p.9 #2 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Did a few quick test shots with the new zeiss 35 1.4. A little bit of purple fringing wide open until 2.0 then it subsides.
Any particular shots people are looking for? I have a few wide open bokeh shots so far but would be open to a FEW (not insane) amount of requests.
I'm primarily a cinematographer and shoot weddings and I'm planning on doing a few films with it, but wouldn't mind helping out the fine folks here at FM with some question answering .
p.9 #3 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I would love to see some of the shots that interest you. In particular, I'm interested in close shots (within a few feet) with bright colors at low f-stops. But anything would be great.
Do your own shots tend to match lloyd's (if you have access), or do they differ in a notable way? Thanks for the offer.
p.9 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I'v seen last update of L.C this morning. Unfortunately, there isn't any comparison with Z 35/2 or 35L. Most of pictures could have been shot with a 35/2. The pictures are nices but I really miss the comparison.
I can do real good looking pictures with my EF 28/2.8 or any other lens. May be not that sharp but... Many identical shots are quite boring to produce and obvisouly time consuming, require a tripod, etc. But that, I think, the main reason we agree to pay those reviews is to see real comparatives shots. This is not forthcoming
Randy, if you're able to shot some comparatives shots with any other 35mm lens you have
p.9 #5 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
The only 35mm lens I have at the moment is the 17-35MM Contax Zeiss. Sold my 35 2.0 ZF in anticipation of this lens. I'll ask my friend who I sold the lens to if I can borrow his lens for a few shots. What conditions would you guys like to see the comparison in? Again...I'm primarily a cinematographer so please have a bit of patience when it comes to comparisons in the stills world .
p.9 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
abhijeeth wrote:
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.
Confirmed, he says in the introduction to the latest set of images:
"Im not so pleased with the Canon 5D Mark II images at ISO values higher than 100, but at ISO 50, the cleaner image quality meshes very well with the sensuous velvety blur of the 35/1.4 Distagon"
p.9 #8 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
It's an odd remark. He's used the 5D2 for many reviews, but I don't remember this kind of issue before. It worries me a bit that the new Zeiss needs so much sharpening that we need to use expanded ISOs (and even then they look noisy to me).
When you look at the one image at 400 ISO, it looks extremely noisy -- moreso than I've ever seen with my 5D2. Even the 50-100 ISO images look noisy (I assume from the sharpening). Seems like something still isn't quite right.
p.9 #10 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
jffielde wrote:
It's an odd remark. He's used the 5D2 for many reviews, but I don't remember this kind of issue before.
I remember him mentioning something of the sort in ithe past. He's never been particularly keen on sensor of the 5D Mk II.
It worries me a bit that the new Zeiss needs so much sharpening that we need to use expanded ISOs (and even then they look noisy to me).
Ditto. Will this mean that to achieve the proper sharpening that you must shoot RAW only? Sharpening in JPEG to that extent won't help the image.
When you look at the one image at 400 ISO, it looks extremely noisy -- moreso than I've ever seen with my 5D2. Even the 50-100 ISO images look noisy (I assume from the sharpening). Seems like something still isn't quite right.
...and that's partly why he doesn't care for the 5D II... I remember him writing about the colors on distant subjects sometimes washing out, among other issues. It's his personal taste really.
p.9 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Sorry to be a little off-topic here.
To be honest, in my opinion, one needs to have a strong BS detector while reading Lloyd's reviews and take his words [both positive and negative] with a pinch of salt. While he is somewhat methodical, he can be strongly biased sometimes. While he does share his observations pretty well, he often sullies it with some ill-thought remarks.
I've been a subscriber of both his DAP and Zeiss reviews for close to 2 years now and I feel his 35 1.4 ZE review is really descending into the comical. I mean, just take a look at some of the adjectives he has been using. [organic, gracefully sharp, sensuous, velvety !! :-)] .I wouldn't have minded it generally but the context he uses and the pictures he posts to make those claims are sometimes out of whack :-)
He has indeed not been a fan of the 5d mark 2 and has several valid criticisms, but *some* are not really the camera's fault. In several situations, you do have to dial down the interaction between the picture styles & white balance correctly for JPEG output. For RAW, you do need to sometimes tweak the camera profiles to your taste. But posting a small picture and claiming that *color* noise at ISO100 -400 is withholding the performance of the *green* channel is treading on thin ice.
In the end, like I did for all the other Zeiss glass I own, I am going to form a better opinion of the new 35 1.4 after seeing some sample pics and discussing the actual usage pros and cons with the users of the Alt forum here. Much more useful in my opinion and one gets a much more balanced view of things !! :-)
p.9 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
It's also a shame that he was not given a ZF.2 version to try on a Nikon as well. I've wondered why Zeiss released the ZE first and ask out loud whether it's better suited for videography rather than stills. Perhaps I lack the expert eye but thus far it does not retain the sharpness wide open that the old Zeiss 35/1.4 did, evident from that thread on this site. Question is whether bokeh is enough to drive the sales of this pricey and weighty hunk of glass? The 35/2 is a fantastic lens and many were hoping this one would outperform it in every measure hands-down. I have yet to see such evidence.
p.9 #13 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Despite almost everything, opinions both here and over at LCīs, despite all, in LCīs images I can still see great potential to get images that could be very much to my own liking. Few lenses are of the one-size-fits-all kind and the more extreme a lens is, the more itīs specialized in the sense that itīs likely to departs from the main stream. The new f/1.4 apparently has very low lateral CA and very even IQ over the whole field. In my book thatīs a great start.
For me the internet has proved to be a pretty lousy source of Truth when looking at images as any PP manipulation can be done, in any direction. I have bought a few lenses just because of their dubious characteristics (per The Internet), 50L and 25ZF to mention two, and have found them interesting with great potential to work with. OTOH the "great 24L and 35L" proved to be disappointments, especially the 35L. Perhaps a few more should try out the new Distagon before we bury it as a sad and total failure?
p.9 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Z250SA wrote:
Perhaps a few more should try out the new Distagon before we bury it as a sad and total failure?
Fact is, LC's comments are not negative, on the contrary. Roger Cicala writes the same. From there, and on the basis of Internet-spec quality pics, "people" decide that the lens is a total disappointment. That reminds me of the incredible barrage of disdain with which the 5D11 was received here, because it wasn't what "people" wanted. So maybe scorn upon release should be seen as a good sign?
Mar 20, 2011 at 12:35 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #16 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
j.liam wrote:
It's also a shame that he was not given a ZF.2 version to try on a Nikon as well. I've wondered why Zeiss released the ZE first and ask out loud whether it's better suited for videography rather than stills. Perhaps I lack the expert eye but thus far it does not retain the sharpness wide open that the old Zeiss 35/1.4 did, evident from that thread on this site. Question is whether bokeh is enough to drive the sales of this pricey and weighty hunk of glass? The 35/2 is a fantastic lens and many were hoping this one would outperform it in every measure hands-down. I have yet to see such evidence. ...Show more →
When the 35/2 is a fantastic lens. It's not really realistic to expect the new lens to outperform it in every measure hands-down.
If the the new lens has about the same performance as the f/2 version, and also is descent at f/1,4 I would be rather happy with it.
p.9 #17 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
LC's new series comparing the 1.4, f2 and Canon 35L is very interesting. The redwood scene seems to match the field curvature of the ZE 1.4, so the lens clearly comes out on top. No pixel peeping required!
The more I see images taken with this lens the more I prefer it over the f2. One of the usages I use the 35mm f2 for is high depth of field landscape photography. I'm not sure if the f1.4 could replace the f2 for this type of work given it's reasonably high field curvature. For other "creative" work the f1.4 would be a no brainer.
Mar 20, 2011 at 02:38 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #18 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
magiclight wrote:
LC's new series comparing the 1.4, f2 and Canon 35L is very interesting. The redwood scene seems to match the field curvature of the ZE 1.4, so the lens clearly comes out on top. No pixel peeping required!
The more I see images taken with this lens the more I prefer it over the f2. One of the usages I use the 35mm f2 for is high depth of field landscape photography. I'm not sure if the f1.4 could replace the f2 for this type of work given it's reasonably high field curvature. For other "creative" work the f1.4 would be a no brainer.
p.9 #19 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber wrote:
wasn't what "people" wanted. So maybe scorn upon release should be seen as a good sign?
My point exactly!
Mar 20, 2011 at 03:17 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber wrote:
Fact is, LC's comments are not negative, on the contrary. Roger Cicala writes the same. From there, and on the basis of Internet-spec quality pics, "people" decide that the lens is a total disappointment. That reminds me of the incredible barrage of disdain with which the 5D11 was received here, because it wasn't what "people" wanted. So maybe scorn upon release should be seen as a good sign?
Yes often when a lens is too expensive for most people. Or maybe too big/heavy. Then it's a total disappointment for people even if they don't have used or seen the lens in real life
This is not forthcoming
