Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 10 Sep 2010 (Friday) 04:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24L Mark 1 vs ZE 35 Distagon

 
Rsyx
Senior Member
619 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Europe
     
Sep 10, 2010 04:55 |  #1

I'm making myself sick with this choice. At the moment I own the Canon 24mm f/1.4 Mark I, for which I sold both a ZE 35 and a 24mm TS-E Mark 1.

Then why the dillema? Well, I've been playing around with the 24L for a while now and I sincerely miss the Zeiss. The focal length of the 24L feels right, and I actually prefer it to the 35mm focal length. The lens is very sharp and has given me some beautiful results during a small holiday a few weeks back.

The thing is, I really like the Zeiss rendering. I'm going to buy the 50mm f/2 soon, which I will use for portraits. I'm also looking for something wider though. I feel like the 35mm is not too close to the 50mm FL, especially not on crop. I guess I could also go for the 21mm Distagon, but that would be a bit wider than I'd like. In that case, I'd also have to go for the ZE 50mm f/1.4 instead, as I wouldn't have the money to buy the ZE 50 f/2 anymore.

Any words of wisdom on my dillema? Should I just give the 24L some more time? Should I sell it for the ZE 35? Should I get the ZE 50 1.4 and ZE 21? In the end, I will have a 3 prime kit which will be used 80% for people photography and 20% for landscapes, cityscapes and objects.

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.


5D II + ZE 50 MP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
denoir
Goldmember
Avatar
1,152 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
     
Sep 10, 2010 05:06 |  #2

I can say this much - don't get the 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 early on. They are specialty lenses suitable for just some types of photography and can produce really bad images if used the wrong way. Don't bother with the 18/3.5 & 28/2 - both are mediocre.

The lenses to get (sorted by focal length): 21, 35, 50 MP, 100 MP. After you have them all then the two f(/1.4 Planars make sense to get.

A third option is to get an adapted Zeiss 35/1.4. The Rollei and Contax mount versions are optically identical and really awesome. Zeiss is releasing a new and different 35/1.4 which is much larger, heavier and costs about twice as much. Too few samples have been released so far but if Zeiss decided to redesign the legendary 35/1.4, chances are the new version will be pretty good.

If I had to restrict myself to three primes the choice would be very easy:

21/2.8 ZE, 35/1.4 Rollei, 100/2 ZE


Luka C.D| My photos (external link) | My videos (external link) | My Cameras & Lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rsyx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
619 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Europe
     
Sep 10, 2010 05:12 |  #3

Thanks for your reply Luka. :)

Considering that I have the 135L that I'm very happy with, I won't get the 100mm MP. The triangular bokeh of the 35 Rollei has something about it, but I don't like it enough to have it as one of my 3 lenses.

Out of the choices I listed, do you think the ZE 35 - ZE 50 f/2 - 135L combo is the best option? This option excludes any of the Planars.


5D II + ZE 50 MP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
denoir
Goldmember
Avatar
1,152 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
     
Sep 10, 2010 05:20 |  #4

If you don't like the Rollei triangular bokeh, then you can get a Contax mount version instead - it has a more normal number of aperture blades. The bokeh doesn't matter too much though - that lens is meant to be used wide open. The 35/2 is better stopped down.

The 135L is a nice lens, I have it as well and it is possibly my favorite Canon lens. The 100 MP however is in a completely different league. Think of the 135L & 85L rolled into one and with Zeiss rendering style. So don't rule it out!

The standard Zeiss prime trio that covers most needs is:
21/2.8, 35/2 & 100 MP. So in your case if you want to keep the 135L, it would be 21/2.8, 35/2 & 135L alternatively the 21/2.8, 50/2 & 135L.

The 35/2 & 50 MP although different in nature are not very far apart in focal length. Plus you don't want to miss out on the 21/2.8 which is probably the best of them all.

You should also at some point consider getting a FF camera. Zeiss glass is to some extent wasted on a cropper..


Luka C.D| My photos (external link) | My videos (external link) | My Cameras & Lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rsyx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
619 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Europe
     
Sep 10, 2010 05:35 |  #5

Unfortunately both the 21 - 35 - 135L and 21 - 50 - 135L are over my budget. The ZE35 - ZE50 f/2 - 135L is really as far as I can possibly stretch it. Selling the 135L to get a 100 MP would leave me with one prime less on the wide side, so then it would probably be ZE 35 - ZE 100 MP or something like that.

I have no experience with converted lenses and I'm a bit hesitant to buy an expensive prime with an adapter. To me, for now, it seems like a better idea to stick with ZE and L glass, but that's probably all inbetween my ears. (if that expression makes sense in English) ;)

And yeah, I know I should consider a better body to go with my primes. My plan is to acquire 3 stellar primes this year and to maybe save up some money for a 5D2 (5D3?) next year. I'm still a student at university, so unfortunately money doesn't grow on trees for me. :p


5D II + ZE 50 MP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
denoir
Goldmember
Avatar
1,152 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
     
Sep 10, 2010 05:59 |  #6

Well, in that case possibly the 352 + 100 MP combination or 35/2 + 135L and save up some money. I think that getting both the 35/2 and 50 MP is a bit wasteful as they are relatively close while you will still be left lacking on the wide end of things. So I think it would make more sense to save the money for something later (FF or 21). The 50 MP has the advantage of close focus and that it's more fun getting a new lens rather than buying back one you already had. The 35/2 has the advantage of being wider and it is much easier to produce the classic Zeiss '3D' look with it. The 50/2 is a bit better in terms of raw optical performance.


There is nothing special about adapted lenses. You have a converter ring between the original mount and the camera and that's it. If you buy one with an AF chip (or add one yourself), you'll have AF confirm and EXIF. The only difference between a native mount lens is that you have an aperture ring on the lens itself - which is in many situations a good thing. I mentioned the 35/1.4 because it is nice to have at least one fast lens and the Zeiss 35/1.4 is really awesome. If I had to pick a 35mm lens I would definitely pick it over the 35/2. An additional point in its favor is that can get it for less than a 35/2.


Luka C.D| My photos (external link) | My videos (external link) | My Cameras & Lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Sep 10, 2010 06:16 |  #7

Well, if 24mm is closer to how you frame and see your images then I have no idea why you are thinking 35mm. Do you look at the rendering of your images or the composition and lighting, first ?


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rsyx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
619 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Europe
     
Sep 10, 2010 06:54 |  #8

I used to have a ZE 35 + 135L, but found the gap to be too big so I wanted something to go inbetween for portraits. The 24L and ZE 50 f/2 would probably make a better pair than a 35mm and 50mm combo, so that might not be a bad idea after all. Unfortunately, the ZE 21 or 24L2 + ZE 50 f/2 is really not within the budget at the moment. A two lens combo of 35mm and 135mm or 35mm and 100mm would probably leave me with too wide a gap. I'll look into the 35 f/1.4, it might be another good option after all.

As for the 24mm and 35mm focal length, the IQ and look of a lens is very important to me. I find 24mm on a crop easy to frame with, but it's not like 35mm isn't working out for me at all. I'm sure that I could get used to framing with a 35mm, but it will probably take some time.


5D II + ZE 50 MP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bkdc
Senior Member
Avatar
888 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2007
Location: NoVA
     
Sep 10, 2010 06:59 as a reply to  @ Rsyx's post |  #9

They're all great. =) I didn't find images from the original 24L Mk I usable until about f2.0, but some others might be more forgiving. The extra stop was useless to me. The 24L Mk II is a huge improvement. The 100MP is stellar. I don't think I'll ever sell it, even though it gives me tantrums when I hand-hold for macro. My bad technique. The razor thin DOF at macro distances produces the most amazing bokeh I've ever seen.

Manual-focusing on the small viewfinder of the 40D will be a real challenge, and you will definitely benefit from a split-prism screen from a 3rd party manufacturer rather than the Canon replaceable Ef-S screen. I had a tough time on my old 50D.

I think you should consider the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 which is not "Zeiss" but is a good performer optically at a very reasonable price.


RF 24-70 f/4L IS | RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS | RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS | RF 50L | RF 85L | 600EX-RT x 3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rsyx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
619 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Europe
     
Sep 10, 2010 07:05 |  #10

I use my 24L mostly from f/2 upwards indeed, therefore the larger maximum aperture of the 24L compared to the ZE35 isn't really an issue to me. The f/1.4 - f/1.8 is rarely used, I only use it in very dark environments or when I absolutely need the thin DOF.


5D II + ZE 50 MP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
denoir
Goldmember
Avatar
1,152 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
     
Sep 10, 2010 07:10 |  #11

Bohdan has a point about the focal length though. With the 24 you'll at least have a moderate wide angle (~35 mm FF equivalent). With just the 35/2 you'll have nothing below normal apparent FL.

Could you swing a 24/50/135 combination?


Luka C.D| My photos (external link) | My videos (external link) | My Cameras & Lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rsyx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
619 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Europe
     
Sep 10, 2010 07:43 |  #12

The 24L Mark I, ZE 50 Makro Planar and 135L is a possible combo for me, this is what I originally settled on. Might be my best option after all?


5D II + ZE 50 MP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
denoir
Goldmember
Avatar
1,152 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
     
Sep 10, 2010 08:14 |  #13

It might be a good start. In time you can get the FF camera, replace the 24 with a Zeiss 21 and the 135L with a 100 MP.


Luka C.D| My photos (external link) | My videos (external link) | My Cameras & Lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Sep 10, 2010 10:36 |  #14
bannedPermanent ban

bohdank wrote in post #10883553 (external link)
Well, if 24mm is closer to how you frame and see your images then I have no idea why you are thinking 35mm. Do you look at the rendering of your images or the composition and lighting, first ?

That is what I am wondering as well. First and foremost, get the focal length you need. There is a huge difference between as 24mm and 35mm lens. You either need the wide angle of the 24mm or you don't. Seems like a very clear choice to me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
IUnknown
Senior Member
738 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Jun 2007
     
Sep 10, 2010 11:02 |  #15

Luka, What does does the 35 1.4 run total with the adapter vs. AF confirm? Does one need to worry about mirror collisions at infinity, any other issues? Where does one buy all the parts?


Fiske | Film (external link)
5D Mark II | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM | Canon 35L | Sigma 85 1.4 | Helios 44M-6 58mm(M42) | Zeiss 50mm 1.4 (C/Y) | LEICA 50MM SUMMICRON-R F2 | Canon 135L | Elmoscope anamorphic lens | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,368 views & 0 likes for this thread
24L Mark 1 vs ZE 35 Distagon
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is countrygirl67
930 guests, 276 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.