Tirpitz666 wrote:
Still haven't read through all the 100 pages of the old thread, but I was wondering if someone can help me decide whether for the Distagon 35 1.4 ZM would be better to shoot for the Optosigma 5m (where most of the consensus seem to be) or the Eksma 10m (as reading through the comments to Philip Reeve's comprehensive article looks that some users had a higher degree of success with it, especially in reducing the midzone dip).
Another thing that is still not completely clear to me from all the screenshots is if with a PCX filter the amount of blur behind a subject near the center of the frame would be actually be reduced vs sans PCX or not. I understand that the borders will be more blurred with the filter on, but it still not clear to me if through the field curvature correction the blur in the center behind the subject will be actually somewhat reduced (which would be an undesiderable side effect, at least for me).
I cannot comment on a filter other than the Optosigma PCX, which is what I use. Without the PCX filter, the 35ZM on Sony FF is sharp in the middle, but it has a lot of spherical aberration from the mid-field to the corners in apertures faster than f/8. At f/8, everything is sharp, with or without the PCX filter.
To fix the blurriness in faster apertures, you put on the PCX filter. At f/stops faster than f/8, it sharpens up the corner a lot, but the mid-field and center are unaffected, meaning that the center is sharp but the mid-field is soft. At faster apertures, the image looks a lot better with the PCX.
I shoot my 35ZM + PCX as my default walk-around lens, from f/1.4 to f/4 or so, and I have never noticed the mid-field dip in my shots. I haven't used it for landscape, but if I did, I would probably shoot it at f/8 and get the sharpness across the frame plus depth of field.
