mdemeyer wrote:
Perform optimally to me means getting the performance I paid for. And that's substantial (both performance and cost) with this lens. ;-)
I can appreciate that to an extent. However, put it in relative terms. What is the best performing 35mm lens on an unmodified a7R II sensor? I want that lens - especially if it weighs a fraction of the huge FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA - even if it might be a bit sub-optimal.
I'm not going to screw up the performance of my native Batis lenses by getting my sensor modified, and I'm not going to buy a separate camera with a modified sensor just so I can use the 35mm f/1.4 ZM. There is going to be a compromise in some way and I'd rather have a somewhat-compromised lens if it means that it still performs as good or better than any other 35mm lens on an unmodified a7R II sensor.
There are a lot of platitudes being stated about the 35 ZM in this thread, and it seems justified from the looks of things. But, I want to know if someone has tested it on a stock a7R II against the FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA and can confirm that it is - on the whole - a superior optical performer regarding sharpness, contrast, and CA. The ZA probably wins the bokeh contest, so I don't include that in my question.
If no one has compared them in any way, then I guess I'll have to buy both to find out in my own experience, and return the worst performing lens. Would rather buy smarter (knowing the answer before buying).
