Zeiss 35 ZE - first impressions

I think he means the colour reproduction is better in the Zeiss?

realitysays wrote in post #9131431
I think he means the colour reproduction is better in the Zeiss?

Well, as LFL mentioned, that might have something to do with the possibility that the Canon appears to expose brighter by 1/3 stop or so (based on snowboarder's images).

I get the same exposure shift. I set up a shot of my living room under a 5500k lamp and shot both 35L and 35/2. The 35L appears to be 1/3 EV hotter using the exact same metering and on a tripod. What I notice about this is that the shadows appear to be the same yet the highlights are not blown out with the 35/2 as they are with the 35L and there is more shadow detail, i.e. it doesn't drop to black as fast. I was working on a shot using each lens but I'm not finished yet. The 35L holds up well but it's not the same. It's a different lens all together.

Is the 28mm this sharp? I would find that FL more useful. If the 28mm produces images as good as what have been posted here it's going to the top of my list.

Bugger it wrong thread

Yes the 28mm is comparable it does however suffer from some FC compared to the 35/2.

MR do little wrote in post #9132404
Yes the 28mm is comparable it does however suffer from some FC compared to the 35/2.

Hmm.. maybe I'll try out the 35mm then. I have Canon 28 and 35 primes but I know these are on another level. I've also been eyeing their 50mm macro for Nikon. So many lenses to buy and the gear fund is busted. I see the 35mm is about $200 less than the 28mm though so that would help.

It all depends on what your gonna shoot and of course wich fl you prefer.

Most of my shooting with primes is 20 and 28. They also make a 21 so we'll see. Maybe I'll try the 35 first since it's the least expensive and I do some shooting at 35. I really do like the sample photos posted here.

jetcode wrote in post #9131920
I get the same exposure shift. I set up a shot of my living room under a 5500k lamp and shot both 35L and 35/2. The 35L appears to be 1/3 EV hotter using the exact same metering and on a tripod. What I notice about this is that the shadows appear to be the same yet the highlights are not blown out with the 35/2 as they are with the 35L and there is more shadow detail, i.e. it doesn't drop to black as fast. I was working on a shot using each lens but I'm not finished yet. The 35L holds up well but it's not the same. It's a different lens all together.

Generally, in my mind, a "brighter" lens would be considered a favorable thing. Now, if the Zeiss really does manage to render shadow detail better, that would be interesting. Looking forward to your test shots, and I hope that you include a set in which the highlight/midrange exposure is normalized between the two lenses.

bacchanal wrote in post #9133503
Generally, in my mind, a "brighter" lens would be considered a favorable thing. Now, if the Zeiss really does manage to render shadow detail better, that would be interesting. Looking forward to your test shots, and I hope that you include a set in which the highlight/midrange exposure is normalized between the two lenses.

I am not sure I am wanting to spend a day evaluating these lenses side by side. I leave that to folks with ISO charts and such. I will take some time to evaluate my findings and post what I can here. I am a novice at this so do not expect professional results.

Does the 35/2 have 1/3 aperture stops or does it only do full stops? (and would the same apply to all ZE lenses?)

L_F_L wrote in post #9135312
Does the 35/2 have 1/3 aperture stops or does it only do full stops? (and would the same apply to all ZE lenses?)

I have the 21 ZE and it operates in 1/3 stops, what ever your body is set up for. I changed it to halves in the body and no problem.
Mike K

L_F_L - 1/3 stops like any EF lens

bacchanal - here is the conclusion I have after testing both lenses side by side informally

The 35/2 holds high contrast better in a scene. The 35/1.4 does not respond the same way shot at f/2. This is exemplified in snowboarders examples. The metering is the same so what we are seeing is what the lens is allowing in for light. The 35/2 has much smoother gradients and holds highlights and shadow quite well. The 35L performs better (not better than the 35/2) in low contrast scenes.

In terms of sharpness they are somewhat identical in the center though the 35/2 appears to be better in the corners and edges wide open.

jetcode wrote in post #9135520
L_F_L - 1/3 stops like any EF lens

bacchanal - here is the conclusion I have after testing both lenses side by side informally

The 35/2 holds high contrast better in a scene. The 35/1.4 does not respond the same way shot at f/2. This is exemplified in snowboarders examples. The metering is the same so what we are seeing is what the lens is allowing in for light. The 35/2 has much smoother gradients and holds highlights and shadow quite well. The 35L performs better (not better than the 35/2) in low contrast scenes.

In terms of sharpness they are somewhat identical in the center though the 35/2 appears to be better in the corners and edges wide open.

Metering aside, it would be interesting to see the exposures normalized. It is presumed that in normal use a photographer would attempt to expose the shot correctly regardless of what the lens is or isn't "allowing in for light", not pick an arbitrary setting.