p.13 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Thanks for the tests Wayne
After reviewing the new batches of samples on LC's site I'm convinced that the new Distagon is a great lens and a worth successor to its legendary predecessor. Where the old one was lacking was stopped down performance at the edges - something they seem to have improved significantly in the new one. Wide open they seem to be similar and it is the wide open rendering that makes the old Distagon legendary. It's not for nothing that it's the only single lens that has an active and dedicated thread in this forum!
If you want super sharp wide open, you are better off with a modern Nikon 35 or even better a Leica 35 Summilux ASPH. The 35/1.4 Distagon is what you get for the drawing style and not for the raw optical performance wide open.
p.13 #2 · 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.
This is a design game that Zeiss has been playing for ages. It has to do with how the lens projects the image at the exact focusing point. Dr. Nasse in last year's MTF essay mentioned this as well. Basically it seems that the lens designer can make a lens produce very shallow DOF by focusing the image very precisely at the focusing point, or may opt for an extended DOF by sacrificing a bit of the sharpness at the exact focusing point. This is at least how I understood it from Dr. Nasse's essay, which admittedly is too complicated for someone who has no idea about optics like myself.
In practice, we have some lenses that are known for shallower than normal DOF like the 28/2 Hollywood lens and the 100/2 Planar. Others with extended DOF like the 100/2.8 MP and I believe the 21 Distagon as well.
p.13 #3 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
denoir wrote:
Thanks for the tests Wayne
After reviewing the new batches of samples on LC's site I'm convinced that the new Distagon is a great lens and a worth successor to its legendary predecessor. Where the old one was lacking was stopped down performance at the edges - something they seem to have improved significantly in the new one. Wide open they seem to be similar and it is the wide open rendering that makes the old Distagon legendary. It's not for nothing that it's the only single lens that has an active and dedicated thread in this forum!
If you want super sharp wide open, you are better off with a modern Nikon 35 or even better a Leica 35 Summilux ASPH. The 35/1.4 Distagon is what you get for the drawing style and not for the raw optical performance wide open....Show more →
Do you have a link to LCs site and the new samples?
p.13 #6 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
wayne seltzer wrote:
@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.
If the new Z* 35 1,4 does not perform as well as the Contax version wide open, I think Zeiss have dropped the ball personally. I would not spend that kind of money for the big and heavy 35 1.4 when the Zeiss 35 2.0 performs as well as it does, particularly if I was a Nikon shooter, given the 35 1.4 they offer. What I have read so far are a lot of excuses people seem to be eager to make in defense of this particular Zeiss lens.
p.13 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
I think this is the crux of the situation with the new 35 1.4. It appears to NOT follow traditional Zeiss design criteria.
p.13 #8 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think this is the crux of the situation with the new 35 1.4. It appears to NOT follow traditional Zeiss design criteria.
What may be confusing, is that it is a Distagon that follows the traditional Planar performance (It looks very similar to the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4) and Zeiss also mention that its focal length complements those two lenses.
Mar 28, 2011 at 07:02 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.13 #9 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think this is the crux of the situation with the new 35 1.4. It appears to NOT follow traditional Zeiss design criteria.
alundeb wrote:
What may be confusing, is that it is a Distagon that follows the traditional Planar performance (It looks very similar to the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4) and Zeiss also mention that its focal length complements those two lenses.
I suppose you could say that the 35 f/1.4 has similar properties to the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4. Softness due to SA that goes away once the lens is stopped down, but the difficulty is that the 50 f/1.4 is smaller lighter and cheaper than the 50 f/2 MP, and the 85 f/1.4 is a little smaller and much cheaper than the 100 f/2 MP. In contrast the 35 f/1.4 is much larger and costs much more than the 35 f/2. The planars have other advantages (cost and size) over their f/2 brothers that the 35 f/1.4 does not. Still it looks like (from the examples so far) that the 35 f/1.4 does have a couple of advantages over the 35 f/2--better colour correction and better bokeh. Perhaps for some that will be enough to justify the much larger size and much higher price.
p.13 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
What may be confusing, is that it is a Distagon that follows the traditional Planar performance (It looks very similar to the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4) and Zeiss also mention that its focal length complements those two lenses.
Yet the truly traditional Planars, such as the 80mm 2.8/3.5 on the TLR Rolleis, the 80/100 for Hasselblad/ Contax MF systems as well as the Makro Planars, are renowned for their high contrast rendering. The description by Zeiss itself in no way indicates that the Planar is designed to follow/ render as you describe. Here is the Zeiss description for the 645 Contax 80mm F2:
"The Carl Zeiss Planar® lens is the most successful
camera lens design ever created. This nearly
symmetrical layout provides the lens designer with
numerous means to correct aberrations extraordinarily
well, even for wide open apertures. The ideal basis for
high-performance lenses with great color correction,
high speed, flat image plane (this is where the name
comes from) and low distortion. The Planar® design is
the basis for nearly all professional ’workhorse’ lenses
on earth and in space today"
p.13 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Of course a f/2 or f/2.8 Planar will show less SA wide open than a f/1.4 Planar, even for a larger image circle.
Zeiss never say that their lenses are sub-par wide open:
(my emphasis: )
"The Planar T* 1.4/85 ZF-lens is a short, high speed tele
lens for the exacting SLR photographer. It provides an
unusually bright and clear image in the finder. Even at full aperture, it delivers top image quality. Its angle of
view and exceptional performance make the Planar
T* 1.4/85 ZF the lens of choice for portraiture on location
or in the studio. Its shallow depth of field at wide apertures
allows the use of selective focus to emphasize
the primary subject by defocusing the background.
The lens’s “bokeh” (the imaging of out-of-focus zones),
resulting from optical design and the 9-blade iris, is
outstanding. Geometrical distortion is imperceptibly
low, allowing high quality documentation photographs,
both analog and digital. "
and:
"
Planar T* 1.4 /50 ZF
The perspective of the human eye –
high speed, top sharpness, color clarity
The Planar T* 1.4/50 ZF-lens is a high-speed standard
lens for the exacting 35 mm SLR photographer. Experienced
professionals and testing lab specialists rate
this lens as the best standard SLR lens available world
wide. Its precision mechanical construction allows highly
accurate manual focusing. Its imaging performance
allows full use of the best color films’ technical and
aesthetic properties. Its outstanding color rendition
and brilliance set the standard for film photography
and provide the prerequisites for top quality digital
photographs as well."
p.13 #13 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
This lens would make for a pretty entertaining poll:
Option 1: The emperor has no clothes; people will do anything to convince themselves that a $2,000 lens is something special, even when the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Option 2: This lens is a pearl before swine. A more sophisticated crowd would see that this lens really is something special -- a perfect blending of the best features, old and new.
p.13 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
jffielde wrote:
This lens would make for a pretty entertaining poll:
Option 1: The emperor has no clothes; people will do anything to convince themselves that a $2,000 lens is something special, even when the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Option 2: This lens is a pearl before swine. A more sophisticated crowd would see that this lens really is something special -- a perfect blending of the best features, old and new.
++1
I think that would be a GREAT poll, particularly the way you have worded it.
p.13 #17 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
To be honest, I am not able to understand the reasoning behind the design of this lens. It has been shown that the market prefers wide open sharpness, and Zeiss has shown it can very well make fast lenses that are sharp wide open (like the ZA line). So Zeiss must really have a good reason, and I'm sure we will discover it soon.
