Canon 35L vs Zeiss 35 f/2 ZE

Of all lenses that I had on my 40D, I probably loved the ZE 35 f/2 most. Some examples of the quite different rendering, although taken quite a while ago:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

rusty.jg wrote in post #11656772
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).

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.

The following is an educated hunch as I am not an optics engineer.

Micro-contrast is a factor in the way a lens will amplify or limit a particular frequency of light. If you imagine the entire spectrum of color (frequency) and range of luminance (amplitude) good micro-contrast will produce a linear (not amplified or limited) plot of color and luminance over the entire range of values. Gradation may become exceptional with high micro-contrast lenses.

A lens that is made to amplify light such as fast lenses may sacrifice micro-contrast for macro-contrast or the ability to amplify light in low light scenes. The 35L tends to become non-linear in shadows and highlights depending on the contrast in the scene. When I used a 35L (which I enjoyed quite well for low light night photography) I had to employ a lot of PP for medium and high contrast daylight scenes. This is because the lens is designed to amplify light and too much light overwhelms the lens leading to blown out highlights. Low light will always have an effect on gradation in the digital domain and in film as well if the exposure places this light in zone 2 or less. Hard to get good gradation near pure black and pure white.

jetcode wrote in post #11659477
.....Hard to get good gradation near pure black and pure white.

Good read thanks. Does that means Zeiss is preferable than L lens for B&W? Below is what I took with the 35ZE recently and I just love the way it renders.

Thanks again for the responses everyone!

Rsyx, you said the 35ZE was your favorite on the 40D, did you ever try the 35L?

Like I said before, I am leaning towards the 35L mostly because of autofocus. But, after putting a lot of thought into it, I am having trouble justifying the price. Especially with the Sigma 30 floating around out there.

I know this is kind of a random thought but I was tossing around the idea of spending $1300 a couple of different ways. Let me know what you think.

1) I could buy the 35L and sell nothing
or
2) Buy the Sigma 30, buy the 70-200 f/4 IS, and sell my Canon 50mm f/1.4.

Again, I am buying the 30 or 35 because the 50 can be a little long indoors for me. I have also always secretly loved the 70-200 f/4 IS. Everything about it just feels right to me. It would also give me a little more reach. Not really interested in anything else (for now).

Let me know what you think. I always appreciate all of your feedback.

Tyler

You might want to consider buy used, pretty much all my current equipment is bought used and never had an issue. Just make sure you can test them before buying.

Why do you need 70-200/4 IS if you have 135L? I used to have 70-200/2.8 IS but sold it for the 135L and couldn't be happier. But if you need the zoom then you might want to sell the 135L.

Like I said, I have always liked it. I don't necessarily need it. The versatility and extra reach would be nice to have some times (i.e. kids sports, vacation, festivals, etc.).

I have considered buying used for sure, especially with the 70-200 f/4 IS. I haven't found a great deal on the 35L (only searched buy/sell a little lately). I don't want to bother with the Sigma 30 used. I usually prefer the insurance/comfort of knowing that I can return for a new copy and utilize a warranty if necessary. The lenses keep their value pretty well, so the savings isn't always significant (in my opinion).

tjbrock42 wrote in post #11672494
Rsyx, you said the 35ZE was your favorite on the 40D, did you ever try the 35L?

No I have not. I have used a number of primes on my 40D, including a 135L (which you have) and a 24L Mark 1. Out of all the lenses I've had, it was not only my favorite but probably also the sharpest lens - altough the 135L was very sharp as well.

At some point I had both the 24L and the ZE 35. I have to say that picking between those 2 was pretty difficult as the 24mm had AF and f/1.4 while the ZE had a very distinct rendering and great sharpness. In that aspect my dilemma back then was a bit like yours as I liked both focal lenghts. In the end I sold both to move to FF, so that won't be of much help to you.

Have you considered getting a 24L Mark 1? If you find the price of the 35L a bit too high, I think it's a great alternative. I bought it used for a little over 500 euro.

tjbrock42 wrote in post #11672494
..... I know this is kind of a random thought but I was tossing around the idea of spending $1300 a couple of different ways. Let me know what you think.

Buy a used 5D. I know it is not what you asked, but the best advice I ever ignored and later regretted when I asked what camera to buy as a backup to my 40D for a trip to the Galapagos Islands was to get a used 5D. I bought a refurbed 40D. When the shutter died (well after the trip) I got a good deal from Adorama on a used 5D. My Zeiss 35 on the 5D is a completely different lens vs. what I was getting on my 40D with it. In fact, all of my lenses are. My 70-200 has become one of my fav lenses now. If you want the next level of sharpness, detail, color you really want to go full frame and the 5D classic will give you everything you need (exept movies haha!). Stick an AF zoom on it for snapping shots of the kids, but if you are serious about landscape etc. this is one of those rare cases where I would advise "body before lens". Then get the Zeiss

Stuart Leslie wrote in post #11674644
Buy a used 5D.

Couldn't agree more.

Yeah, I REALLY want to make the move to full frame at some point in time.

I am just not sure which route to take to get there. Lenses then body or the other way around. There are infinite options.

I recently started making the transition from zoom to primes. Although I kind of like Ken Rockwell's approach (get one UWA zoom, one telephoto zoom, and primes in between). I am trying to figure out the focal lengths that I actually want/need and go from there.

If I go ff soon option (1) seems to be the better choice. Otherwise option (2) seems more attractive.

hmm... swithcing to ff would be nice. how much should I expect to pay for a used 5D?

If you plan on shooting Manual lenses at any point in the near future, definitely Full Frame. You need all the viewfinder space you can get.

I am planning to buy this Zeiss lens, but I think I need a new focusing screen on my 5Dc. Would the EE-S Canon focusing screen do the work or should I go for the more expensive third party focusing screens that have the split image focusing?

celter wrote in post #11677536
I am planning to buy this Zeiss lens, but I think I need a new focusing screen on my 5Dc. Would the EE-S Canon focusing screen do the work or should I go for the more expensive third party focusing screens that have the split image focusing?

Many just shoot with the EE-S. The in focus subject pops more when shot at larger apertures. Generally wide angle lenses are harder to focus since things in the viewfinder tend to be smaller but I don't think it'll be an issue with a 5D viewfinder. Split Prisms are beneficial for smaller viewfinders like the XXD series cameras and I shoot one with my Rebel XT (split prism has been a godsend on this dark tunnel of a viewfinder).

tjbrock42 wrote in post #11672494
Especially with the Sigma 30 floating around out there.

Just a warning the Sigmas are not in the same league as the L Primes and Zeiss Primes. As a $500 lens, AF issues aside the Sigma is a great lens... but there's a reason the Zeiss and Canon L Primes cost over twice the price. While the center sharpness of the Sigma may be close to the L Prime... the bokeh, contrast, color saturation, and AF performance are not.

Don't take my word for it, rent the two and see for yourself. Canon and Zeiss do justify the premium price... having owned, rented, or borrowed all 3 of these lenses, I can say that confidently.

celter wrote in post #11677536
I am planning to buy this Zeiss lens, but I think I need a new focusing screen on my 5Dc. Would the EE-S Canon focusing screen do the work or should I go for the more expensive third party focusing screens that have the split image focusing?

I use the EE-S focus screen in my 5d, and it works like a charm. It really does make the viewfinder darker though if you're using a slower lens. That being said, I didn't have any trouble using my 300 f/4 L with it.