Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 Distagon ZE

jdizzle wrote in post #13490236
I tried to view the images but, I was getting an error.

Can you try now? This is 70-200
http://www.dylikowski.​com …oads/2011/12/IM​G_5199.jpg

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13490237
Also I was surprised to see some color fringing wide open....never seen it with other lenses before.

The 24 L 1.4 MK II and 35 L 1.4 have fringing too. It's minimal but, not a big deal.

And this one if Zeiss:
http://www.dylikowski.​com …oads/2011/12/IM​G_5263.jpg

I'll have to view these later on a proper monitor.

It's better to post the links to them when they are THAT large

You missed focus on the shot with the zeiss. Mine is sharper. Do you have a precision focus screen installed? It's a must have.

J-B wrote in post #13490489
It's better to post the links to them when they are THAT large

You missed focus on the shot with the zeiss. Mine is sharper. Do you have a precision focus screen installed? It's a must have.

No wonder it wouldn't load quickly.

J-B wrote in post #13490489
It's better to post the links to them when they are THAT large

You missed focus on the shot with the zeiss. Mine is sharper. Do you have a precision focus screen installed? It's a must have.

Do not yet have a focusing screen...but still the color fringing and the fact that it is very-very hard to focus is not an easy thing to swallow
Anyways, I will try to get used to a lens...I only hope that when I will know how to use it, it will produce great results - that is the only thing that matters, otherwise Zeiss is overrated.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13491761
Do not yet have a focusing screen...but still the color fringing and the fact that it is very-very hard to focus is not an easy thing to swallow
Anyways, I will try to get used to a lens...I only hope that when I will know how to use it, it will produce great results - that is the only thing that matters, otherwise Zeiss is overrated.

It's only overrated if you don't know how to get the best out of Zeiss. For the longest time, I got frustrated in not getting that 3D pop people are talking about. After playing around with in LR and PS, I found that I don't have to process my images that much.

jdizzle wrote in post #13491779
It's only overrated if you don't know how to get the best out of Zeiss. For the longest time, I got frustrated in not getting that 3D pop are talking about. After playing around with in LR and PS, I found that I don't have to process my images that much.

Don't get me wrong My part is to learn how to use it...and I will do my best to understand. I actually like the fact that it requires more control and thinking. Just want to be sure that my copy is good and that once I learn, it will shine

All this having trouble with MF is making me nervous. Guess I should order the focusing screen. B and H have 2 different versions I would rather not have lines all over it does the clear one do the same thing?

Actually, what I wanted to say is that when I do MF with 70-200, I get 100% hits....and that is why I though it will be the same with Zeiss. In 70-200 I do it without the focus confirmation and without the focusing screen and my images are always-always super sharp. So far no luck with Zeiss

Wow, glad I stumbled into this thread. Looks like this lens is LEGIT better than the 35L. I agree with all observations above!

That being said, unfortunately I do need the AF for my 35mm lens, so I'm content to simply wander in and admire all the brilliance this thread has to offer.

David, there is no MF trouble.
Alex, the 70-200 is an f2.8 lens. Do you also stop the zeiss down to at least f2.8 when doing that comparison? You have to be much more precise at f1.4

People that just buy this lens thinking "MF takes no skill, it has to be as easy as an ultrafast/precise AF lens or else the lens is overrated" are REALLY missing the point.
(Even more so if they don't even have a precision focusing screen installed.)
No offence, but it's really strange to see that people don't seem to do any research before buying an MF lens.

MF takes getting used to. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Good luck.

Agree with you 100% and there is not offense at all

I have done a lot of research on MF and by the way, I was very-very often using MF on 70-200 (agree, at f/2.8). It was very natural and 99.9% of shots were spot on. Can you imagine, I have been able to get sharp images from 70-200 with MF at 1/20th of sec!!!! Handheld!!!

So like I said - I will do everything possible to learn and I am looking forward to get skills with MF it this lens is worth it. I have purchased Zeiss because of optics and naturally AF is more practical...but if you can get supreme IQ and for that you need to MF, I am fine. As long as indeed Zeiss 35 is superior to 35L

J-B wrote in post #13492261
Alex, the 70-200 is an f2.8 lens. Do you also stop the zeiss down to at least f2.8 when doing that comparison? You have to be much more precise at f1.4

People that just buy this lens thinking "MF takes no skill, it has to be as easy as an ultrafast/precise AF lens or else the lens is overrated" are REALLY missing the point.
(Even more so if they don't even have a precision focusing screen installed.)
No offence, but it's really strange to see that people don't seem to do any research before buying an MF lens.

MF takes getting used to. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Good luck.

Indeed, it's not a lens you can get brilliant results with straight out of the box especially without a precision focusing screen. The DOF is super thin wide open and not forgiving but with time you will get a feel for which area of the image is sharp.

In low light situations and mid range distances I would still go live view to hit focus as well since the focus confirm doesn't work effectively in the dark and it's very hard to see what's in focus.

All in all don't expect to nail focus in a hurry with moving subjects wide open a lot of the time. You have to take a few more shots sometimes as well as micro-tweaking the focus to get that shot. But it gets easier with time and well worth it imo.