p.8 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
edwardkaraa wrote:
So the concensus seems to be that this lens is disappointing? A backward step from the original Contax? Sorry for asking but this thread lost me
It **appears** to be that way, for me at least.
I find it compelling and mildly amusing when LC put up a specific sharpening section in his review for this lens. I also find it mildly amusing that he calls this lens "gracefully sharp" or when he says it has high "latent sharpness". [stopped down yes, but wide-open, perhaps not!]
I love the many, varied examples of the old 35/1.4 Rollei version in the 35mm thread here. So I too am interested in the specific differences between the old and new designs [as Luka mentioned earlier in this thread]. We will see.
p.8 #2 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
edwardkaraa wrote:
I did direct comparisons between them, some of which were posted on FM. The Contax had clearly less veiling haze, and was sharper below 2.8. From 2.8 to 4, the ZE was sharper, and from 5.6 upwards they were quite similar.
i believe zeiss has had a change of philosophy in what they want to design their f/1.4 lenses for since the c/y days and has tweaked the formula's for the Z* lenses. for whatever reason they seem to have decided that more SA is acceptable to provide the look they want those lenses to have. that paper they published on bokeh seems to suggest that they might be doing so in an attempt to provide a more pleasing bokeh. unfortunately, from the images i've seen i think i like the look of the c/y 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 more than the Z* versions. don't take any of this too seriously though, i'm just hypothesizing based on what i've read that zeiss has said and on the various images i've seen (i've never shot with any of those lenses).
p.8 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
sebboh wrote:
unfortunately, from the images i've seen i think i like the look of the c/y 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 more than the Z* versions. don't take any of this too seriously though, i'm just hypothesizing based on what i've read that zeiss has said and on the various images i've seen (i've never shot with any of those lenses).
In a direct comparison that I have seen the Contax 50/1.4 had smoother bokeh than the Z*. Found it:
I'm only attracted to the Z* because of the 9 blade aperture (I hate how hexagons can mess up bokeh). They even show up at f/2 in the comparison linked to above.
p.8 #5 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Zeiss should have optimized at least for 1.4 and not so much for 5.6 and f8 and let their f2 lens be the champion there. Trying to make a more all round type of fast lens usually fails.
Don't give me better corners at 1.4 at the expense of center sharpness and worse yet SA.
Although it's a different focal length, Zeiss should have designed a 35/1.4 like the Contax N 85/1.4 which is still my favorite fast Zeiss lens. The older CZ 35/1.4 is not bad either.
Both lenses are not the sharpest at the corners but have excellent performance at 1.4 in the center two thirds.
p.8 #6 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
So far I have to admit that I prefer the nikkor 35 1.4 (higher wide open resolution/contrast). Would love to test them out for myself, but I don't think anyone in Norway will have the ZF. We'll see I guess.
p.8 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
AhamB wrote:
In a direct comparison that I have seen the Contax 50/1.4 had smoother bokeh than the Z*. Found it:
I'm only attracted to the Z* because of the 9 blade aperture (I hate how hexagons can mess up bokeh). They even show up at f/2 in the comparison linked to above.
I agree about the c/y being smoother and that hexagons are incredibly annoying. the zeiss bokeh article goes on at some length about under corrected SA providing smoother bokeh, but I'm not terribly convinced that is true in practice. in certainly provides a destinct look, but not necessarily smoother one. their zm 50/1.5 sonnar is a great demonstration of this - purposely undercorrected SA, but I would classify the bokeh as interesting/funky not smooth (might be sonnar thing more than an SA thing?).
side note: in a month or so when I have more free time I'm gonna try an aperture transplant on one of my cheapo lenses to see if it's a viable solution to the hexagon issue.
p.8 #8 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
sebboh wrote:
I agree about the c/y being smoother and that hexagons are incredibly annoying. the zeiss bokeh article goes on at some length about under corrected SA providing smoother bokeh, but I'm not terribly convinced that is true in practice. in certainly provides a destinct look, but not necessarily smoother one.
I guess it isn't any guarantee, but in general undercorrected spherical aberration yields boke rings which are soft towards the edges, whereas overcorrected spherical aberration yields boke rings with hard or bright edges. Thus there is some truth to it.
p.8 #9 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
carstenw wrote:
I guess it isn't any guarantee, but in general undercorrected spherical aberration yields boke rings which are soft towards the edges, whereas overcorrected spherical aberration yields boke rings with hard or bright edges. Thus there is some truth to it.
certainly true, but there appears to be more involved in how lens designers deal with SA than simply over correcting and undercorrecting, I imagine this is particularly true in aspherical designs like new zeiss.
p.8 #10 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
sebboh wrote:
their zm 50/1.5 sonnar is a great demonstration of this - purposely undercorrected SA, but I would classify the bokeh as interesting/funky not smooth (might be sonnar thing more than an SA thing?).
It may be a Sonnar thing for RF and 50mm, but the Contax 85/2.8 and 100/3.5 definitely don't share the bokeh characteristics with that 50/1.5.
I wonder if the ZM Planar 50/2 is anything like the Contax G 45/2, because the latter has been show to be a very nice lens.
p.8 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
AhamB wrote:
It may be a Sonnar thing for RF and 50mm, but the Contax 85/2.8 and 100/3.5 definitely don't share the bokeh characteristics with that 50/1.5.
I wonder if the ZM Planar 50/2 is anything like the Contax G 45/2, because the latter has been show to be a very nice lens.
those sonnars are a fair bit slower (and longer) which always makes bokeh look better. the contax/nikkon rangefinder/jupiter-9 85/2 have a bit more funk to it's bokeh (though i quite like the look). in general it just seems difficult to build lenses with good wide open bokeh the wider you go, which is what makes the original zeiss 35/1.4 so special. mike johnston says the opposite is true of stopped down bokeh, but he might disagree with my first statement too.
on paper the zm 50/2 looks very similar to the contax 45/2 and maybe even a little better (except for the mfd). from the images it seems to draw very similarly to my 45/2.
p.8 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I confirm: the ZM 50 f:2.0 is a delightful lens. Very sharp, including wide open, very detailed, good colours, plenty of 3D. Bokeh wide open can sometimes be a bit nervous.
p.8 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
jffielde wrote:
Any thoughts on why so many of Lloyd's shots so far are at ISO 50?
Could be to minimize noise, becuase of the extra sharpening he applies in order to compensate for the SA. Sharpening brings out noise in 100% crops even at ISO 100.
p.8 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
For the moment, I would say the ZE 35/2 seems to be very good (best?) lens especially using it at full aperture.
The 35L is also highly desirable. And the EF 35/2 except for its harsh bokey is really a good street versatile and inexpensive lens. I really would like to read/see a shot comparison beetween EF 35/2 and ZE 35/2.
p.8 #16 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I wouldn't bother with a comparison. The EF is very low on contrast and color saturation, and the photos look very flat. I had it for a while when sharpness was my most important criteria when choosing a lens.
p.8 #18 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
Any thoughts on why so many of Lloyd's shots so far are at ISO 50?
Could be to minimize noise, becuase of the extra sharpening he applies in order to compensate for the SA. Sharpening brings out noise in 100% crops even at ISO 100.
Interesting. I thought ISO 50 was just to provide an electronic equivalent of a neutral density filter to permit longer exposure. I didn't know that it actually improved picture quality (noise in this case).
p.8 #19 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
trusty wrote:
For the moment, I would say the ZE 35/2 seems to be very good (best?) lens especially using it at full aperture.
The 35L is also highly desirable. And the EF 35/2 except for its harsh bokey is really a good street versatile and inexpensive lens. I really would like to read/see a shot comparison beetween EF 35/2 and ZE 35/2.
Yes, the 35/2 ZE indeed seems like a good option. It seems like a bargain [relatively] in many ways [weight, price].
The 35L is known to be sharp in the centers wide open and has good amount of contrast . In high contrast scenes [outdoors, daylight], it may not be able to match the colors, contrast of the ZE lenses. Also,The sharpness to blur transitions are different on all three lenses.
Don't forget we also have the 35 1.4 Rollei and the Nikon 35 1.4G.
It is nice we have so many choices for a fast 35. I am looking forward to a 35mm comparison for the above lenses. It will be difficult to get a data point for the Nikon 35 on an EOS body [especially since it is a G lens].
p.8 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
jffielde wrote:
Interesting. I thought ISO 50 was just to provide an electronic equivalent of a neutral density filter to permit longer exposure. I didn't know that it actually improved picture quality (noise in this case).
ISO50 is same as ISO 100 overexposed by one stop and then pulled back 1 stop. Think of it as auto ETTR in camera which does help to reduce noise in shadows and mid-tones but with the danger of highlight clipping. So it only helps if you don't want to do the same thing manually in your RAW converter and if you don't have lot of highlights in the scene.
Not sure that is the reason or if there is any valid reason LC shot it that way. He does say he has used a high masking value to prevent smooth areas from being sharpened too much.
