Looking at samples I'd be hard pressed to expect anything sharper, more contrasty and with more vivid colors, even if they're pp'd, hence I don't get what all the disappointment was about in this thread. Typical internet hog wash.
p.14 #3 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
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."...Show more →
Yes, when the design is pushed to the max, aberration control becomes more difficult/ expensive. The main point of my argument is that the performance of the newer 35 1.4 lens at faster F-stops, where we see lower contrast and pronounced aberrations, is not something Zeiss traditionally TRY to design into their lenses because they prefer the rendering effect of diffused, glowing halos around objects.
p.14 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
carstenw wrote:
Well, the market isn't uniform. If the 35/1.4 is as sharp as the 35/2 from f/2 and down, and has a soft f/1.4 thrown in, that is interesting to me.
But I don't think that is the case from the samples I have seen on LC site. The 35/2 looks to clearly resolve more detail and show more contrast wide open at F2 vs the 35 1.4 at F2.
p.14 #5 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Rodluvan wrote:
Looking at samples I'd be hard pressed to expect anything sharper, more contrasty and with more vivid colors, even if they're pp'd, hence I don't get what all the disappointment was about in this thread. Typical internet hog wash.
certainly no haze in these samples. Although some of them (t-shirts) look oversharpened in a weired way, which ruins the OOF rendering.
p.14 #6 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
cyra wrote:
certainly no haze in these samples. Although some of them (t-shirts) look oversharpened in a weired way, which ruins the OOF rendering.
Which is not terribly surprising given the highly reduced size samples shot with a 1DsII. The samples many of us are referring to were shot with a 5DII in lighting that might reveal issues AND are shown full size. I'm sure many of those shots would also show no haze at such sizes.
p.14 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
Not trying to make fun of your statement, as the testing and evaluation is far from finished, but that would make a great third option in the poll.
Why would you find my statement funny? I'm just wondering why would Zeiss make a lens that large and heavy, and expensive on the top of that, which suffers from SA wide open? I am sure it is a design decision. They could have easily made it very well corrected if they wanted to. Perhaps the correction would have taken something from the desired "look".
p.14 #8 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
i agree from the very few samples i've seen that this lens appears to follow the Z* 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 in what it's optimized for - shooting at infinity or large distances, especially stopped down. maybe i'm wrong, not having seen many samples, but it looks like it has more SA wide open and up close than the c/y version. since i don't get f/1.4 lenses to shoot landscape, i don't have much interest. it also seems to have more contrast and noticeable loCA in the bokeh wide open than the original. perhaps it will have particularly good bokeh at long distances like the previously mentioned Z*s which seem to improve in that department with long distances. i'll have to see more samples.
p.14 #9 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Definitely the ultimate lens for cinema on DSLRs.
A f/1,4 in still for me a lens is primarly designed to be used at f1,4/2,0. I now think as the first comment of Denoir. I would prefer the small C/Y to just provide 3D look at f/1,4.
How much is it better than the half size/weight C/Y 35/1,4 to justify a such price/lead ? It it just better at small apertures than the C/Y and a bit better at f/1,4 ?
My eyes are now beetween the ZE 35/2 and 35L. I'm not sure to have patience and risk to look for an used C/Y 35/1,4 plus a ZE 35/2. Does the ZE 35/2 really provide more 3D/punch than 35L workhorse as I tend to think so ?
p.14 #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.
Actually, the new 35/1.4 is NOT like the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.4 in that it doesn't have the quick focus transition which renders more subject/background isolation, 3-d, better sense of subject volume and shape and the less contrasty bokeh, which renders what people have described here as more painterly, less contrasty but still detailed bokeh. This new lens is more like 50MP, Z* 21, Z* 35/2 and 100MP.
The old CZ 35/1.4 is more like the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 in rendering but is better at wide open shooting closeup due to it having a FLE design which the 50/1.4 and 85 don't have.
Sorry I don't believe all the marketing BS in the lens descriptions.
I may be wrong but I agree with Tariq that the difference in performance for typical stopped down (>f4) type landscape shooting, is not enough over the smaller, lighter, and cheaper 35/2 to make it a big seller.
And for wide open shooting, the veiling haze (SA) doesn't compete well with the latest 24/1.4G and 35G/1.4 designs which don't have the SA problem and perform well wide open. Yes, the new Nikon 24 and 35 might have worse bokeh in some tough bokeh situations but the Zeiss will have that SA problem in every shot.
I have always loved Zeiss lenses for giving me that, as some have said, that super clear, like you are there rendering of a scene. The amount of SA wide open with the new 35/1.4 kills that.
Zeiss having trouble producing excellent fast wide aperture designs has been a topic more than a few times in this forum. My best fast Zeiss lenses which perform well wide open are the ZA 135/1.8, Contax N 85/1.4 and my CZ 35/1.4. All these are sharp wide open with no veiling haze and have excellent bokeh. I would rank the CZ 35/1.4's bokeh (probably due to its asph element) slightly lower than the first two which have incredible bokeh. My Rokkor 58/1.2 is in the same mold for giving me excellent combination of sharpness and relatively smooth bokeh wide open.
I think people buy fast 1.4 lenses for their performance wide open till about f2.8.
This is why most lenses makers make two versions like the 'Cron and the 'Lux.
This new 35/1.4 has veiling haze that doesn't go away till > f2.8.
The fact that I have two old Contax lenses, N 85/1.4 and CZ 35/1.4 which still perform better wide open than the newest, very expensive Zeiss Z* primes is not so good.
The ZA 85 and 135 primes are excellent fast Zeiss primes which perform well wide open.
We have criticized Sony/Zeiss on not designing a faster ZA 24/1.4 and instead a 24/2 but at least they did the smart thing and kept it small and relatively cheap with excellent performance > f2.8 instead of trying to make it a f1.4 with a SA problem, much bigger and heavier design, and bigger price like the new Z* 35/1.4.
I think Zeiss should have improved their 35/2 design to have the low CA peformance like the new 35/1.4 and should have taken the old CZ 35/1.4 design and focus on improving its wide open performance and not care so much about its stopped down performance. If you stop down the old CZ 35/1.4 to f8, the sharpness extends nicely into the corners.
p.14 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
trusty wrote:
Definitely the ultimate lens for cinema on DSLRs.
A f/1,4 in still for me a lens is primarly designed to be used at f1,4/2,0. I now think as the first comment of Denoir. I would prefer the small C/Y to just provide 3D look at f/1,4.
How much is it better than the half size/weight C/Y 35/1,4 to justify a such price/lead ? It it just better at small apertures than the C/Y and a bit better at f/1,4 ?
My eyes are now beetween the ZE 35/2 and 35L. I'm not sure to have patience and risk to look for an used C/Y 35/1,4 plus a ZE 35/2. Does the ZE 35/2 really provide more 3D/punch than 35L workhorse as I tend to think so ?...Show more →
Diglloyd (LC) has landscape comparison shots with the 35/2, 35L and new 35/1.4. You can see the usual difference in color, micro-contrast, color separation rendering differences between Zeiss and Canon lenses.
If you don't need f1.4, then I would get the 35/2. If you want 3-d and better subject isolation with better bokeh for potrait type shooting, then I think CZ 35/1.4 is better.
p.14 #13 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Hmm, I think we need to see more different samples. I don't see the veiling haze which has been so roundly criticized, at least not in every shot, so there is some trigger for it, at the worst. To me it looks like a great lens, and it takes a big step towards eliminating CA/colour errors compared to other top Zeiss lenses.
p.14 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
What Wayne says makes a lot of sense.
I can confirm that none of the ZA primes suffers from veiling haze wide open, including the 24/2. The latter has some field curvature at infinity that affects the corners only, the curvature disappears at medium and close distances. All of them perform very decently wide open.
p.14 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
And if you like lots of SA with your soft bokeh then pay a lot for the new Z* 35/1.4, or a Sony/Minolta 35/1.4G or a Lens-Baby for less money or a fashion a lens out of an old coke bottle.
p.14 #17 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
wayne seltzer wrote:
^^^ Sorry Edward, I know you like your 35/1.4G.
No worries, Wayne
The 35G is small, light, has AF and is designed as a portrait lens that performs very well for landscapes when stopped down to 5.6-8. it is certainly no Zeiss but it does perform exactly as expected.
p.14 #18 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
carstenw wrote:
Hmm, I think we need to see more different samples. I don't see the veiling haze which has been so roundly criticized, at least not in every shot, so there is some trigger for it, at the worst. To me it looks like a great lens, and it takes a big step towards eliminating CA/colour errors compared to other top Zeiss lenses.
Do you have a paid subscription to Diglloyd's Z* lens reviews?
His shots show the uncorrected SA well and he has resorted to special sharpening to get rid of the veiling haze at wide apertures. This gets rid of the haze but probably doesn't give you the fine micro-contrast and fine detail which is not there due to the SA.
p.14 #19 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
wayne seltzer wrote:
And if you like lots of SA with your soft bokeh then pay a lot for the new Z* 35/1.4, or a Sony/Minolta 35/1.4G or a Lens-Baby for less money or a fashion a lens out of an old coke bottle.
Ouch!
I wonder if LC's sample of this new ZE 35 1.4 is performing as it should.
p.14 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
wayne seltzer wrote:
Do you have a paid subscription to Diglloyd's Z* lens reviews?
His shots show the uncorrected SA well and he has resorted to special sharpening to get rid of the veiling haze at wide apertures. This gets rid of the haze but probably doesn't give you the fine micro-contrast and fine detail which is not there due to the SA.
I do. I still don't see the problem in most of the results, but then, I am a huge fan of the Leica 80/1.4 Lux I don't mind a bit of a split-personality-disorder between f/1.4 and f/2.8. But really, as the Germans would say, this is really "jammern auf hohem Niveau" (difficult to translate perfectly: complaining at a high level). The 35/1.4 ZE looks to be very good, and I am sort of already beginning to save for one.
