p.22 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Your layman's explanation is MUCH appreciated, Wayne! Especially including that tidbit about the c/y 35 and 3D. I guess it's a give and take with this lens. :S I do like the look of the potted plant I shot but that bench shot posted up....too awesome.
I'll take a look at that article as well!
wayne seltzer wrote:
Randy, these look to be focused fine so don't worry.
If you read the CLN 35 article on Zeiss website that Luka provided the link to a little earlier in this thread, you will understand that Zeiss on purpose undercorrected the spherical aberration (SA) in order to get smoother transitioning bokeh in which OOF objects retain their shape longer/better as you go away from the focus point. The downside is that you get this veiling haze which makes the focus point look softer/less sharp than a lens with normal SA correction.
The old 35/1.4 has a quick focus to OOF transition which gives that more abrupt change where the lens goes from ultra sharp at the focus point to quickly blurring a very short distance away. For portraits, some people might not like that abrupt focus transition. This abrupt change is like the Z* 100/2 when used for portrait.
This new lens will have a lot harder time generating 3-d like the old lens does due to this.
To me the look of the new lens wide open is like putting a Softar sp? softening lens on the front of a normal zeiss lens.
It is sharp like my nikkor 35 1.4 ai-s is sharp.. aka: not very sharp. The nikkor 35 1.4 af-s is sharpER and the old zeiss 35 1.4 is sharpER. It may be sharp, just not the top notch many here has come to expect.
p.22 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
ulrikft2 wrote:
It is sharp like my nikkor 35 1.4 ai-s is sharp.
Really? Not like mine. Every once in a while with perfect lighting condition and focus, it produced something similar in sharpness (ignoring the many aberrations).
Anyway, I was expecting a lot worse (sharpness and aberrationwise) with all the discussions going on. However, what I did not see was the 'presence/3D' that I was kind of expecting. That is a big let down
p.22 #5 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
And to think I let a NIB Contax 1.4/35 go a few months back because I wasn't sure if it would foul the mirror on the 5D or not and figured that the new 'un might be just as good and would bolt on no problem...
(of course, that is a processed/sharpened/resized shot, so no fair competition, but it looked quite similar to the distance-portrait in the series above when I started)
I have opened the mosaic-shots from the ZE 35 1.4 and the nikkor 35 1.4 AF-S in tabs and switched between them, and I guess the d3x is a better sensor, so that is a bit of a handicap, but still.. the 100% crops look just better with the nikkor. I suspect the older 35 1.4 zeiss might have done better?
p.22 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Randy,
I bet this slow focus transition with the undercorrected SA makes it hard to focus wide open as the focus point never comes into a fast sharp rendition while adjusting the focus. Is that fair to say?
The focus assist beep and light are never that accurate and are not adjusted or improved by in camera microadjust feature which is for AF lenses. The beep gets you in proximity to the correct focus point but there is a range to this and you really need to rely either on your eyes in the viewfinder or use LiveView to nail the focus.
randyp01 wrote:
Your layman's explanation is MUCH appreciated, Wayne! Especially including that tidbit about the c/y 35 and 3D. I guess it's a give and take with this lens. :S I do like the look of the potted plant I shot but that bench shot posted up....too awesome.
p.22 #8 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Ulrik, How about the new Nikon 35/1.4G?
When LC compares that lens next to the ZF 35/1.4 when he gets it, there is going to be quite a difference in sharpness/clarity wide open.
p.22 #9 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
wayne seltzer wrote:
Ulrik, How about the new Nikon 35/1.4G?
When LC compares that lens next to the ZF 35/1.4 when he gets it, there is going to be quite a difference in sharpness/clarity wide open.
Yeah, if nikon (or someone else) does not surprise me with a great EVIL with a viewfinder before autumn, I think the 35G or the 24G will be my next purchase.
p.22 #10 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
ulrikft2 wrote:
Yeah, if nikon (or someone else) does not surprise me with a great EVIL with a viewfinder before autumn, I think the 35G or the 24G will be my next purchase.
I see that you have a 35/1.4 ai-s, and I think it gets a bad rap... I have seen some pretty amazing stiff with that lens at medium distances wide open. No massive veil as one would expect. And of course stopped down it is simply great. I was really hoping that Zeiss would not try to make this fast 35 a portrait lens, but alas I believe they have done just that. The focus transition is just not as hard and delicious as the C/Y or Rollei. I may try to find another copy of the C/Y just in case mine ever has issues. I like it that much...
p.22 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Jason_Thames wrote:
I see that you have a 35/1.4 ai-s, and I think it gets a bad rap... I have seen some pretty amazing stiff with that lens at medium distances wide open. No massive veil as one would expect. And of course stopped down it is simply great. I was really hoping that Zeiss would not try to make this fast 35 a portrait lens, but alas I believe they have done just that. The focus transition is just not as hard and delicious as the C/Y or Rollei. I may try to find another copy of the C/Y just in case mine ever has issues. I like it that much...
I have been thinking the same thing. I have an AEG version and was wondering how much better a MMJ version is with the newer coatings? Which version do you have? I have never seen a MMJ version for sale.
p.22 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
AEG version complete with Ninja-Star goodness! I have tried the AEG and MMJ version of the 135/2.8 and the MMJ is MUCH better, or at least it was for the 2 copies I had. I believe the 35 has the same formula all the way until the end, however, so I would not expect much of a difference.
p.22 #13 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
ulrikft2 wrote:
So far the nikon 35 1.4 af-s has my number for a fast 35. Cant wait till LC does a shoot out between the two. But these samples also seem a bit softer WO and the boke actually looks a bit more busy than the nikon.
oddly lenstip says that the new samyang 35/1.4 is actually sharper than the new nikkor G at f/1.4, despite marking wide open sharpness as one of the samyangs weaknesses. i'm going to have to look at both reviews next to each other. as far as the zeiss goes, the c/y version is looking much better than the new version to me. i'm not getting a f/1.4 lens to shoot at f/8.
p.22 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Well, I would (get an f/1.4 lens to shoot at f/8), if it's the best there is at f/8. I'm a little disappointed with the wide open performance so far, but there's also a enormous potential for people to look at things that aren't available any longer with undue nostalgia. That is, people love to know that they own something that few people can have that's more special than the new one anyone can buy. Sometimes there's truth to the preference, but more often not (because technology rarely gets worse with time). After all, there are people who'll drop $5,000 on a Canon 50 1.0L, too.
Not saying that's the case with the old Zeiss, but I wouldn't count the new one out just yet, either.
p.22 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
This reminds me of the discussions over the Canon EF50mm f/1.2L when it was released a few years ago. Everyone, me included, was expecting a 50mm version of the 85L. It wasn't, due to the amount of uncorrected SA. Initially I was lukewarm about it, but over time have found I use it much more than the 85L, and also like it better. But I use it primarily for people photography, not landscapes or applications with high technical demands. it seems the new Zeiss will result in similar polarization.
I had a look at the Lenstip Samyang and Nikon 35 f/1.4 reviews a few days ago and my impression was that the Nikon was not considerably sharper than the Samyang wide open at closer distances. It does seem to have better contrast, but the problem with comparing their sample images is they don't appear to have been shot side by side for easy comparison.
Randy, thanks for posting those many samples. I agree with Wayne it doesn't appear to exhibit the pop that I have seen from the old CY or Rollei versions in various photos in the past, posted by brainiac, Luka, etc., but I do like the feeling of the images, such as the one of your friend resting against the railing and looking out over the mall below.
p.22 #16 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
The samples look great to me. Honestly not all Zeiss lenses must be razor sharp and uber contrasty as one gets bored with that too after a while. It is good to have different lenses with different characters in one's line up.
p.22 #17 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
ulrikft2 wrote:
Well, I get results like this with mine, and I consider mine a bad copy
Yes, I have a few of those as well, cleaned up (and your sample is not only very small, it's also very cleaned up and sharpened) in post the 1.4/35Ais is ok. But what I saw in the Zeiss sample above was good enough raw material to edit into sharpness that far exceed my expectations and probably need as well. An off the cuff comparison with the planar 1.4/50 tells me the 35 is sharper by far, and better controlled.
p.22 #18 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I am perplexed that, while many here accept the technical dissertation by LC on focusing issues, haze, sharpening requirements etc..., so little gets said about his endorsement of the lens, with quite unusual praise. Am I missing something?
p.22 #19 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Randy, thanks a lot for the photos! Just the type of photos I would like to see.
Yes, they are relatively soft, like using a soft filter, but I like the rendering and the bokeh very much. I find it more appealing than what I have seen from the C/Y version.
I think LC made a mistake by sharpening his images. Yes, technically they can take a lot of deconvolution sharpening, but that takes away the smooth feeling and exaggerates double contours, which I don't like. By sharpening his images too much (to my taste) LC failed to demonstrate the nice rendering he talks about.
The question for me is, will the rendering be so much better than the 35L to justify owning both? The 35L will not leave anytime soon. Maybe i will have to try it myself.
p.22 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Alundeb, unless you insist on f:1.4, the Z*f:2.0 is already a more than valid alternative to the 35L for Zeiss-type rendition. It seems clear to me that the new 35 f:1.4 is not designed as though it were the only Zeiss lens of that focal length in the lineup, and that, by and large, the majoity of new buyers will gravitate towards the f:2.0.
