Zeiss ZE 35 f2 or 50 MP f2?

I’ve searched through pretty much most of the Zeiss threads here and the Zeiss Alt Images thread at Fred Miranda and decided that I liked the look and wanted to try a lens. I’m stuck between choosing the ZE 35 f2 or the ZE 50MP f2.

Photography is hobby, but I don’t feel the need to buy the most expensive items although I value quality.

Here is what I have now: 40D, EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55, Sigma 30, EF 100L Macro IS, EF 70-200L f4 IS, EX580II Speedlite and 430EX Speedlite. My favorite lens is the 100L. I use flash a lot even with the fast lenses.

I mostly shoot my family (4 young boys under 7) so I do a lot of portraits and like to dabble in landscape and macro. I don’t so a lot of wildlife or sports so my next body upgrade may be the 5D MKII in about a year. I will probably keep the 40D and the EF-S 17-55 since I doubt my wife will like the manual focus of the Zeiss lenses.

For my FF upgrade, I currently don’t have any focal lengths under 70mm. So which Zeiss should I try first, the ZE 35 f2 or the ZE 50MP f2?

I’ve ruled out the ZE 50 f1.4 because the planar series seem soft wide open and I prefer to shoot wide open. I like using the Sigma 30 a lot because it is a normal lens on my crop camera so I think I would like 50mm on FF (I used to own the EF 50 f1.8 but stopped using it after I got the Sigma) and I’m leaning toward the ZE 50MP f2. I don’t own a 50mm at this point either.

However it is quite expensive at $1283 and I already have the 100L Macro . My other 50mm options are the Sigma 50 f1.4 at $499 and the rumored Canon 50 f1.4 Mk II. The 50L f1.2 costs even more at $1,459 but is not part of Canon’s Holy Trinity.

I think the Zeiss 35 f2 is probably regarded slightly higher than the 50MP f2 and is probably part of the Zeiss ZE Holy Trinity. If I like my first Zeiss lens, I will likely buy the Zeiss 21 f2. 8 later. The 35 f2 will act a normal lens on my crop camera, but I already have the Sigma 30 so it is kind of a duplicate there. I don’t think I shoot a lot at 22mm currently on my crop right now so I may not be so hot on this 35mm focal length on FF. I have considered buying the 35L but passed because of the $1369 price. The ZE 35 f2 is probably the bargain in the ZE lineup at only $1004.

What is your opinion – is the 50MP a better fit or the 35 f2?

What do you prefer to shoot?

The Zeiss MP 50 is a fantastic lens - even sharper than the 35 - but, ultimately, it comes down to which focal length you prefer.

ocjohn wrote in post #10723922
I’ve ruled out the ZE 50 f1.4 because the planar series seem soft wide open and I prefer to shoot wide open.

I have this lens on hands. I like on opened its drawing...
F1.4

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

I'll be comparing the two in few weeks time before pulling the trigger myself (can't wait). From what I've read from pure raw sharpness the 50 MP wins but in terms of 3D rendition the the 35/2 Distagon is gonna give you that.

They are both excellent. Comparing the 35 Distagon between the 35L the Distagon will have better microcontrast and better pleasing rendition (according to diglloyd). Of course the 35L has AF and f1.4 and that is probably more useful feature for some.

Once I've tested them I'll post it here (both hopefully)

I sold my ZE 35 yesterday, in favor of either the ZE 50 Makro-Planar of the ZE 50 1.4. I don't know what your future plans are, but to me my 24L and ZE 35 were too close to one another to keep both. If you're planning on buying the ZE 21 in the future to compliment your 1 other ZE prime, the 50 Makro-Planar might suit you better.

Good luck with your choice! I'm still asking myself if I did the right thing selling the ZE 35.

Rsyx wrote in post #10724123
I'm still asking myself if I did the right thing selling the ZE 35.

Tell me Rsyx, what did you miss most about the 35/2? I veering towards the 50 MP but just can't make my mind up until I give the 35/2 a spin.

The rendering is just great, it supposedly creates more of a 3D look than the 50/2. It's probably also an emotional thing though, I used the lens quite a lot and just had trouble parting with such a fine piece of equipment.

Ideally, I would get both the 35 and the 50, but budget doesn't allow it at the moment. Therefore, I reluctantly decided to sell the 35 in favor of the 24-50-135 combo. As I might go full frame sometime soon, these 3 lenses seem great with a crop + FF combo.

You might set your 17-55 on either 35 or 50 to see which would best suit your shooting style.

If I had a crop and your lenses, I would lean to the 35 over the 50. Seems to be the sweet spot.

I'd pick the 35/2. It's not as sharp, but the photos just seem great.

I started with zeiss 21 and 100MP, and 50 1.4 ze (now up for sale). I bought it to be a fast prime between my canon zooms, but I have other lenses now. it's a nice lens stopped down a bit. I still wanted a 50 for wide, wide open, so I'm playing with a second copy of the 50L. I like the classic view from a 50 on a ff body, something that took me 35 years to appreciate. I now feel the usual 35/85 combo is boring, even though it was my defacto starting point of old nikon and leica systems.

if you like a 50, the 50MP is wonderful. I chose to close the gap (between 21 and 50) with a 28ze because it suits my style for this prime. I like it wide open, at close ranges -- but I believe the 35ze is perhaps a better all-around, for things like landscapes.

I've often wondered if i should have skipped the 28 and 50 and done the 35. but while a 50 is a classic, a 35 is really just 3 steps back. wide angle effects are just starting to show at 28, not really there on a 35.

50. the makro planar is sharp wide open and gives great bokeh.

I like the normal perspective of my Sigma 30 on my crop camera, so a 50 will be a normal lens on FF. I haven't seen too many portraits from the 50MP. Can somebody post this?

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm looking forward for the camparison between the two Zeiss 50s. From a different forum, they don't appear to be that different stopped down for landscape. At f2 and in closer, I hear the 50MP is better and I think this suits my style more. I would like my verification of my preference of the 50MP over the 50 f1.4.

Both the 35/2 and the 50 MP are excellent for portraits and both are in the "slightly rude" category as they are very sharp and can therefor be a bit unflattering.

50 is the ideal focal length for me most times. Unless I'm doing landscapes, I'm very happy with the 50. Figure out which focal length you prefer. Both are stellar lenses.

fwiw, I concur.

my honest thoughts as i own the 35 f2, 50 f2 makro planar, and 50 f1.4

it is a hard toss up between the 35 and 50 mp. both to me are quite sharp but i do admit that the 50mp is indeed sharper at times. i would also say that the 50 mp seems more contrasty (slightly too contasty imo).

i personally prefer to shoot wider since i have a terrible tendency to shoot too tight so the 35f2 is my fav all around lens, but i would say that if i were to be shooting shots in which faces are important to the shots then definately the 50 f2 would be hte goto lens since the distortion of the 35f2 would look bothersome.

the 50 1.4 is softer wide open and is muddled with CA but i must say that when used in the right situation, the image looks absolutely incredible @ 1.4. i use this lens sparingly but it defaintely has its fantastic usages as well.

im a video guy but on one of my recent threads i link up a recent film of mine where i do discuss zeiss vs canon l glass since the best lenses in both categories were used in my work.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=911914

hopefully this will help in some way shape or form.

-myw