philip_pj wrote:
This appears to be a \'modern\' CZ all round, but with much more weight than was necessary.
Not to be picky here and i don\'t mean to single you out, but the issue needs airing, IMHO. How do you know what was \"necessary\"? How would you determine what weight was necessary?Would you have traded-off performance for weight? How much?
CZ obviously thought the weight was necessary or it would not be designed the way it was.
This is type of trade-off issue for uses where Zeiss appears damned if they do, and damned if they don\'t. If they give the lens the performance that people expect and desire, then people complain that it is too heavy, too big or too expensive. But if they would trade-off performance for weight, size and cost issues, then people would complain that it\'s not any good and not worth bothering with. This is similar to the discussion around the ZF 25/2.8. Zeiss designed the lens with what appears to be an optimal set of trade-offs, providing excellent performance in a relatively compact, reasonably priced lens. yes, people complain that it doesn\'t performance exactly like it bigger more expensive brother the 21/2.8. Never mind that it is nearly half the price of the 21/2.8. Quite frankly (and Zeiss has learned this from their market response over the past 3 or 4 years), is Zeiss when down the route of the 25/2.8 with the new 35/1.4 people would complain about its performance all day long. So Zeiss give us the a 35/1.4 with fewer compromises in the name of size and cost. The market spoke and Zeiss listened and responded appropriately with the 35/1.4. If size and weight is more important to the buyer than (wide open) performance then they can buy the excellent and very reasonably priced ZF35/2.0.
Jan 16, 2011 at 02:46 PM
Previous versions of Lotusm50's message #9223202 « ZE 35/1.4 MTF on Diglloyd »
