 as having a dual character--a bit soft wide open which some feel is good for portraits and amazingly sharp stopped down. In looking at the samples I think the new Zeiss 35 will have this same sort of dual character.
p.12 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber wrote:
Sorry to ask, Edward, but what do you/Erwin Pus find lacking in the Distagon 21 f:2.8: detail, or apparent sharpness? I have but to look at Wayne's shots to see both present. Actually, to my eye, the 21 shots are easily the best from the first lot (broken tree).
Hi Phil,
I find nothing lacking in the Distagon 21. To my knowledge, neither does Erwin Puts
My comments originated from what Lloyd Chambers said about the ZE 35/1.4, that it has a lot of resolution and fine details, but that need extra sharpening to bring them out.
Tariq's analogy to the Sony 35/1.4G also reminded me of the same, as this lens also has a lot of fine details that need some extra sharpening.
What Erwin Puts mentions in his old article of several years ago is also known facts. It has to do with design philosohy differences between Zeiss and Leica regarding high resolution and high micro contrast and apparent sharpness.
The Distagon 21 is probably a classic Zeiss design with high microcontrast priority, while I tend to understand from what I read so far, that the 35/1.4 may be rather lower microcontrast oriented. That's just speculation from my part, based only on what has been said so far in this thread.
