Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 Distagon ZE

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13507167
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.

It's not for everyone, I think it's good that you've found out your preferences. It can take some lenses to find out which one suits you best as it did for me

Noodlz wrote in post #13507479
It's not for everyone, I think it's good that you've found out your preferences. It can take some lenses to find out which one suits you best as it did for me

Like I said....I have a bad-bad...feeling....the quality of the lens is Amazing...the bokeh is fantastic....but i cannot swallow the MF - just can't
Maybe it is indeed my copy...who knows. It is just strange to me that you have the tolerance for focus confirmation - it is either dead on or not. I couldn't hit a single shot from the distance...

Anyways, time to move on.....

david lacey wrote in post #13506994
Was it this one (http://haodascreen.com​/Canon5D.aspx) and if so is it the 5D-A?

The screen was a Canon screen (as I recall EGS) that was treated chemically. I remembered today who it was. His name is Bill Maxwell (Google him, and he will turn up), and he does this professionally. I believe he does this for larger format stuff as well. It improves the contrast as the lens comes into focus, which can prove challenging on a ground glass focusing screen. It almost is like viewing through a wider aperture as the screen is brighter and a thinner region seems to come in focus (been a while since I thought about it though). I've tried another brand that was not good (not the Haoda though), whereas this one really did the trick for me. It does change the metering slightly, but not a problem for me.

Here's his unofficial website put up by a fan:
http://www.mattclara.c​om/maxwell/index.html

He is slow to answer emails, but loves to talk on the phone, so keep that in mind. His turnover can be slow as he does them in batches. He can provide the screen, which I recommend to save time. Been a couple years, but I think he only takes checks via mail.

I went to re-read the comment, but I did not really understand it

eRichard wrote in post #13506962
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.

bespoke wrote in post #13506938
so what lens will you ask us a million questions about now?

Either 35L II or Zeiss 35 1.4 AF

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13507953
I went to re-read the comment, but I did not really understand it

Yes, partly due to a late night post, partly due to a fuzzy (pardon the pun) subject, and partly due to me trying to condense 100's of posts into one short one.

There is a general feeling on the alt lens board over at Fred Miranda (FM) that a number of Zeiss ZE lenses are tack sharp over basically the whole aperture range, while a few are not geared that way. I believe the faster f/1.4 lenses fit into that latter category. They suffer a bit wide open if you are looking for tack sharpness, but because of their design, they make up for that loss in other ways. While the 35/2 is just chock full of pop and pizazz from f/2 on down, it doesn't have quite the ability to provide massive detail in the more distant landscapes when stopped down that the 1.4 version does. It for sure looks great with those landscapes, but the 35 f/1.4 is more on the level of the 21 ZE, though arguably not as detailed as the 21. The new 35 f/1.4 also has slightly more depth of field, I believe, compared to the older Contax version, which is more flattering as the transition from in focus to out of focus is more gradual in portraits. One general defense some people bring up for the softness at f/1.4 is that it is more flattering, especially to women beyond a certain age where sharpness is no longer a desired feature. Additionally, the earlier Contax 35 f/1.4 had the reputation of being the most 3D rendering lens of any considered, perhaps tied with the Contax 100/2 lens, and maybe this new one carries on the tradition. Some say that because of the more gradual falloff in depth of field that the newer lens is perhaps less 3D than the predecessor, but who knows for sure. That 3D business is of course the signature of Zeiss lenses in general. The bokeh of the 35 1/4's is regarded very highly, and I believe it is due to this particular design that sacrifices the wide open sharpness to veiling (in other words, the two aspects are inseparable seemingly). Perhaps the same could be said of the 85 f/1.4 ZE. With the narrow depth of field and the beautiful bokeh, you get that nice, flattering separation from the background of course. I think that all adds up to both a wonderful portrait lens (wider apertures), and a wonderful landscape lens (f/2.8-f/11). In other words the design is softer when you might want it softer, and sharper and detailed when you want a sparkling, exquisite landscape. I think that portrait of the woman bears this out. She looks great, and I'm sure she'd love that photo.

That focusing screen I mentioned does help substantially, though I don't want to lead you down an expensive path if you're averse to manual focus in general. I grew up with manual focus, so it doesn't bug me at all, though I do wonder if I might eventually have trouble with it as my eyesight deteriorates with age (seems to be typical for most people).

These particular lenses, the 35 f/1.4, the 50 f/1.4, and the 85 f/1.4 seem to be the most controversial lenses in the ZE line up, but there are many defenders of them. What they will argue is that if you learn where they shine, you will be rewarded. I think the 35 f/1.4 is less controversial except to say it is very expensive for a lens that reveals some veiling at f/1.4 (where not all the colors of light converge for optimal focus). That said, it does a number of things that you will not find combined in one package elsewhere. That's enough to buy it for many folks.

I have read the post with great interest and even though many people will think that I do everything I can to make Zeiss look bad, it is not true. Everything I heard about Zeiss in the past was nothing but praise and nothing but a story of exceptional performance. So naturally, I wanted to get one lens…one day. I started photography with 40D and Tamron 17-50 lens 3 years ago and moved to 5D MKII and now mostly use 70-200 F/2.8 IS II. I am yet to experience a better quality of a lens and a more enjoyable and probably forgiving lens to use than 70-200 II. Why? I love people photography and I love portraits. It is a very reliable lens – time after time I press the shutter button and I know that I will always have crisp, sharp images with pleasing bokeh.

Recently I was in a situation where I needed to photograph a person through a wet glass and it was very dark. I did not have any monopod or tripod, so I had to do it handheld and I was able to get a sharp shot at 1/20th of sec. I could not believe it – with a heavy 70-200 lens.

But I did not have anything for environmental portraits – another reliable performer that can produce consistently sharp images with pleasing bokeh time and time again. Sort of a brother/sister to 70-200 just with a different FL. 24 II is definitely too wide and it is extremely hard to compose when you think people in the environment. I tried with 24 mm and you just have to crop too much and lose quality. 35 mm is a sweet spot. And 35 mm with 1.4 is even sweeter. So………here we are…..my need for a 35 mm lens with 1.4 and my forever dream of having Zeiss – I talked to some folks here and pulled the trigger. Yes, the cost is high….but I can swallow it with no problem as long as I can justify it.

I tested it for a week in different conditions and I even took a day off to ensure that I give it a proper run. I was photographing everything – people on the street, models in museums and bars as well as in the studio. I also engaged my fellow Pro photographer and he tested it with his 1Ds MKIII and a studio light.

We both agreed that the lens can be really awesome when you hit the focus, but with both cameras we were never able to get a sharp image from 1-3 meters and aperture of f/6.3 to f/10. When I was using it in the museum – it was a large room and a model was right by the window – I did not have plenty of light, but I had some light. I took this lens to places I intended to use normally and have used it in situations where I would be using it. I wanted this lens to surprise me the same way 70-200 II did, but what I ended up with is a very expensive lens that is MF only and is extremely difficult to nail the shot.

This was the reality and this how it went – “Oh wait a sec, let me check the shot how it went…hold on, don’t move…sorry…it was not OK, we need to do it again. Can you please try to do the same thing once again and I will try to nail the focus”. Madness! Again – maybe this is me and MF, maybe this is the copy of the lens…maybe something else.

I talked to a friend who is Pro and he said that I made in thinking that I can get consistently good results with MF and narrow apertures. Even with F/10 I could not. So he said that I need to learn this lesson – if I want to have great results consistently, I better get a lens with a reliable AF.

Think about all these situations: you are on a street and you notice something very interesting…but it is moving and you need to react very fast, focus accurately and nail it. It can be a killer shot if you will be able to do it right. Or there is this special moment, special pose of a person…fraction of a sec – you need to do it right and you will not have a second chance as the moment will be gone. You just do not have time to focus manually and certainly do not have time to put the lens on the tripod and use live view.

I think I would want to call this lens a “social lens” – always with you, super reliable…keeps all the memories and simply surprises you every day. Maybe for many people it is the case…but somehow I can’t believe it. We might be different in the level of experience, but if we are really into photographing people that are moving or we are after this very special moment that will never happen again – I do not know…hard to believe that people are very happy with Zeiss 35 1.4 MF. When there are perfect conditions, daylight and you can get an exposure at 1/500th of sec - focus at infinity - yes, agree. But low light, people photography?

I will take my hat off when I will get to know a person that can do it and I will see it from images.
Sorry for the long post….I guess my conclusion is – of 100 images that I will take, I would prefer to have 99 consistently sharp, rather than 50 with 3D effect that I cannot even seeJ Looks like chasing ghosts…

eRichard wrote in post #13509142
Yes, partly due to a late night post, partly due to a fuzzy (pardon the pun) subject, and partly due to me trying to condense 100's of posts into one short one.

There is a general feeling on the alt lens board over at Fred Miranda (FM) that a number of Zeiss ZE lenses are tack sharp over basically the whole aperture range, while a few are not geared that way. I believe the faster f/1.4 lenses fit into that latter category. They suffer a bit wide open if you are looking for tack sharpness, but because of their design, they make up for that loss in other ways. While the 35/2 is just chock full of pop and pizazz from f/2 on down, it doesn't have quite the ability to provide massive detail in the more distant landscapes when stopped down that the 1.4 version does. It for sure looks great with those landscapes, but the 35 f/1.4 is more on the level of the 21 ZE, though arguably not as detailed as the 21. The new 35 f/1.4 also has slightly more depth of field, I believe, compared to the older Contax version, which is more flattering as the transition from in focus to out of focus is more gradual in portraits. One general defense some people bring up for the softness at f/1.4 is that it is more flattering, especially to women beyond a certain age where sharpness is no longer a desired feature. Additionally, the earlier Contax 35 f/1.4 had the reputation of being the most 3D rendering lens of any considered, perhaps tied with the Contax 100/2 lens, and maybe this new one carries on the tradition. Some say that because of the more gradual falloff in depth of field that the newer lens is perhaps less 3D than the predecessor, but who knows for sure. That 3D business is of course the signature of Zeiss lenses in general. The bokeh of the 35 1/4's is regarded very highly, and I believe it is due to this particular design that sacrifices the wide open sharpness to veiling (in other words, the two aspects are inseparable seemingly). Perhaps the same could be said of the 85 f/1.4 ZE. With the narrow depth of field and the beautiful bokeh, you get that nice, flattering separation from the background of course. I think that all adds up to both a wonderful portrait lens (wider apertures), and a wonderful landscape lens (f/2.8-f/11). In other words the design is softer when you might want it softer, and sharper and detailed when you want a sparkling, exquisite landscape. I think that portrait of the woman bears this out. She looks great, and I'm sure she'd love that photo.

That focusing screen I mentioned does help substantially, though I don't want to lead you down an expensive path if you're averse to manual focus in general. I grew up with manual focus, so it doesn't bug me at all, though I do wonder if I might eventually have trouble with it as my eyesight deteriorates with age (seems to be typical for most people).

These particular lenses, the 35 f/1.4, the 50 f/1.4, and the 85 f/1.4 seem to be the most controversial lenses in the ZE line up, but there are many defenders of them. What they will argue is that if you learn where they shine, you will be rewarded. I think the 35 f/1.4 is less controversial except to say it is very expensive for a lens that reveals some veiling at f/1.4 (where not all the colors of light converge for optimal focus). That said, it does a number of things that you will not find combined in one package elsewhere. That's enough to buy it for many folks.

^^ You should have tried it with a precision focusing screen if you haven't already, it really does make a huge difference, I don't think you can say you gave MF a go without trying it. It is however still challenging with it at the start but once you get used to it and using the workarounds it really isnt a huge deal. As you can see from my images I had no trouble nailing focus in dim light using focus confirm and minor tweaking using my EG-S screen(I was using an off camera flash in those tree shots) at f/2 and f/2.8.

If you really couldn't hit focus at f/6.3 - f/10 you may have had a dud lens.

Thanks Noodlz First of all thanks for reading the long post and second for suggestions.

Key points from my side:
1. My photography is 50% people and 50% landscape. Focusing screen make it a darker viewfinder at f/10 - big compromise in case of landscapes (maybe even frustration coming from a bright viewfinder)
2. Neither I (with 5D MKII) nor my friend (1 Ds MKIII) could nail the shot in studio, with F/10 at 1/125th of sec. Not a single shot.
3. Can you use the MF in cases when you have less than 2 seconds to react - meaning you see something spontaneously and you know it will never happen again: now or never - can you always nail it? Just be honest

I actually do not fully understand what is the advantage of MF lens for people photography, but again....if possible, do not treat my comments negatively. I really went there to give it a deep thought.

Noodlz wrote in post #13512118
^^ You should have tried it with a precision focusing screen if you haven't already, it really does make a huge difference, I don't think you can say you gave MF a go without trying it. It is however still challenging with it at the start but once you get used to it and using the workarounds it really isnt a huge deal. As you can see from my images I had no trouble nailing focus in dim light using focus confirm and minor tweaking using my EG-S screen(I was using an off camera flash in those tree shots) at f/2 and f/2.8.

If you really couldn't hit focus at f/6.3 - f/10 you may have had a dud lens.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13512145
Thanks Noodlz First of all thanks for reading the long post and second for suggestions.

Key points from my side:
1. My photography is 50% people and 50% landscape. Focusing screen make it a darker viewfinder at f/10 - big compromise in case of landscapes (maybe even frustration coming from a bright viewfinder)
2. Neither I (with 5D MKII) nor my friend (1 Ds MKIII) could nail the shot in studio, with F/10 at 1/125th of sec. Not a single shot.
3. Can you use the MF in cases when you have less than 2 seconds to react - meaning you see something spontaneously and you know it will never happen again: now or never - can you always nail it? Just be honest

I actually do not fully understand what is the advantage of MF lens for people photography, but again....if possible, do not treat my comments negatively. I really went there to give it a deep thought.

I won't take things too negatively, we all have our own opinions, but it's nice to keep things respectful. Obviously everyone sees things from their own point of view. I'm not the best photographer in the world but I do love to take photos especially portraits and have some fun with it while being mindful of both the artistic and technical sides as much as possible.

1.I've done a fair bit of landscapes with the screen(using various lenses) and never had any issues with it or thought much about it. I like to use live view to 10x to check the focus. I look at the settings also and chimp the results after each shot to make sure I like what I'm getting. The darker viewfinder never occurred to me as much of a hindrance. I usually shoot at f/5.6 in the studio, again never really noticed it going very dark. Actually trying it now, it only seems to get darker slightly.
2. Not really sure what to make of this, I did a shoot with the zeiss 35/2 at f/5.6 and f/8 way back using focus confirmation and was quite happy with the results, they were very nice and sharp.. heres an example although it's been resized down quite a bit. The original needs to be dug out from somewhere, nevertheless at f/8 the depth of field is large and everything was tack sharp as it could be:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/55528252@N02/5​901518088/

Wow what a wall of text Alex
MF is not for you. Buy an AF lens and just move on.
You're not even willing to try the precision focusing screen, which makes a huge difference.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13511981
hard to believe that people are very happy with Zeiss 35 1.4 MF

This is getting stupid. Don't generalise because MF isn't your thing.
I love MF with all my zeiss lenses, this one included. When I really need critical focus or the conditions are difficult, I switch to liveview.
Also happy with the precision focusing screen. No more focus/recompose. Frame, turn the focus ring and SEE the subject coming into focus.

You also seem to be overly obsessed with just sharpness and totally neglecting the way a lens "draws" a photo.

Indeed, this is getting stupid It really looks like people are talking different language. All I was trying to say is that for quick action documentary type of photography or environmental portrait where you do not have time - MF is a disadvantage.

OK...I take all the blame for not being skilled enough to know how to use it Really - all my fault Only mine....

J-B wrote in post #13513285
Wow what a wall of text Alex
MF is not for you. Buy an AF lens and just move on.
You're not even willing to try the precision focusing screen, which makes a huge difference.

This is getting stupid. Don't generalise because MF isn't your thing.
I love MF with all my zeiss lenses, this one included. When I really need critical focus or the conditions are difficult, I switch to liveview.
Also happy with the precision focusing screen. No more focus/recompose. Frame, turn the focus ring and SEE the subject coming into focus.

You also seem to be overly obsessed with just sharpness and totally neglecting the way a lens "draws" a photo.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13513308
All I was trying to say is that for quick action documentary type of photography or environmental portrait where you do not have time - MF is a disadvantage.

There are some that would use MF for this type of shooting and not find it a disadvantage because it suits their style. You might find it a disadvantage and so would I but it is fair to remain open to the idea that is not everyones opinion.

Alex, To make money in photography, there are many variables that you want to maximize. Which variable you maximize the most is determined by what you intend to shoot and how you make your money (and vice versa). The variables transcend just photography and include such things as time efficiency, technical accuracy, novelty, composition, reliability, cost efficiency, ease of use, prestige, originality, cleverness, and perhaps longevity (and many others of course). With the rise of cheap, efficient, reliable, and accurate digital photography for the masses, the variables that set the pro apart from the masses gets narrowed somewhat.

On the one hand, the AF lenses are terrifically reliable in nailing focus and therefore are extremely time efficient and hence cost efficient. If you are doing a wedding, or you have many projects on your plate at competitive pricing, then you need a reliable, cost efficient camera and lens, period, end of discussion.

On the other hand, if you want to distinguish yourself at the margin, meaning the last 2% of wowness, then I think in many circumstances the German bred lenses take the prize home. The exceptions of course would be the wow factor involved in action photos, where there is really no way a Leica or Zeiss could compete, almost by definition. And I think the Nikons and Canons of the world have a lock on lenses above 200mm, with rare, very expensive exceptions (like Leica 280 f/4 APO perhaps). But apart from that, the novelty look and extreme resolutions of the German lenses are more likely to set you apart from the masses if you are a patient soul. I simply think that assuming you can make the capture happen, your ZE shots will have great longevity (meaning, "oh, that's a real keeper shot for my grandkids"). When I take a photo with the 21 ZE, I get comments from various folks who have no idea it's a Zeiss picture, but do know there's something special about the photo. That's why people use Zeiss lenses. In truth, some of it is just the novelty of the look; if everyone could afford the Zeiss, then the photos would be more pedestrian (however still retaining superior aspects nevertheless).

Bottom line. I have many top Canon AF lenses, and the 70-200 2.8 II is without doubt the most sophisticated lens I've yet seen. It is an amazing lens, and if I want to guarantee capture after capture, I reach for it, or my 24-105, or my ..., but if I don't need capture after capture of reliable shots, I reach for my Leica 180 APO for hiking/nature trips and slowed down photography, particularly landscape type photography. Apart from action shots, slowed down photography is where the true all time keepers are found, IMHO. I personally like the Wide German lenses and long Canon lenses, with the split being above 100mm (give the nod to the Zeiss 100 ZE or the Leica 100 APO or Contax N 100 near the split).

It all depends where you want to draw the line. Personally, I wish I had the patience for large format photography, but I don't. I know I wouldn't get many captures simply because it's too burdensome to set up. For me, the Zeiss is just burdensome enough that most folks will avoid it, meaning my photos will stand out relative to theirs. It's a definite barrier to entry which sets the MF photos apart at the margin. I will grant that many folks will never pick up on the difference in the photos, however. It is definitely "at the margin".

Time to post some samples

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