Zeiss 35 ZE - first impressions

OOPS, My mistake. Sorry Permie.
-Bruce

lol np.

I'm loving this thread & the zeiss 21 threads.

I'm ordering mine tomorrow ...

I'm ordering the 35/2 today. I just acquired a minty Contax T* 100/2 Planar.

snowboarder wrote in post #9098537
a quick shot from tonight

Simply remarkable. I marvel at your work. These are the kinds of shots that make me consider a Zeiss, even though for me it is the most impractical lens ever.

I love the blues * greens from the pictures, they render so differently than canon

jetcode wrote in post #9113817
I'm ordering the 35/2 today. I just acquired a minty Contax T* 100/2 Planar.

From where?

Oooh, pics please in the MF Lens Samples thread...

gkarris wrote in post #9114003
From where?

Oooh, pics please in the MF Lens Samples thread...

I traded an 85LII to KansasCityShuffle for the 100/2 Planar and a 50 1.7 Planar and 24mm Zuiko in mint condition + $200. Now that's sustaining value on those 85L's! Once I start shooting I will post images. Can't wait to be honest. I've been looking for top shelf glass for a while and finally put my hands on some.

Ballen Photo wrote in post #9110227
I hope you're not making bets against it being available now.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_Distagon_35mm_​T_f_2.html
-Bruce

Must.............. control............... mouse...............

:p

The results speak for themselves. Amazing work.

Raymond Lin wrote in post #9092797
I wonder why they chose not to implement AF into it? It can't be because they failed to reverse engineer it, Sigma managed it.

At least in my case, I do not need AF on that focal length -- Plus, AF isn't as accurate as my eye plus DOF preview....... (yet)

S.Horton wrote in post #9115402
At least in my case, I do not need AF on that focal length -- Plus, AF isn't as accurate as my eye plus DOF preview....... (yet)

So what are you waiting for? It's cheap and it's only gonna get more expensive.
Apparently there is a price hike coming in two weeks.
Brand new ZF.2 line just released, with automatic aperture for Nikon is much
more expensive than the Canon ZE line. So it's quite obvious they will be getting
up to the same level.

Well one thing is that Zeiss is making these lenses for different camera mounts, in addition there are probably patents on the AF systems or just that they'd probably need to develop a different something or other to accomodate the AF system in Nikons vs. Canon's etc. I'm not technical but I might have a point here.

Canon's AF system is pretty wonderful, I've been wanting a Leica with Canon electronics an function and this is the closest I'll be able to get with it.

I've only had AF in my life for the last two and a half years, everything before that was manual focus and I've done a lot of shooting to date so I'm guessing with a change in the ground glass in my MKIII, I'll probably be quite happy with the 35mm if I get it, considering that the AF confirmation light does work in the camera with these lenses as a double check.

Im curious on the focal lenght , 35mm is great for full lenght portrait work , Zeiss also has the 28mm f/2 'hollywood' in ZE mount ...perhaps a couple of hundred dollars or so more expensive than 35 f/2 , acc to a review I read somewhere the 28mm doesnt suffer from wide angle distortion , how would you compare the image quality with the 28mm zeiss ?

snowboarder wrote in post #9088527
I compared my Zeiss 35 ZE to my excellent copy of Canon 35L today.
This is not scientific. I just took both lenses to the beach and took some
similar shots with both. Wanted to see if what I felt was true.
It's more about the "look" and feel rather than anything serious about the sharpness etc.
A couple of shots - Zeiss 35 ZE f2 wide open and Canon 35L at f2. Same settings.
Unfair right? Canon should be crushing Zeiss at f2. Judge for yourself.
Corner crops included. Open in Adobe RAW. I tried to make the shot look good.
IMO Zeiss just looks so much more dramatic, 3-dimensional. The rendering is much
more film like. And the sharpens and CA of the crop is better.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Looks to me the 35L gave 1/3 to 1/2 more EV, which I think in this particular scene robbed it of the "dramatic, 3-dimensional" thicker shades apparent in the ZE. The green grass stalks in the center-left of the 35L shot were also less visible (blown/rearranged by the wind?).

Maybe I miss what others were oohing about, but to me, with the -1/3 comp on the 35L, both pics would be very close (pixel peeping CA aside). I was debating the ZE, but decided to stick with the 35L with its ease and speed of focusing, especially for low light scenes and street candid.

I just got my copy and concur with snowboarders test. The most significant difference is the dynamic range. The 35/2 has more tonal range in quick tests. I really like the way it feels and the bokeh is very nice. I will post more when I get something that is significant to view.

Wait what...the lens has more dynamic range...you're going to have to explain this one.