Got my ZM 35 today! Could not wait to do some testing so I just did some indoors. Will need to wait at least a couple of days before I will have time to do some landcape/infinity shooting, but it was really interesting to see how it performs. I compared CV 35/1.2, FE 35/2.8 and ZM 35/1.4 briefly. So far, ZM seems to me be at least as well corrected on OOF highlights as the CV and the FE 35/2.8--probably better than the latter. Both CV and ZM have nicer sunstars than FE. The 35/1.2 has a bit \"dreamier\" bokeh and look wide open, but the ZM has more contrast and sharpness on the subject at wide apertures. Stopping down, the CV does catch up to the ZM, however, and may get sharp in the corners a bit faster than does the ZM. Comparing with the FE 35/2.8, the FE is sharp into the corners way earlier and it takes until F8 for the ZM to fully catch the FE in the extreme corners tho F 5.6 is pretty close (did not compare at 6.3--that may be the best compromise). However, the ZM seems to be better in the center region at all comparable apertures to the FE. Unlike the CV, which catches up to the ZM even in the center, the FE never does tho admittedly the differences are not huge, but they are present.
Anyway, so far, it looks like the ZM may be a keeper for me though I need to do a good bit more shooting and comparing. Am looking forward to seeing how these lenses compare at infinity. If the ZM does as well at infinity as the other two lenses, then I suspect it will stay and I will sell the CV and maybe keep the FE for times when portability is at a premium.
So far at short range in my very quick testing, ZM has more sharpness and contrast than CV from wide open through 2.8 in the center and gets close at F4 (ZM a hair better in center but worse on periphery) without a lot to distinguish between them smaller than F4. FE better overall than both at 2.8 across the frame but losing in the center and at F 5.6 overall worse than both CV and ZM.
