Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 Distagon ZE

^That looks sharp to me J-B.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13492611
I'll play with what I have for some time For now I am not very convinced - it is not really as sharp as 70-200...it has some interesting qualities, but I cannot get eyes very sharp...which is essential for portrait.

Is it at all possible? With this lens, I mean

The Zeiss at f/1.4 vs the 70-200 IS II at f/2.8.. it's not a fair contest, 70-200mm hands down.. the Zeiss also has a slight haze wide open but it doesn't mean you can't get sharp results, it is at least as sharp as the 35L with better corners, but people don't buy a zeiss necessarily for sharpness. The 70-200 is amazingly sharp wide open and it has IS to boot which is very helpful. But it's two different lenses for different purposes. I would like to see comparisons between different 35mm lenses, it would be more applicable.

The results you've posted are acceptable and to be expected at those distances, if you nailed the focus 100% of course it could be better. Some sharpening will enhance any image if you're after that bleeding sharp look

In short, expect the 70-200 to be sharper wide open but it can't do f/1.4, wide angle and the zeiss look The Zeiss is bitingly sharp at f/4-f/8 and great for those clinical shots at those apertures.

Noodlz wrote in post #13495373
In short, expect the 70-200 to be sharper wide open but it can't do f/1.4, wide angle and the zeiss look The Zeiss is bitingly sharp at f/4-f/8 and great for those clinical shots at those apertures.

I have done a test at F/4: Zeiss vs 24-105 F/4.
All on a tripod, live view, etc

Can you tell which is which?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Thanks for posting - can you share EXIF and more or less the distance from the dog?

J-B wrote in post #13494777
Alex, nice portraits.
If the eyes aren't sharp, you just aren't nailing the focus. Since you're using the focus confirmation, i's possible that it needs some microadjustment.
Have you tried focusing with liveview? That way you'll find out quickly.

My copy really is very sharp. Sharper and better microcontrast than the 35L at all apertures.
Here's a quick testshot that I took after just getting the lens some months ago:

At f1.4:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

100% crop:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Looks sharp to me wide open.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13496154
I have done a test at F/4: Zeiss vs 24-105 F/4.
All on a tripod, live view, etc

Can you tell which is which?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

And by the way, I do not even qualify 24-105 as a sharp lens, so Zeiss should kill it hands down.

The top one should be zeiss due to the cooler tones and smoother bokeh.. it also looks a bit sharper, are we seeing the centre of the image or the edges? The focus looks good

OK, folks. I am really to say what I will and it is only one man's opinion, nothing more.
I was really dreaming of the Zeiss lens and 35 f/1.4 was something that I badly wanted to get one day. So I did, but my experience was not good in all conditions.

Sharpness:
It can be very-very sharp, but from a close distance. Maybe this experience is related to a fact that only from the close distance you can nail the focus extremely accurately.

Focus Confirm:
Again, a very helpful thing to have. From the close distance you can see with your eyes whether you nailed the focus. When you are further back, it is tricky. You have to rely on the focus confirm and it has some level of tolerance. The red dot will indicate that you are in focus, but you still can move your focusing ring back and forth and be perfectly within this area of tolerance. What it means is that you cannot be 100% sure that you nailed the focus. Focusing screens? Maybe, but I also photograph landscapes at f/12.

Overall....I think I have nothing against the lens itself. I had problems with sharpness from more than 1-2 meters. My problems is with MF - for people photography, the type of thing I do...I have to be 1000% sure that things are perfectly in focus and that time after time I have consistently sharp shots.

We tested it in the studio with my friends and he fell in love with the 35 mm FL as well as f/1.4, but he also said that he prefers to have 1% less sharp images with 35L, but he cannot accept missing 50% of images because of MF.

So I guess it is just me I'll wait for 35L II....

Sorry for being a pain.
You have been REALLY helpful!

I have a bitter feeling - always wanted to have Zeiss....but it is not practical for people photography.
Not for me. I will probably get Zeiss 21 one day...for Landscape I am OK with MF.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13506886
OK, folks. I am really to say what I will and it is only one man's opinion, nothing more.
I was really dreaming of the Zeiss lens and 35 f/1.4 was something that I badly wanted to get one day. So I did, but my experience was not good in all conditions.

Sharpness:
It can be very-very sharp, but from a close distance. Maybe this experience is related to a fact that only from the close distance you can nail the focus extremely accurately.

Focus Confirm:
Again, a very helpful thing to have. From the close distance you can see with your eyes whether you nailed the focus. When you are further back, it is tricky. You have to rely on the focus confirm and it has some level of tolerance. The red dot will indicate that you are in focus, but you still can move your focusing ring back and forth and be perfectly within this area of tolerance. What it means is that you cannot be 100% sure that you nailed the focus. Focusing screens? Maybe, but I also photograph landscapes at f/12.

Overall....I think I have nothing against the lens itself. I had problems with sharpness from more than 1-2 meters. My problems is with MF - for people photography, the type of thing I do...I have to be 1000% sure that things are perfectly in focus and that time after time I have consistently sharp shots.

We tested it in the studio with my friends and he fell in love with the 35 mm FL as well as f/1.4, but he also said that he prefers to have 1% less sharp images with 35L, but he cannot accept missing 50% of images because of MF.

So I guess it is just me I'll wait for 35L II....

Sorry for being a pain.
You have been REALLY helpful!

I have a bitter feeling - always wanted to have Zeiss....but it is not practical for people photography.
Not for me. I will probably get Zeiss 21 one day...for Landscape I am OK with MF.

Be happy now. Can you return it? Or just sell it. Why not get the 35L now who knows when the II version is coming out.

Sorry to hear that I just returned a 50L I thought I would like that I could not make work so I feel your pain.

david lacey wrote in post #13506909
Be happy now. Can you return it? Why not get the 35L now who knows when the II version is coming out.

I think I can - confirmed with the store today and will return it....sad feeling really. I couldn't make it work for me. It is a very expensive glass - I cannot swallow the fact that I am missing so many shots with it due to MF.

Zeiss will probably need to change their business model one day....unless there is a very big market still for MF lenses. Like I said, for Macro, Landscape - precision MF is really a big-big winner. For people, street, documentary - it is a pain (for me at least). I

I do 90% of my portraits with 2 lenses. the zeiss 35 f/2 and 85 f/1.4. you really should try a focusing screen before giving up on it.

the other 10% are with the 135L but im selling that now that i have the 70-200 2.8 IS mII. i'll do my first session with it thursday to see how it goes.

btw, stopping down doesn't make the screen darker if you have a focusing screen. that's because it focuses wide open and then stops down. now, if you're using a manual aperture lens then it'll be dark at f/12

so what lens will you ask us a million questions about now?

Noodlz wrote in post #13496418
The top one should be zeiss due to the cooler tones and smoother bokeh.. it also looks a bit sharper, are we seeing the centre of the image or the edges? The focus looks good

I agree with this analysis. Somewhat hard to judge since the top looks sharper to me, but it is also a slightly wider shot, making the elephant smaller. Plus it's such a curvy subject, without sharp edges to judge with precision.

That said, the 24-105 lens is one of the more under appreciated lenses around, IMHO.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13492643
Two more from my first outing with this lens.
Not particularly happy - no matter how hard I try, I cannot get eyes very sharp....

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I think these images are quite flattering to the lens (and woman). Much discussion over on the alt lens board of FM seems to suggest the 1.4 aperture is purposefully not tack sharp (veiling apparently), which can flatter women, such as in the above photo. By sacrificing the tack sharpness, there are other gains for the lens including high detail for more distant landscape shots which would be at smaller apertures, with that classic 3D Zeiss look, and perhaps most important, with that very high quality bokeh in the larger apertures. Few if any lenses do it all.

If you want sharp, I'll trade you my 35/2.0 ZE plus some cash. It's quite sharp with tremendous 3d to the photos, IMHO. Tons of POP.

BTW, I haven't read through the whole thread, but I use a treated Canon EES focusing screen that significantly aids in focusing beyond what Canon offers. It is expensive however. I'm forgetting the guy's name who does it, but I am very happy with it.

J-B wrote in post #13494777
Alex, nice portraits.
If the eyes aren't sharp, you just aren't nailing the focus. Since you're using the focus confirmation, i's possible that it needs some microadjustment.
Have you tried focusing with liveview? That way you'll find out quickly.

It's true that you can't really says the lens is not sharp till you do a live view focus (and consider calibrating at the same time). This is the gold standard.

eRichard wrote in post #13506973
BTW, I haven't read through the whole thread, but I use a treated Canon EES focusing screen that significantly aids in focusing beyond what Canon offers. It is expensive however. I'm forgetting the guy's name who does it, but I am very happy with it.

Was it this one (http://haodascreen.com​/Canon5D.aspx) and if so is it the 5D-A?

eRichard wrote in post #13506981
It's true that you can't really says the lens is not sharp till you do a live view focus (and consider calibrating at the same time). This is the gold standard.

Guys, are you serious? I have done tons of test with Live View All of the examples I have posted are live view

Do not get me wrong - maybe other people cracked the MF, maybe other people have better skills are always nailing portraits without AF in low light. I can't. I have noticed that focus confirmation has too big of a tolerance and you sort of think that you nail it, but in reality it is 50/50 that you might be of.

I just do not know how to hit the sharp shot consistently with MF for people (they always move)...I cannot force people to stand still. Bu the way, you also focus and recompose...it adds to a difficulty.

I think it is possible to learn - but it is way too much for me. A lot of frustration. More than a Zeiss 1.4 test it was a lesson learned on the importance of AF for people photography, especially in low light.