p.10 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Lars Johnsson wrote:
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.
....
Lars Johnsson wrote:
None of the Canon 35L that I have used have been good wide open or close to wide open.
Just looking at LC's flat target center crops, the 35L wide open is sharper than the Distagon 1.4 at f/2.
The 35L wide open also resolves similarly to the Distagon 2.0 at f/2, but with lower contrast.
Without knowing exactly your criteria for decent performance wide open, you must either have had very bad copies of the 35L, or the Distagon 1.4 will disappoint there.
Mar 20, 2011 at 05:02 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.10 #2 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
....
Just looking at LC's flat target center crops, the 35L wide open is sharper than the Distagon 1.4 at f/2.
The 35L wide open also resolves similarly to the Distagon 2.0 at f/2, but with lower contrast.
Without knowing exactly your criteria for decent performance wide open, you must either have had very bad copies of the 35L, or the Distagon 1.4 will disappoint there.
I own most of the other fast Canon lenses. And the two with the least good(worst) performance wide open are 24L (old version) and 35L (IMO)
p.10 #3 · 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.
The new Distagon 1.4 is now drawing my attention as a landscape lens. It is a large and expensive one, but with a performance surpassing both the 35L and Distagon 2.0 stopped down it seems. It is close to perfect, with only geometrical distortion and field curvature remaining.
In his early bokeh tests, LC commented that you could use the Distagon 35 1.4 stopped down too, but that would be missing the point. Fine, I will miss the point and this lens is now on my list of possible purchases for stopped down use.
The rendering and bokeh quality wide open will be a bonus, because for wide open center sharpness, I will keep my Canon 35L. I honestly don't understand why so many people refer to this one as a Canon that disappoints. But again, I am missing the point
p.10 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
Canon 35L. I honestly don't understand why so many people refer to this one as a Canon that disappoints. But again, I am missing the point
I read all about how wonderful the 35L "is" and bought one. I really tried to like it. As I "knew" it was very good it was quite frustrating. But I never got any images with any wow-factor. They were flat and uninteresting. Especially the lack of 3D was annoying. So I got the Contax 35/1.4 and what a difference. Just before Christmas I stumbled on a cheapish 35/2 ZF, which appear very good too with significant 3D. To my eyes, which are all that counts for me.
Of my 24L that I immediatly exchanged for the 135L, 35L, 50L and 85L1 I suspect that the 50L is the last of my wide L´s to leave me. Who would have guessed? I just might have missed a point or two!
p.10 #5 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
It must be something about the drawing that I haven't seen yet.
My 50L is definitely never going to leave me either. But that is the old 1989 50L
Mar 20, 2011 at 08:46 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.10 #6 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
.
because for wide open center sharpness, I will keep my Canon 35L. I honestly don't understand why so many people refer to this one as a Canon that disappoints. But again, I am missing the point
For me it disappoint just because it doesn't have any wide open sharpness.
It's a decent lens but not good wide open. All my other prime lenses from 21mm to 800mm are better wide open.
I'm not saying it's bad. But for it's rather high price I did expect it to be a little bit better wide open because that was my main reason to buy the f/1,4 lens. I also tried two copies of the lens. And together with the first version of Canons 24/1,4, those are the only two fast Canon primes that did dissapoint me wide open
p.10 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I always enjoy the ex-Canon guys talk - so fully certain of their views are they, it really makes me wonder at the Canon L lenses quality, or even if you can call it that. Not having been 'exposed' to them at all, I feel very lucky indeed!
We will have to wait and see a variety of work shot with this new CZ one. A lot of users will do a range of work on it, and it should do quite well. Pretty heavy on a tripod like big zooms are, but otherwise it might turn out gems..the talk of curvature of field got me interested, that is the 'family' look of not-so-wide Distagons, the 28mm ZN and CY variants come to mind. The CY at least is wonderful for landscape work, especially shortish range, say 15-50m.
Good 3D/defocus like the older one would definitely enhance its reception, as would more so if it turned out fine optimal landscape aperture results, f5.6 to f11.
Zeiss don't produce many dogs, unlike ahem, some others - by reputation at least.
Mar 21, 2011 at 02:06 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.10 #8 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philip_pj wrote:
I always enjoy the ex-Canon guys talk - so fully certain of their views are they, it really makes me wonder at the Canon L lenses quality, or even if you can call it that. Not having been 'exposed' to them at all, I feel very lucky indeed!
We will have to wait and see a variety of work shot with this new CZ one. A lot of users will do a range of work on it, and it should do quite well. Pretty heavy on a tripod like big zooms are, but otherwise it might turn out gems..the talk of curvature of field got me interested, that is the 'family' look of not-so-wide Distagons, the 28mm ZN and CY variants come to mind. The CY at least is wonderful for landscape work, especially shortish range, say 15-50m.
Good 3D/defocus like the older one would definitely enhance its reception, as would more so if it turned out fine optimal landscape aperture results, f5.6 to f11.
Zeiss don't produce many dogs, unlike ahem, some others - by reputation at least....Show more →
I don't know about the "Zeiss don't produce many dogs"
If you refer to lenses with bad image quality I agree. But they have the same problems with bad copies, misalign problems, and other faulths. Just like Nikon, Canon and most other brands
p.10 #9 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Lars Johnsson wrote:
For me it disappoint just because it doesn't have any wide open sharpness.
It's a decent lens but not good wide open. All my other prime lenses from 21mm to 800mm are better wide open.
I'm not saying it's bad. But for it's rather high price I did expect it to be a little bit better wide open because that was my main reason to buy the f/1,4 lens. I also tried two copies of the lens. And together with the first version of Canons 24/1,4, those are the only two fast Canon primes that did dissapoint me wide open...Show more →
Those two, the 24L version 1 and the 35L, maintain good resolution but with low (micro) contrast wide open. Am I right if I suppose that contrast weighs more in your sense of sharpness than resolution?
Now, The Distagon 35 1.4 shows both low resolution (there is missing fine detail in the mosaic that no sharpening can recover) and low (micro) contrast wide open. If you still have enough faith to try it, I welcome your opinion on it's performance wide open.
Mar 21, 2011 at 03:51 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.10 #10 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
Those two, the 24L version 1 and the 35L, maintain good resolution but with low (micro) contrast wide open. Am I right if I suppose that contrast weighs more in your sense of sharpness than resolution?
Now, The Distagon 35 1.4 shows both low resolution (there is missing fine detail in the mosaic that no sharpening can recover) and low (micro) contrast wide open. If you still have enough faith to try it, I welcome your opinion on it's performance wide open.
You are probably right in that. But it's also a rather large difference if you compare 24mkI and 24mkII in the wide open performance. And even then the mkII is not that good wide open
Even my 50/1,2 that get a lot of complains about it's wide open performance, is very good compared to those other two lenses
p.10 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philip_pj wrote:
I always enjoy the ex-Canon guys talk - so fully certain of their views are they, it really makes me wonder at the Canon L lenses quality, or even if you can call it that. Not having been 'exposed' to them at all, I feel very lucky indeed!
I also feel very lucky, being able to enjoy the best of what Canon and other manufacturers have to offer
Mar 21, 2011 at 04:38 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.10 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
I also feel very lucky, being able to enjoy the best of what Canon and other manufacturers have to offer
I feel very lucky when I can see all those fantastic 3D shots from every $ 50 lens ever made (except Canon of course). You see a blurry tree or brick wall, and suddenly there are a few posts about the fantastic 3D effect the lens have
p.10 #13 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Lars Johnsson wrote:
You are probably right in that. But it's also a rather large difference if you compare 24mkI and 24mkII in the wide open performance. And even then the mkII is not that good wide open
Even my 50/1,2 that get a lot of complains about it's wide open performance, is very good compared to those other two lenses
I'm very surprised to read this. I have 24LII, 35L and 200/2.8LII (and have had 135L). Wide open 35L and 24LII are as sharp in the center as the 135 and 200mm, i.e. very sharp. Corners are a different story of course. Maybe that is what you are talking about?
Mar 21, 2011 at 06:15 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.10 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
HelenaN wrote:
I'm very surprised to read this. I have 24LII, 35L and 200/2.8LII (and have had 135L). Wide open 35L and 24LII are as sharp in the center as the 135 and 200mm, i.e. very sharp. Corners are a different story of course. Maybe that is what you are talking about?
It was the 24mkI like I wrote. Your mkII is a bit better. And I'm talking about both center and corners. Of course the corners are worse than the center.
But I would be worried if the 135 and 200/2,8 didn't show more sharpness than the others wide open.
Shoot a few shots of a subject that are far away with the 24/1,4 mkI and 35/1,4 @ f/1,4. And then a few shoots with your 135 and 200 @ f/2 and f/2,8 and compare the sharpness in the center.
p.10 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
It seems L.C is lost in the forest or .. maybe we going to get a lot of field comparative tests.
Personnally, I will be especially interested in the field comparative beetween Z 35/2 and 35L. Although 35L is more a portrait lens and Zeiss a very good "full aperture" homegenous landscape lens, we cannot find internet ressource that direclty compares both. For what I've seen, this ZE 35/1.4 is definitely too soft @f/1.4 vs 35L. I do not consider it anymore.
p.10 #16 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
trusty wrote:
It seems L.C is lost in the forest or .. maybe we going to get a lot of field comparative tests.
Personnally, I will be especially interested in the field comparative beetween Z 35/2 and 35L. Although 35L is more a portrait lens and Zeiss a very good "full aperture" homegenous landscape lens, we cannot find internet ressource that direclty compares both. For what I've seen, this ZE 35/1.4 is definitely too soft @f/1.4 vs 35L. I do not consider it anymore.
Real-life shooting outside the forest setting will be helpful in making sense of this lens. From the perspective of sharpness, the Zeiss appears to disappoint but I have written to LC and he said that it was typical of fast Zeiss lenses, something I cannot comment on because I have no experience with the old 35/1.4 Distagon. He does mention that it is unlike the modern fast Canikons that maintain good micro contrast even at the widest apertures.
p.10 #17 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
j.liam wrote:
Real-life shooting outside the forest setting will be helpful in making sense of this lens. From the perspective of sharpness, the Zeiss appears to disappoint but I have written to LC and he said that it was typical of fast Zeiss lenses, something I cannot comment on because I have no experience with the old 35/1.4 Distagon. He does mention that it is unlike the modern fast Canikons that maintain good micro contrast even at the widest apertures.
If you don't mind, could you explain a bit what you (& LC) mean? Modern fast Canikons maintain good micro contrast wide open, or the Zeiss ZE35/1.4 maintains good micro contrast wide open?
Thanks...
p.10 #18 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Its rendition, LC feels, makes it an alternative to the present trend in modern optical design goals as embodied in both the new Nikon 35/1.4 and the older Canon 35/1.4 that strive to maintain high-contrast at the widest apertures even in the smallest of image detail with as little veiling/haze as possible. The Z* 35/1.4 does not perform that way and in this respect, is more similar, he states, to older classic lenses in the way it renders wide open, such as the old DIstagon and other spherical designs (though the Z* 35/1.4 does contain an aspherical element, it seems). From the images he's posted, the gentleness of the bokeh and transition from in-focus to out of focus seems to be the greater concern of the designers rather than sheer resolving power. Of greater concern to me is the need to stop down to f/2.8 for typical performance and the need to sharpen the RAW file as much as he does in order to tighten up the image. It performs VERY differently than the Z* 35/2 I had for a while, an optic with high-contrast and superb sharpness from f/2 onward but a bokeh that is not nearly as gently rendered or developed in either color or softness.
p.10 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Seems to be a specialty lens to create a particular atmosphere as opposed to portraiture, per se. Also seems like a steep learning curve with a high price and a payoff that may not be to most people's tastes, I suspect. From what I've seen on LC's analysis, I'm still not yet convinced. Remember though that he's been shooting on a 5D Mk II, so whether the findings are also true for the D700 or D3 iterations remains an unknown.
