Finally decided to get this one as well (Samuli EDIT: for clarification \"this one\" = \"Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1,4/35 ZE\"). Needed pair for Planar 1,4/85 and Planar 1,4/50 was too close and not any of the Distagons (2.8/21, 2/25, 2/28 and 2/35) didn\'t \"match\" from rendering style point of view. I got this one in hope of able to match Planar rendering style; initial impression is that it may fit the \"job description\" but I have only shoot and analyzed few hundred shots, so the impression is VERY initial.
Behavior seems similar to in many ways to both Planars. E.g. the stuff in focusing plane is OK at f/2.2 but bokeh is awful until closed down to f/2.8, when it\'s smooth in almost any situation.
From usability standpoint this lens doesn\'t share the lovely long throw focusing (on mid and long distances) what is used in both Planars. Instead focusing is similar to Makro-Planar and accurate focusing to distant subjects takes extra long time due to this. Annoying as hell, but it\'s not as bad as Makro-Planar 2/100 for example (combination of long focal length(=shallow DOF) and annoying short throw focusing).
Many have complained that this lens is heavy - I didn\'t notice weight (I\'m used to shoot with Leica 180 etc.) but the size is enormous - lens is much larger than Planar 85!!!
Below first shots few hours later I carried the lens home from camera store. Usually I don\'t shoot wide open that much, but this lens seems to shine wide open, as long as photographer is able to control the bokeh. Also I shot all these handhold using LCDVF to be able to focus and compose from live view but still maintaining 3 support points for camera - typically I shoot >99% of my photos from tripod.
#01 f/1.4, like how the building looks but the bokeh on top right corner is fugly
#02 f/1.4, I have hard time believing that this kind of subject to background separation can be done with wide angle
#03 f/1.8, this lens is supposed to have lots of CA, and there seems to be pink and green tint front and behind the focusing plane, not as bad as I assumed - larger
#04 f/1.4, seems that this lens doesn\'t work similarly as 2/35 regarding \"3D\". I shoot this subject with all apertures from 1.4 to 5.6 and all are as flat as this one. Based on my experience any aperture with 2/35 would have rendered this scene \"non-flat\".
#05 f/2.8, one of the good features in this lens seems to be that it\'s almost immune sun shining to lens, I was not able to produce weiling flare no matter how hard I tried (some artifacts and reflections but they were rather small). This photo is \"handmade\" HDR, I did draw the layer masks myself in PhotoShop since any HDR software couldn\'t do it well and scene was so simple it was 2 minute work with Wacom. Dark frame is 1/4000s and lighter frame was 1/500s - larger
#06 f/1.4 - sun shining to whole front lens (just above the framing and no issues)
#07 f/1.4
#08 f/1.4, I like very much what happens in focus area, but bokeh is one of the worst I have ever seen, see the larger version - larger
#09 f/2.2, bokeh gets quite much better at f/2.2 but is still very rough, in focus areas rendered in a way which pleases my eye, also liking the transition from focus to bokeh very much - larger
#10 f/4.5, for long distance shooting image quality is closed down apertures as good as with 2/35, I\'m not sure why some people have reported that 2/35 is sharper etc. - to me it seems both exceed capabilities of 5DmkII sensor and neither has practically visible flaws either - larger
Finally decided to get this one as well. Needed pair for Planar 1,4/85 and Planar 1,4/50 was too close and not any of the Distagons (2.8/21, 2/25, 2/28 and 2/35) didn\'t \"match\" from rendering style point of view. I got this one in hope of able to match Planar rendering style; initial impression is that it may fit the \"job description\" but I have only shoot and analyzed few hundred shots, so the impression is VERY initial.
Behavior seems similar to in many ways to both Planars. E.g. the stuff in focusing plane is OK at f/2.2 but bokeh is awful until closed down to f/2.8, when it\'s smooth in almost any situation.
From usability standpoint this lens doesn\'t share the lovely long throw focusing (on mid and long distances) what is used in both Planars. Instead focusing is similar to Makro-Planar and accurate focusing to distant subjects takes extra long time due to this. Annoying as hell, but it\'s not as bad as Makro-Planar 2/100 for example (combination of long focal length(=shallow DOF) and annoying short throw focusing).
Many have complained that this lens is heavy - I didn\'t notice weight (I\'m used to shoot with Leica 180 etc.) but the size is enormous - lens is much larger than Planar 85!!!
Below first shots few hours later I carried the lens home from camera store. Usually I don\'t shoot wide open that much, but this lens seems to shine wide open, as long as photographer is able to control the bokeh. Also I shot all these handhold using LCDVF to be able to focus and compose from live view but still maintaining 3 support points for camera - typically I shoot >99% of my photos from tripod.
#01 f/1.4, like how the building looks but the bokeh on top right corner is fugly
#02 f/1.4, I have hard time believing that this kind of subject to background separation can be done with wide angle
#03 f/1.8, this lens is supposed to have lots of CA, and there seems to be pink and green tint front and behind the focusing plane, not as bad as I assumed - larger
#04 f/1.4, seems that this lens doesn\'t work similarly as 2/35 regarding \"3D\". I shoot this subject with all apertures from 1.4 to 5.6 and all are as flat as this one. Based on my experience any aperture with 2/35 would have rendered this scene \"non-flat\".
#05 f/2.8, one of the good features in this lens seems to be that it\'s almost immune sun shining to lens, I was not able to produce weiling flare no matter how hard I tried (some artifacts and reflections but they were rather small). This photo is \"handmade\" HDR, I did draw the layer masks myself in PhotoShop since any HDR software couldn\'t do it well and scene was so simple it was 2 minute work with Wacom. Dark frame is 1/4000s and lighter frame was 1/500s - larger
#06 f/1.4 - sun shining to whole front lens (just above the framing and no issues)
#07 f/1.4
#08 f/1.4, I like very much what happens in focus area, but bokeh is one of the worst I have ever seen, see the larger version - larger
#09 f/2.2, bokeh gets quite much better at f/2.2 but is still very rough, in focus areas rendered in a way which pleases my eye, also liking the transition from focus to bokeh very much - larger
#10 f/4.5, for long distance shooting image quality is closed down apertures as good as with 2/35, I\'m not sure why some people have reported that 2/35 is sharper etc. - to me it seems both exceed capabilities of 5DmkII sensor and neither has practically visible flaws either - larger
Samuli
May 16, 2012 at 05:45 PM
Previous versions of Samuli Vahonen's message #10641570 « The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread »
_x972px.jpg "2026 © Samuli Vahonen"){kind=small}
