p.23 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber wrote:
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.
+1
The 35/1.4 is definitely not an improved version of the 35/2, it is a completely different lens used for different purposes. You may actually want to own both
p.23 #2 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
sebboh wrote:
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.
I have not seen the lens-tip tests, but the samples from LC on the nikkor 35G are quite a bit sharper/more contrasty than the new zeiss 35 1.4.
p.23 #3 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Philippe, thank you for your suggestion, there are indeed many requirements and wishes that cross each other.
I would prefer the 35 1.4 ZE over the 35 2.0 ZE for stopped down landscape use, because of lateral CA, but the field curvature could become an issue though. I do print large, and small detail is important. I don't like what happens to small detail when lateral CA is corrected in software.
Cost is not paramount important for me if I choose the 1.4 over the 2.0, but size and number of lenses to bring for a task is. I am maybe one of the few who loves the idea of an f/1.4 lens that is optimized for stopped down sharpness. The dilemma for me is to choose between wide open sharpness and wide open exceptionally nice bokeh.
Take one case, I am going to attend a workshop on Iceland in September lead by the Norwegian photographer Arnfinn Johnsen. We will do both landscape and urban environmental portrait. The ZE 35 1.4 would fill both purposes, so would the 35L, but IMO not so well the 35 2.0 as I really would 'need' 1.4. I know that some find the 35L to perform not so well in the corners, and the ZE 35 2.0 is better there except for lateral CA. Also, I am not specifically after the Zeiss look, it is more about specific requirements and it could as well have been a Leica or Minolta for that sake.
p.23 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
edwardkaraa wrote:
+1
The 35/1.4 is definitely not an improved version of the 35/2, it is a completely different lens used for different purposes. You may actually want to own both
The only thing the ZE 35/2 does better than the ZE 35/1.4 IMO, is f/2. How is the 35/2 better from f/2.8 other than size and cost?
p.23 #5 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Anders, while I had only 20 mn to jointly shoot a 35 f:2.0 and a f:1.4, I did a couple of stopped down shots. There is no area in which I did not find the f:1.4 at least equal to the 2.0. In fact they were very similar indeed in many areas. The only exception I could find in this limited time is the 2.0's highly unusual ability to generate 3D as if out of nowhere. That does not mean that the 1.4 is weak in this area, as it is superior even to the 2.0 at wider apertures, but, at f:5.6 the 2.0 is a bit better IMHO.
So it is not my impression that I need to "give up something" by getting "only" one lens, and I clearly have no intent to get both. If that had been the case, my choice would have been the 2.0, as I mostly shoot stopped down a fair bit. But, as I see it, the 1.4 gets me what I would have had at smaller apertures, plus significantly better performance at wider ones, which is an area I wish to do more of.
p.23 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
The only thing the ZE 35/2 does better than the ZE 35/1.4 IMO, is f/2. How is the 35/2 better from f/2.8 other than size and cost?
Actually the more I read about the ZE 35/1.4, the more it sounds like my Sony 35G. It's not a matter of better or worse, but to me, it sounds more like different drawing styles, and you may prefer one style over the other just out of personal preference. As mentioned by Philber and others who read LC review, as well as the published photos of this lens, it seems to have less 3D and less micro-contrast, even though the resolution may be higher than the 35/2, still you might prefer the 35/2 because of the incredible 3D and micro-contrast. Others might prefer the softer drawing style of the 35/1.4 for portraits and more artistic purposes.
p.23 #8 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Edward, I never said that the 1.4 had less micro-contrast. LC writes that, but, on my very limited samples, I can't see it. If I had to stake my life on which has more when stopped down, I would say the 1.4, but it could be very slight differences in DOF or focusing. I rechecked my RAW pics, and that is what I see.
p.23 #9 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
edwardkaraa wrote:
As mentioned by Philber and others who read LC review, as well as the published photos of this lens, it seems to have less 3D and less micro-contrast,
I don't find that to be true, based on the images and words from LC.
p.23 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber wrote:
Edward, I never said that the 1.4 had less micro-contrast. LC writes that, but, on my very limited samples, I can't see it. If I had to stake my life on which has more when stopped down, I would say the 1.4, but it could be very slight differences in DOF or focusing. I rechecked my RAW pics, and that is what I see.
Ooops, sorry Phil, I misread your post. I do have the impression of lower micro-contrast from seeing the samples floating around though.
p.23 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
No problem. And I did write that, stopped down, the f2.0 has more 3D IMHO. Now, of course, if, for some, that automatically equates with more micro-contrast, then we can have another 30 pages of what 3 actually means...
p.23 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber wrote:
No problem. And I did write that, stopped down, the f2.0 has more 3D IMHO. Now, of course, if, for some, that automatically equates with more micro-contrast, then we can have another 30 pages of what 3 actually means...
Touche!
Actually they are unrelated for sure. My Sony 35 and 50 have high resolution, a lot of 3D, but low micro-contrast.
p.23 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Anders,
Yes, it's a personal decision between the new and old 35/1.4 and the 35/2.
At apertures smaller than f2.8, the new 35/1.4,bokeh differences aside is very similar to the 35/2 except with less CA and more FC.Whether you prefer/need a one lens solution with large weight and size is a personal decision.Having a smaller, lighter lens for landscape hikes/trips is a plus as I am finding that I am shooting more landscapes with my ZE 21, ZE 50 MP, and CZ 100/2 planar and less with the ZF 35/2. I guess for environmental portraits I would prefer the old 35/1.4 to the new as I like the more detailed/less contrasty and less blurred bokeh for the background.
Everyone will have different preferences/favorites.
p.23 #16 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Rodluvan (Rødhette?): I mean both.
Edvard: I don't think LC sharpened the stopped down images the same way he did with wide open ones, and it wouldn't be necessary either. Other images are difficult to judge, as they are not shot side-by-side with both lenses.
p.23 #17 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber wrote:
The only exception I could find in this limited time is the 2.0's highly unusual ability to generate 3D as if out of nowhere. That does not mean that the 1.4 is weak in this area, as it is superior even to the 2.0 at wider apertures, but, at f:5.6 the 2.0 is a bit better IMHO.
Can you elaborate on this, I'm not quite following you. What do you mean better at wider apertures but worse @5.6?
Do you mean the 2.0 catches up at 5.6?
p.23 #18 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
LC advised me that he believes the FC is still there when stopped down at infinity which I thought was rather interesting. He will confirm this in a future test.
p.23 #19 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
magiclight wrote:
LC advised me that he believes the FC is still there when stopped down at infinity which I thought was rather interesting. He will confirm this in a future test.
AFAIK, FC does not go away when you stop down, it is just covered, partially or entirely, by the DOF.
p.23 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
magiclight wrote:
LC advised me that he believes the FC is still there when stopped down at infinity which I thought was rather interesting. He will confirm this in a future test.
I will follow that closely.
According to Toothwalker, FC has a linear relationship to aperture.
)