nehemiahphoto
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35 | |
Yogifi wrote:
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Yogifi wrote:
In the previous page youtube video, at around 13mins30secs, there was a non-tripod portrait comparison photo at f1.4 between the fle and the distagon with the subject in the midzone, and the difference was quite dramatic.
He does say f2 and it's fixed though.
With the FLE you'd need the hood on right, due to flare so the length isn't that much shorter but you probably would feel the weight and girth difference (I imagine). It's nice being nimble.
Doesn't make much difference to me as I wouldn't get the fle to use on Sony. I'm also not sold on digital leica quite yet, bit lost in general with film at the moment.
But it's not smooth sailing using it on Sony either. Without PCX, need to stop down to like 5.6/8 for the edges to look decent (if they're on the same plane as the subject). With the PCX filter, you do get a midzone dip - but it's not massive (compared to the performance without on Sony - as opposed to comparing PCX on vs native m sensor). f2.8 I notice the difference the most when zoomed in on an a7cii raw but this is tested at like 5-8m distance. I'm still undecided if I ought to take off the pcx for people shots - it seems to be fine.
And it doesn't seem as noticeable as the fle wide-open midzone dip on native m vs distagon in that youtube video comparison, but admitedly that's all I've based the fle midzone 1.4 performance on and it wasn't exactly a scientific test.
Going to (respectfully!) disagree with several points here. I almost always used to the FLE without the hood. You can have it along, but putting on a hood if needed sometimes is a lot different than just having a substantially larger lens.
As far as not using it on a Sony, the FLE has less of the mid-zone dip than on Leica m at the expense of corner res. Personally, I like this very much. If you give me a good center and decent mid zone, I don’t need perfectly sharp outer areas at 1.4. And none of these lenses are going to give you across the frame sharpness on a Sony. And I think it actually performs better than the other options on a Sony all things considered. The CV 35/1.7 does well-ish too. If you take a look at Bastian’s articles:
“ On the Sony A7rII with its thick filter stack the corners look worse at wider apertures – as was to be expected – but the midzone dip is not as strong. Lenses with floating elements sometimes do funny things. Compared to the Voigtländer VM 35mm 1.5 Nokton and the Thypoch Simera 35mm 1.4 this Leica looks best to me when used on a Sony E-mount camera which should also be the case for Z-mount cameras.”
I have not seen a heads up, but I suspect it would be better than the ZM 35 1.4 as well. I have a modded sensor and a Sony sensor, and I prefer to use the FLE on a Sony sensor.
On a Leica digital or modded camera, I think both the ZM 35/1.4 is easily technically better. But I’d still prefer the rendering (and size/ergo) on the 35 FLE. I don’t own the 35 FLE any longer cause I don’t like the price . Other than that I loved it.
A fair point about the hood, and the weight and thickness difference would still be relevant. Flare is just something that has been bothering me more and more, not so much the smaller coloured blobs but losing the contrast when you were hoping you kept it. That washed out look can feel really cheap when it's significant - and I like having the sun in the shot! A small bit here and there I'm not bothered about. That summicron flare I've seen get really bad.
The FLE on Sony comment wasn't so much about performance (but good to know on the midzone dip being better on Sony). It was more about having to pay so much, the stress carrying that around brings, still compromising performance and the bokeh and the mishmash of iconic brands, with the zeiss available and holding up nicely on the bigger (than leica) a7cii - that I already carry in a bag. But you're probably right. It's a lot to do with the price, while getting beautiful performance for a little more weight and a lot less money. ... And I am seeing the samples with flare quite a bit.
I have been opting to carry the slightly bigger but better performing 35mm 1.4 ais on film too, so I'm not convinced I would be happier. If the flaring was better controlled and the bokeh was smoother - I'd go for it and find out but right now it's a big upfront cost to discover if it's worth the trade-off for me. And it's not bad you know:
I can imagine over a longer period of time opting for smaller and smaller and making sacrafices (or tastes changing), but you're not all carrying pancakes, yet. Again, I haven't actually tried both so just my thoughts as of now. And I would love to have both to know for certain but I do have the 40 1.2 nokton for a different look in similar range too and the SE version is quite small. Maybe the LLL 11873 will be a nice alternative look with them too, plus hopefully appropriate for film. Just worried the colours look a bit pus-y but hopefully an easy fix. I know it flares a lot and CA too.
I can see the FLE being a nicer daily carry not just for the size & weight but for more everyday pics. The sharpness on the Zeiss does create standout images but you don't always want that. I wonder how the FLE and 40 1.2 nokton differs for that. The nokton has real smooth bokeh and not overly sharp, did you ever try that or is it too tight for you? I remember you're big on 35s. The SE version of the 40 is reasonably small. 35 SE is bigger than the 50mm SE unfortunately.
I think I am more tolerant of (and even enjoy) compromises more than you and most people on FM and this thread in particular. I do think though if you are flare sensitive the FLE might not be your lens. Especially because I feel it flares in a very ugly way. The CV 35/1.7 has the best flare resistance of any 35 mm lens I have used shy of the GM 35. The ZM 35-1.4 I found to not be problematic generally— as in I rarely had to be mindful of it, despite often shooting heavily back and side lit scenes.
As for the CV 35/1.7, I see one on eBay right now in great shape for about $600. You might consider putting up a “WTB “ad here on FM and checking out the other rangefinder forms. With a little patience and persistence I think you’ll be able to find a copy in good shape at a price far lower than the ZM and especially the FLE.
I am probably less tolerant of what I consider to be a high contrast well-corrected modern draw that many people here like. Preferences vary—nobody is right or wrong.
Yes, I have used the CV 40/1.2 quite a few times over the years. I purchased it a launch and have owned both E and M versions. And the CV 35/1.2iii and 50/1.2 which share very similar optical formulas. Overall, I like it, but again, just not that exciting of a lens because it’s a relatively high contrast smooth bokeh draw, which to me is a bit boring. It has some character wide open, but I would not say a lot. It’s definitely a different look though than the FLE or the ZM 35/1.4. I do love the ergonomic, size and price though 
If you’re happy with the size of ZM 35/1.4 on the A7cII, and you like the images, why fuss? Just go with what makes you happy! That’s all just preference anyway.
As I have been saying on FM for a while, RF shooters might look at getting a Sony camera modded to a thin sensor. That is really the best of both worlds all things considered in my opinion. If you want to shoot RF glass but want that native performance plus video, modern sensors, IBIS, small size and cheaper price, etc. Or pickup a Nikon for better than Sony but worse than Leica M performance.
And I know what you mean about carrying expensive gear. I have a Noct 50/1 that I specifically don’t like to travel with.
Back to the lovely ZM 35/1.4 though
|
