p.18 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Wayne, thanks a lot for making that test. I see what you are talking about in #9 and #10. From the crops presented, there is still no guarantee that this is not a focus difference. I say "no guarantee" because I don't see where the DoF falls off towards the camera.
The softness and veiling haze in the central DoF at f/2.8 is quite pronounced with the C/Y. It is probably more pronounced at f/2.8 than the new ZE 1.4 is at f/2.0. This suggests that the new ZE 1.4 has less haze wide open than the C/Y, not more. It is just that LC's church scene is so revealing on the issue.
p.18 #2 · 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.
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....Show more →
Pardon me, but a lens doesn't perform any "highlight handling".
p.18 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I wonder if stopping down the C/Y just some fraction of a stop would have given similar DoF rendering as the ZF. Looking at the full size images from Wayne I am convinced that in that particular example, the result would have been closer in all parts of the image. The distant background would not have been reversed to less blur with the C/Y than with the ZF.
p.18 #5 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Here's the shots as promised. First one showing the CA is at 1.4, the rest are stopped down a bit to just show drawing style, one focused on the rails a few feet away, then same shot at infinity focus. It's nothing mind blowing, just some quick snap shots I took while scouting a love story shoot.
5Dmk2
200 ISO (limited by HTP)
Highlight tone priority (for cinema purposes)
I think I may have had a custom picture profile which tweaks sharpness and contrast but I'm not 100% sure. The sharpness and contrast would have been turned down if so.
Photos resized -40% of original, nothing else done to them.
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.18 #6 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
ulrikft2 wrote:
I must say that I'm not sure that I find LC's conclusions rhyming with the samples when he compares the 35/1.4 and 35/2 ZEs with the 35/1.4 L from Canon. Especially in the last comparison, the Canon is just as good resolution wise as the 35/1.4 and it's boke is also quite similar. To me it seems like LC really, really wants this 35 1.4 ZE to be the GOAT, but so far his own samples does not really confirm this.
+1
That's my impression too. He really likes this lens to be the "Greatest Of All Times". And when it's not, he have a lot of strange comments about how good it is at f/1,4. And even when the lens wide open has low contrast, haze, soft and its uncorrected aberrations make it difficult to focus even with Live View
p.18 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
magiclight wrote:
I think when judging lens colour you really need to view a variety of images using a wide gamut colorspace, rather than a jpeg in a browser.
A jpeg can have any color space as long as you embed the right profile in it. Still, not the best format of course for accurate comparisons.
p.18 #10 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber - you're very welcome
Unfortunately, I didn't have an ND filter to go down in exposure. I was already at the limits of the shutter speed as well as my ISO. Even when I'm correctly exposed, I've still seen purple fringing/CA against highlights.
Comparisons against the 35 2 and contax 17-35 will be coming up this week. If there is any particular situation you guys want shot, please let me know. I'll take a reasonable amount of requests .
p.18 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
randyp01 wrote:
Comparisons against the 35 2 and contax 17-35 will be coming up this week. If there is any particular situation you guys want shot, please let me know. I'll take a reasonable amount of requests .
Well, if you really want to be comprehensive...
...look at different focus distances. One close, perhaps near the MFD, one a middle distance, and another at or close to infinity. At the close distance, put the subject/focus point off-center.
p.18 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Randy, I'd love to see a couple of shots at f:2.8 and f:5.6, considering that this is where I intend to shoot this lens. In particular, how bad are the issues that LC highlights (field curvature, need to sharpen) at these apertures?
Thanks in advance for whatever you can and will do.
p.18 #13 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Lars Johnsson wrote:
That's my impression too. He really likes this lens to be the "Greatest Of All Times". And when it's not, he have a lot of strange comments about how good it is at f/1,4. And even when the lens wide open has low contrast, haze, soft and its uncorrected aberrations make it difficult to focus even with Live View
I think actually the case may be that Zeiss has realized that the problem with their Planar lenses (50/85) is that they are too cheap. As the cheapest lenses in their arsenal a lot of people get them first and are very disappointed because they are "soft" wide open, bad for closeups etc In reality the lenses are somewhat tricky to use and you have to know what you are doing. But if you are using them right you are amply rewarded. There are a bunch of people here in this forum that really know how to use those lenses but a majority of people that buy them seem to do so because they are the cheapest Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses available.
I suspect that the new 35/1.4 is similar in that respect. You need to know how to use it. It's not universally good at all apertures and distances. But perhaps Zeiss have wisened up about the pricing and realized that they need to put a higher price on their quirky lenses so that people don't buy them for budget reasons.
Just a theory anyway. Of course it might just be crap
p.18 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
denoir wrote:
I think actually the case may be that Zeiss has realized that the problem with their Planar lenses (50/85) is that they are too cheap. As the cheapest lenses in their arsenal a lot of people get them first and are very disappointed because they are "soft" wide open, bad for closeups etc In reality the lenses are somewhat tricky to use and you have to know what you are doing. But if you are using them right you are amply rewarded. There are a bunch of people here in this forum that really know how to use those lenses but a majority of people that buy them seem to do so because they are the cheapest Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses available....Show more →
To some extent, Zeiss, itself is a fault in this area. Their own descriptions of the ZF lenses (not just the 50/85) fail to to provide sufficient insight (if any at all) as to their strengths and weaknesses, their characteristics, and to how they might be optimally used. They need to manage consumer expectations better. Customers need to think they get what they expect they are going to get.
Apr 03, 2011 at 02:31 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.18 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I don't belive it's crap But the main reason for me to buy that lens instead of the 35/2 would be the f/1,4 to f/2. And it don't looks that good compared to the other lenses LC compare it against. I had expected more from it. (I also believe he know how to use it)
I'm pretty sure it's a very nice lens. But nearly 1000 Euro more than the f/2 version is too much for me if it's performance wide open is that soft with the haze he show. Instead I bought both the 50 MP and the 35/2 for nearly the same price. for me that was a better deal. Especially since I already own many fast f/1,2 and f/1,4 lenses.
And I don't call it a budget lens. It cost 1649 euro and is also the most expensive of the ZE lenses from Zeiss
p.18 #16 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Lotusm50 wrote:
To some extent, Zeiss, itself is a fault in this area. Their own descriptions of the ZF lenses (not just the 50/85) fail to to provide sufficient insight (if any at all) as to their strengths and weaknesses, their characteristics, and to how they might be optimally used. They need to manage consumer expectations better. Customers need to think they get what they expect they are going to get.
I agree. You can of course get some information from the MTF charts but that only gives partial information and not all people can interpret MTF charts.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
And I don't call it a budget lens. It cost 1649 euro and is also the most expensive of the ZE lenses from Zeiss
I didn't say that it was a budget lens. On the contrary. I said the Planars were the cheapest ones and that perhaps with the 35/1.4 Zeiss had wisened up when it comes to pricing of quirky lenses.
p.18 #17 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I think Zeiss are caught in their own game. I have always thought that one of the main secrets of the Zeiss look is in the deliberate under correction of some aberrations, that other manufacturers work hard to eliminate, like field curvature, spherical aberrations... Etc. It is somewhat admitted in one of the interviews with their chief designers (I think it was last year). You can see that Zeiss lenses for Sony have less of that Zeiss look, because they are well corrected, but that's what Sony wants, more universal lenses for their own line to please a wider clientele not necessarily looking for a specific look. But Zeiss has to keep that traditional look they started in the Z* lines, as the customers would expect to find the high micro contrast and strong 3D rendering, like in previous lenses. As mentioned by Luka, the lenses have many quirks and are difficult to work with. They require more understanding and skill levels from the users in order to unleash their potential.
Apr 03, 2011 at 02:54 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.18 #18 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I don't think those Zeiss are more difficult to use than all other lenses. Or that you need more understanding & skill to use them that other lenses. A few of my other lenses where a lot more difficult to learn. And require more skill/understanding to "unleash their potential" Lenses like tilt/shift or large super-tele are the first I'm thinking of.
Most lenses have their strong & weak sides that you have to learn
p.18 #19 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Tilt/shift lenses and super telephotos require different skills, but here we are talking about more subtle and less evident things like field curvature and how it affects sharpness at different distances and at different locations in the frame. It is necessary to learn how to use a tilt/shift lens correctly, otherwise the results can be a total fiasco, but with the Zeiss lenses, they require a certain sensitivity from the user, and understanding more subtle variations.
If someone doesn't know how to use t/s or long teles correctly, one can get very blurry images, while if a user doesn't understand the complexities and quirks of the Zeiss, one will only get average results not better but also not much worse than other similar lenses.
Apr 03, 2011 at 03:14 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.18 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
There are a lot of subtle things with those also. And even if we talk about more "normal" lenses. It's not like you need a special skill or a understanding with Zeiss lenses compared to all other brands. Many other lenses also needs understanding to get the best from them. There is no "secret skill" you need to shoot with Zeiss.
