I can’t recall any longer, but I think in an Zeiss interview, they stated the microcontrast was higher on the ZM 35 1.4 than the original Otus 55. That lens just has so much micro contrast and quick focus fall off with not super smooth OFF that images get that very strong separation or depth or 3-D or whatever people wanna call it. The problem with most really well corrected very modern glass is a lot of it looks pretty similar, and much of it has not much character.
Again, if you pick up CV 35/ 1.7, you can get it to look very modern in under 30 seconds of processing. It’s about nine clicks and it will look very similar to an FLE in terms of color, contrast in overall feel. The bokeh will be smoother but with more cat’s eye and that’s not have that thin vale of SA which is pretty.
I think you see more analog type processing with CV lenses because they’re easier to work with with more neutral color + not high micro-contrast. Lenses that have extremely high micro contrast and essentially strong resolution and that type of thing just look too digital (different) than film and it’s harder to edit that out convincingly and it takes some skill and time. It is easier for me to process the Simera 35/1.4 or Pentax 31/1.8 or CV 35/1.7 to look filmic than it is a 35 Lux FLE or ZM 35 1.4. And in reverse, I cannot get my 35 Lux pre-ace vehicle to look like the ZM 35 1.4. So, sometimes lenses that are a little gentle or or more in the middle are easier to work with. If I’m going to spend a lot of money on a ZM 35 1.4 or 35 FLE, I am buying it because I want to look the lines give me (primarily). They are expensive, in FM going to alter the image signature significantly I can save a lot of money buy something else. Which I have. At least those are my thoughts.
For something fun: do any of these photos strike you as more or less modern? Or appreciably different?
I can’t recall any longer, but I think in an Zeiss interview, they stated the microcontrast was higher on the ZM 35 1.4 than the original Otus 55. That lens just has so much micro contrast and quick focus fall off with not super smooth OFF that images get that very strong separation or depth or 3-D or whatever people wanna call it. The problem with most really well corrected very modern glass is a lot of it looks pretty similar, and much of it has not much character.
Again, if you pick up CV 35/ 1.7, you can get it to look very modern in under 30 seconds of processing. It’s about nine clicks and it will look very similar to an FLE in terms of color, contrast in overall feel. The bokeh will be smoother but with more cat’s eye and that’s not have that thin vale of SA which is pretty.
I think you see more analog type processing with CV lenses because they’re easier to work with with more neutral color + not high micro-contrast. Lenses that have extremely high micro contrast and essentially strong resolution and that type of thing just look to digital (different) than film and it’s harder to edit that out convincingly and it takes some skill and time. It is easier for me to process the Simera 35/1.4 or Pentax 31/1.8 or CV 35/1.7 to look filmic than it is a 35 Lux FLE or ZM 35 1.4. And in reverse, I cannot get my 35 Lux pre-ace vehicle to look like the ZM 35 1.4. So, sometimes lenses that are a little gentle or or more in the middle are easier to work with. If I’m going to spend a lot of money on a ZM 35 1.4 or 35 locks, I am buying it because I want to look the lines give me (primarily). At least those are my thoughts.
