Canon 35L vs Zeiss 35 f/2 ZE

Okay, you guys are not making it any easier on me. I thought I had it narrowed down to two, until I posted this.

Anyway, I went to a local camera shop and played around a bit. They didn't have either of the two I was looking for in stock. They did have a Sigma 30 and I must say, it was very nice. Probably not L or Zeiss build quality but still a very nice lens. f/1.4 seemed usable (compared to my 50 where f/1.4 seems soft).

This got me wondering, how is f/1.4 on the 35L? I was leaning towards the Zeiss, but the more I think about it, the more I think I might want AF and the option of using f/1.4 (if it is acceptable).

Thanks again for all of the help and keep the responses coming!

Jam.radonc wrote in post #11637582
Oh this talk about the 35ZE has wetted my appetite for the 35mm again. Just has to resist temptation until the release of the new 35/1.4 Distagon and compare between the two.

Looks like that will be in February. You will be able to order it at B&H for $1,843.00.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …5mm_F_1_4_Dista​gon_T.html

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Saint728 wrote in post #11650465
$1,843.00.

!!!!!!!!!!! I'm not sure that f/1.4 is worth twice as much as f/2. I would just get the 35L at that point.

tjbrock42 wrote in post #11649708
Okay, you guys are not making it any easier on me. I thought I had it narrowed down to two, until I posted this.

Anyway, I went to a local camera shop and played around a bit. They didn't have either of the two I was looking for in stock. They did have a Sigma 30 and I must say, it was very nice. Probably not L or Zeiss build quality but still a very nice lens. f/1.4 seemed usable (compared to my 50 where f/1.4 seems soft).

This got me wondering, how is f/1.4 on the 35L? I was leaning towards the Zeiss, but the more I think about it, the more I think I might want AF and the option of using f/1.4 (if it is acceptable).

Thanks again for all of the help and keep the responses coming!

That's one of the reasons why I went with the 35L. I wanted excellent sharpness wide open and its supposed to produce that. However only in the center for full frame. On crop it should be MUCH better corners. I think you'll have a gem on your hands with 35L and crop. But sigma is probably better bang for the buck for 1.4 options.

Manual focus. Ughhh. I'd probably never do that. I'm way too lazy to MF all the time. Not unless is had a UWA lens

I would pick 35L if I wasn't sure I needed a manual lens and I would pick Canon over other brands when it comes to AF lenses. Personally I love the focus rings on the manual lenses I have used.

i know nothing about zeiss lenses, but I thought there were all manual focus. If that were the case, I'd much prefer a cheap bargain zoom for snapping kids pics instead of the zeiss. I'm sure in the 4 pages of discussion someon has already referenced that the zeiss ideally a landscape and portrait lens. For general purpose pics of the kids, especially little ones with lots of energy, MF would seem pointless. Personally, I only snap up shots of my 3 and 4 year old with the zooms. My primes usually fail me because they never sit still and are rarely predictable. The only two primes I shoot with are for portraits ONLY. That's just my preferences after lots and lots of experience in photography...

One last photo from me. I love my zeiss!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/39648228@N02/5​356016091/

I love the rendering. But at this focal length on crop to me I need AF for stuff that moves. The manual focus doesn't bother me for portrait at all. But I like to take more pics of moving kids and my dog so it's not the best choice for that. I kind of envisioned it as a walk-around lens for me. I like the focal length, but MF won't work for me for moving subjects. If I stay with Canon I will probably try the 35L. My luck with sig is 0/3 on my 7D. My monitor isn't calibrated (have a dell ips on the way) so I have no idea what it will look like to you. I'm either going to stay with my 7D or try nikon so my ZE21, ZE35, and 85 1.4 will be up for sale tonight.

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Pearlallica wrote in post #11652948
i know nothing about zeiss lenses, but I thought there were all manual focus. If that were the case, I'd much prefer a cheap bargain zoom for snapping kids pics instead of the zeiss. I'm sure in the 4 pages of discussion someon has already referenced that the zeiss ideally a landscape and portrait lens. For general purpose pics of the kids, especially little ones with lots of energy, MF would seem pointless. Personally, I only snap up shots of my 3 and 4 year old with the zooms. My primes usually fail me because they never sit still and are rarely predictable. The only two primes I shoot with are for portraits ONLY. That's just my preferences after lots and lots of experience in photography...

Its not like my kids are wild animals that never sit still.

I had the 17-55 but sold it mostly because I prefer the IQ of primes. I don't really miss it other than the fact that my 50mm is a little long indoors. Thats why I started looking at the 30-35mm focal length.

I just thought that if AF on 35L was anything like AF on 85L, and wide open performance was unacceptable, I might as well just save some money and get the Zeiss.

Then I tried the Sigma 30 and was initially very impressed.

Now I am trying to decide if I want the 30mm or 35mm focal length and if I can justify the price difference.

I'm leaning towards the 35L.

I really liked the Sigma 30 on my 40D, it was a great combo. With full frame the Sigma 50 feels just as good if not a little better...can't explain why.

I think it's funny that some in this thread are so skeptical of manual focus. It's really not that difficult with some practice. The Zeiss lenses have a wonderful smooth feel to them when turning the barrel.

d.

I too have been interested in Zeiss glass recently even though I've just finished switching from L zooms to L primes.. I really like the 35L although I probably need to send mine in for recalibration as it's at -20MA and still seems a little off and is quite soft at 1.4. I do use AF quite a bit for what I shoot though. This might change down the line but for now the 35L is great. Here's a few samples.

This was taken last night at ISO 5000 and has that 3d effect everyone desires so much. IIRC f/1.8

BlueTsunami wrote in post #11634472
I've been thinking that 3D is a bad way to call the effect, most people think the images should pop like how 3D is done now in video and with Polarizing glasses. In the case of "Zeiss 3D" its more like a sense of clairty, there's so much detail and edge accutance that it almost feels like you're looking through window instead of a picture. I've also seen this effect from lenses like the Canon 24L but in general the whole line of Zeiss lenses can give this effect rather easily.

Actually people no need Zeiss to get that "3D effect", just try to make a different 1/2 or 1 stops between main subject and the BG, then you get it:
Here some samples:

westbon wrote in post #11656437
Actually people no need Zeiss to get that "3D effect", just try to make a different 1/2 or 1 stops between main subject and the BG, then you get it:

While that does create greater isolation and produce a similar effect, its not the same as the rendering from a Zeiss lens. As far as I can find out, the zeiss "look" is probably down to many things but these seem to crop up the most:

1) DoF falloff - the "characteristic" of the transition from the in-focus area to the out-of-focus area. Unfortunately I dont have the knowledge to explain this any further but its almost like the transition to blur is instant after you go past your subject and it stays at the same level to way in the background without becoming a complete smear and still retaining rudimentary detail. I know this isn't the case but its kind of how I perceive it.

2) Micro-(or local) contrast - I've seen this term banded around a lot of times but I havent been able to find a easy-to-understand description of it (I suspect because at the detailed level, its not an easy subject). However, the link below does illustrate the effect in practice between the ZE 100 and Canon 100 L as well as some discussion about micro-contrast itself:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=891517

3) Lens coatings - the T* coatings of the Zeiss lenses also play a part in getting the look although the extent they contribute I dont know (apologies, I'm not doing very well in information stakes here ). I suspect that the coatings are partly responsible for the micro-contrast abilities.

4) Vignetting - The 35 does vignette quite a bit wide open and I think this on top of the effects above just adds a little more kick to clarifying the subject

That is my take on why the 35/2 gives the so-called "3d look" or excessive "pop".

ni$mo350 wrote in post #11656331
... I've just finished switching from L zooms to L primes..

Hope you just ADD Zeiss rather switch from L Prime to all Zeiss

I'm using less and less zoom this day, dump 70-200 f/4L 1st; just very difficult to dump the next L zoom.

Ok, for me I will get the 35L 1st, then add the Zeiss later for sure as 90% time I use AF.

tjbrock42 wrote in post #11655378
I just thought that if AF on 35L was anything like AF on 85L, and wide open performance was unacceptable, I might as well just save some money and get the Zeiss.

AF speed on the 35L is much faster than 85L, here are some tests you can check out: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=874520