p.17 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
wayne seltzer wrote:
CZ 35/1.4 at f1.4
CZ 35/1.4 at f8
ZF 35/2 at f2
ZF 35/2 at f8
Wayne, thanks for sharing.
The steep contrast curve of the 35L is certainly one of the reasons I don't like this lens.
The Zeiss curve looks much better, but from the few examples I have seen, the colors are not what I'd expect from Zeiss and not much better than the Canon lens which cannot compete with the Summicron-R 35. Just my *very* personal opinion.
I really hope Luka will prove me wrong
p.17 #2 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
Now, I downloaded the full images of the latest comparison, at it is clear after examining the trunks in the center at f 2.8 that the focus point is different. The 1.4 is front focused and the 2.0 is backfocused, relative to each other.
I also agree with Ulrik that the bokeh of the ZE 1.4 and the 35L is not that different.
Yes, good catch I see the same thing too. Yes, I thought something must be wrong when I saw his midzone top crop comparisons and the 35/2 is really blurry compared to the other two.
If you download the full f8 images of the ZE 35/1.4 and 35/2 you can see that they are pretty similar in focus falloff behavior. Look at the rocks on the right side of the stream to the right of the mossy tree. Both have the same level of sharpness and contrast. To me the new lens looks like a very slightly sharper version of the 35/2 with less CA. I will try to visit the Mossy tree again and take a similar f8 shot with my old CZ 35/1.4 so I can compare the falloff rate with the new one.
Also are these downloadable shots already sharpened the same amount using the sharpening amount/method he specified in the section on SA in the ZE 35/1.4 review?
p.17 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
The field of focus is mostly background for zeiss lenses and foreground (and maybe also restricted) for canon. That's all the conclusions i've made from that last shots. Don't forget also that in the scenes , there're not sun but "white flat" light until now for color rendition judgments.
p.17 #6 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Or the REAL question: does it still have one of these worst-in-the-world, brain-dead lens caps, or did they finally pay a bum in the street $2 to design something better?
p.17 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
carstenw wrote:
Or the REAL question: does it still have one of these worst-in-the-world, brain-dead lens caps, or did they finally pay a bum in the street $2 to design something better?
p.17 #8 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Yes, I've seen that I can't quite get myself to throw the caps away (I wonder if he picked his up again before going), but I have replaced my 100MP cap with a 67mm Nikon, which is just so much better. I will do the same with my ZF21 cap. I picked up an extra 67mm cap too, in anticipation of my purchase of the 50MP.
p.17 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
jffielde wrote:
Thanks for the photos.
Your welcome!
Wish I could have gotten there sooner to get some better light. These were taken in flat dim light and required long exposures.
The right of center crops were supposed to be more different according to my focus falloff behavior I have talked about but I guess it also dependent on distance to focus point and if I was closer to the focus point (tree) then there would be a bigger difference in those right of center shots like there was in my previous fallen tree shots.
p.17 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
carstenw wrote:
Or the REAL question: does it still have one of these worst-in-the-world, brain-dead lens caps, or did they finally pay a bum in the street $2 to design something better?
p.17 #13 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Well, more like frustrated and puzzled. Ever since I recall hearing about ZM/ZF lenses, way before they even made ZE lenses, everything has been complaining about those caps, every single review I recall has made a point of noting this. Still, they haven't changed the caps. It is as if they were designed by the boss' wife or something.
p.17 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
carstenw wrote: Well, more like frustrated and puzzled. Ever since I recall hearing about ZM/ZF lenses, way before they even made ZE lenses, everything has been complaining about those caps, every single review I recall has made a point of noting this. Still, they haven't changed the caps. It is as if they were designed by the boss' wife or something.
I do agree that they suck. This type of lens cap has been done a lot more effectively by other manufacturers. Couldn't they just copy how they did it?
p.17 #18 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Wayne, I see what you mean with the compare images on the last page, esp at f2.8. The CY lens has lovely colour and a softer palette, and the red channel is much much better.
Nicer highlight handling also, and the scene just has more midtone in the CY shots also, and more 3D also, as colour is a big determinant of three dimensionality - our eyes just work that way. The faster onset of OOF seems to be pretty reasonable in this kind of shot, with the tree and surrounds being so dominant a subject. The ZF also is longer in focal length.
A very nice lens indeed is the CY. Perhaps a good example of too much micro-contrast impacting the scene adversely with the 35/2?
For very good demonstration of 3D in such scenes, if you can get a continuity of an element to move from front to back - that works best IMHO.
PS I will take a CZ lens with no lens cap over most other options.
p.17 #19 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philip_pj wrote:
Wayne, I see what you mean with the compare images on the last page, esp at f2.8. The CY lens has lovely colour and a softer palette, and the red channel is much much better.
Well, the ZF's is a little warmer in color than the C/Y's. I'm not sure if that is what you're seeing or what's suggesting that the red channel is "much much better" on C/Y. You might have a subjective preference for the cooler rendition, but I don't think one can say objectively that it is much much better in the red channel, especially from these images. If the cooler image is what you like you can adjust the ZF color in processing.
philip_pj wrote:
A very nice lens indeed is the CY. Perhaps a good example of too much micro-contrast impacting the scene adversely with the 35/2?
Really? I don't see any adverse impact from "too much micro contrast". The biggest difference between them is the faster transition fo the OOF areas. The ZF does seem to render more DOF. To me the ZF 35/2 looks better, and would be the choice among these 2 lenses for landscape. The C/Y might be a little better choice for environmental portraits. The C/Y is indeed "softer" which might work for portraits but its not usually an advantage, at least in my book. The ZF 35/2 is just crisper overall, sharper from what I can see in these images, and that's a good thing. I don't see anything particularly negative in terms of color at all.
I do actually prefer the slightly cooler color from the Contax lenses over the warmer ZF. I just don't think i would take the leap that they are "better" because of it. Even with that color preference my choice would be the ZF 35/2 of the 2 lenses.
p.17 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Thanks for all your time and effort, Wayne!!! Most appreciated. Your shots do indeed show the specific rendering of the 2:0, which I both like and don't like... And how the 1.4 differs from it.
