Canon 35/1.4L vs Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ?

[WM]

Just wondering if anyone's used either or both of these ? Any

comments ? Just looking for a fast 35mm to put on the 5d, and the

35/1.4L is pretty expensive (around 2000-2500 here), and it looks

like the Distagon might be a cheaper option, albeit without AF. I

use MF lenses a lot, so lack of AF is a non-issue. I love shooting

at f2 or f1.4, so if someone could comment on the sharpness, bokeh,

colour rendition, etc especially wide open or around f2 would be

great ! Thanks !

[peter_white2]

The lack of autofocus isn't the problem. You won't have automatic diaphram control. You'll have to open and close the diaphram manually. Open to focus, close to meter. It's a huge pain.

 

And since the Canon 35mm f/1.4 is one of the finest lenses ever made for 35mm format, it's hard to imagine the Zeiss being so much better that the diaphram issue would be of no consequence.

[lovcom_photo]

Cannot speak about the Zeiss, but I have the 35L and it is my most used and favorite lens on my 1DM2. It is killer even wide open.

[nels]

Fully concur with Peter above. The compromises are not worth it, at least for me. I've never owned the Zeiss, but the 35L on 5D, even wide open, is just outstanding.<br><br>

<center><img src="http://i.pbase.com/o4/35/596435/1/57384241._MG_2433_small_border.jpg"></center>

[fourfa]

try asking at the "alternative digital" forum at fredmiranda.com

[jcolwell]

IMO, manual aperture is not a problem if (i) you are shooting wide open (which is why most people shell out for v.fast primes), or ii) if you are using a tripod.

 

<p>I have the Carl Zeiss Contax 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 45/2.8, 50/1.7, and 85/1.4 lenses, and I often use them on my 20D and 30D, especially the 45mm and 85mm. The CZ 45/2.8 is very small and has excellent colour, contrast and resolution. The CZ 85/1.4 is almost magical. Both lenses are at least as good as the corresponding EF lenses (i.e. CZ 45/2.8 vs. EF 50/1.4 and CZ 85/1.4 vs. EF 85/1.2 L). I also have the EF 50/1.4, which I prefer over the CZ 45/2.8 for low light conditions (only).

 

<p> In general, I use Canon EF, Carl Zeiss, SMC Pentax/Takumar and Nikkor primes as backup for my hand-held L-series zooms and for more disciplined photography using a tripod. In many cases, the non-Canon primes I use are better and less expensive than the corresponding EF lens. I also use Canon EF primes frequently, including EF 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 macro, and 300/4 L IS, and I hope to get an EF 135/2 L this year. The Carl Zeiss 35/2.8 and /1.4 are both rated slightly higher than the EF 35/1.4 L, but the price difference between the 35/1.4's is not large for lenses in [M-] or better condition.

 

<p> You can find my references on lens reviews and lens prices at my web site <a href="http://www.jcolwell.ca">www.jcolwell.ca</a>.<div></div>

[savas_kyprianides]

Nels photo is outstanding even after having consumed a glass of wine! (Nels, not myself.)

Which goes to show additional kudits to the 35L.

[feli]

I hate to say it, but isn't there a lot of barrel distortion in that shot? Take a look at the rim of the glass...

 

 

Feli

[awindsor]

It would be pincushion distortion if it were distortion (since the outermost edge is higher) and it is not. The camera is not perfectly level and you are getting perspective "distortion". You notice that the oil and vinegar both slope outwards. Nel's is making an artistic statement about the effect of wine. Wine consumption is another huge plus for autofocus. After a few is it hard to know which subject to focus on and the viewfinder image never comes into focus.

[matt_sallis]

Firstly, you're very likely to get many biased answers asking this question in a Canon forum.

 

I have owned both, and if you are happy (like many, me included) using manual focus, and you will use this lens at f1.4/f2, then the only factor to consider is final image quality, stop down metering is irrelevant as you can easily focus at f2.

 

Whilst the Canon is a very good lens (surprisingly so given Canon's generally poor quality wide angles), the Zeiss simply gives a more gorgeous looking image to me.

 

The Japanese tend to use edge contrast to achieve sharpness, whereas the Germans use micro-contrast in the colour spectrum.

In my opinion this gives a far more rich and pleasing look to photographs, as opposed to Canons' rather pastel colour palette.

I also found the bokeh of the Canon to be somewhat harsh in comparison to the Zeiss.

 

In the end it really is a personal choice as to which look you prefer. Both lenses will produce excellent images, but I sold the Canon because the Zeiss looks so much better to me.

 

PS. Before I'm slated as anti-Canon, I should say that I find Canon telephotos to be unbeatable. My 70-200/2.8IS, 300/2.8IS and 600/4 IS demonstrate my belief in what Canon can achieve. It's just a shame that Canon's wide angles generally don't match the quality of their telephotos.

[desmond_kidman]

I don't buy the edge contrast/micro contrast and Japan/German generalization. I have a lot of experience with Zeiss lenses for Hassy, Zeiss lenses for Contax 35mm, and Mamiya RZ and 7 lenses. Now I'm trying Canon and Zeiss lenses on Canon 1Ds2, and in all cases with the above brands I have to say that it really comes down to each model lens. I have not seen any cases where generalizations come close to holding true through a complete line, or with one line compared to another.

 

I just got through looking at 50 1.4 Zeiss vs: 50 1.4 Canon, both new, and the comparison is totally different than the comparison of the 28's from both companies, which is again different than the Zeiss 21/Canon 20 comparison. I've also not found generalizations that hold true for comparing the different brands or lenses from the different countries. You'll need to find folks that have had first hand experience with both 35's and decide who you'll believe out of that group.

 

One thing I have found is that of the lenses I've tested my results look very consistent with the guy at 16-9.net. From what I've seen I would tend to believe his findings. Unfortunately he does not have detailed tests and images of the 35's you are asking about.

 

I hate to say it, but the best way is to try both yourself and sell what you don't like...that's what I'm doing.

[peter_white2]

Ah, James, I'm assuming your kidding. People usually don't know at the time of purchase, what apertures they'll be shooting at most, unless a lens is being purchased for a very specific and narrow purpose, such as astrophotography.

 

When most people buy a lens with a wide maximum aperture, they do so because they want the ability to shoot at that aperture, or because they want to be able to focus at that aperture. I may rarely use my 24mm f/3.5L TS-E at f/3.5. In fact, I'll never use an image shot at that aperture from that lens. But the f/3.5 is helpful when focusing. It's equally absurd to suggest that most people buying the 35L would never use it for apertures smaller than f/2. When the situation calls for greater depth of field, I doubt that I'm the only one who will stop down his 35L, not giving a hoot that I could have gotten the same shot with a less expensive lens that time.

[matt_sallis]

Armando,

 

Have you really not noticed a colour difference between Zeiss and Canon?

 

I know we all see things differently, some people are colour blind, some are long sighted, I am short sighted, and I'm sure these and many other things all make a difference as to how we perceive images.

 

Over the past 27 years of photography I have found Zeiss lenses to produce more pleasing images than any other brand.

I agree certain lenses stand out. My Zeiss 21/2.8, 28/2, 55/1.2 and 85/1.2 are to me the peak of the range.

But I would be delighted if Canon's telephotos could produce Zeiss colours, or Zeiss telephotos have autofocus and IS as good as Canon.

 

I am surprised to hear you say, with your extensive experience, that you see no inherent difference between Canon and Zeiss. Although digital processing can reduce the gap, on film it seems a wide chasm to me.

 

But then, as we agree, the only way really is to try both lenses and choose which you prefer yourself. If we all saw the world the same it wouldn't be nearly as interesting. :-)

[desmond_kidman]

Hi Matt,

 

In individual comparisons I may see a color difference, but the main difference may be more intensity than actual hue. After all, many folks perceive greater contrast and intensity as different color. Maybe it's semantics. If I were to give my impression of the Canon 21 for instance, I could include that all colors look grayish and washed out. In reality, the contrast is so low, the edge detail so soft, that this seems to make the colors look dirty, and red washed out. If I try to get objective, though, and look really hard, I think that impression is really created by soft rendition and blurring. A lack of sparkle so to speak.

 

What I can also say about color, and this is what I try to keep color descriptions limited to when I talk about a lens, is color cast. And I find, from the Zeiss for Hassy models that I hate (250, old 50), to the Zeiss/Hassy that I love (250 superachromat) to the Canons I'm disappointed in (20) to those I like, that none really have any particular cast that is identifiable to the line or brand. I would defy anyone on my calibrated monitor or neutral slide film (Fuji Provia)to identify a true color cast from one of these lenses. Some cheap Vivitars, Sigmas, yes.

 

When I was going to get an RZ Mamiya, many folks said watch out, the color won't match, Zeiss is warm, Mamiya cold, and some said the reverse. In reality, using same pro-pack rolls, there was more variation roll to roll (which itself was not much) than lens to lens from the 2 different brands.

 

Out of focus rendition was a similar issue: Some Zeiss Hassy have better out of focus than the Mamiya, but some Mamiya better than Zeiss. Same for Canon vs: Zeiss I'm finding.

 

The world is much easier for the human brain to deal with when the brain can categorize things in black and white: Leica is better out of focus...Leica is sharper, Zeiss is contrastier...Zeiss is better color than Canon....Unfortunately, I rarely find things that simple. Generalizations are always wrong, including this one.

[jcolwell]

Peter, I'm not kidding. I might be wrong, but I don't think so. Maybe you should start a poll to ask what is the number one reason for buying fast prime lenses. Your own comments mention two reasons, and the one you mention first is the same as mine; "they do so because they want the ability to shoot at that aperture". You know what they say about assumptions...

[alf_beharie]

I bought a used one from a camera shop in VGC recently for £250...Which is cheap for one of these.

It has amazing bokeh when you consider how wide a lens it is and its build quality is first rate.

It can be used of any EF camera, at infinity, via a Nikon-EF adapter.

[kristian_heitkamp]

<p>I've got an old Distagon from the 80ies with Rollei-Mount. I use it together with an adaptor on my EOS 20D and like it very much there.<br>

But I got the problem, that I can only use it in the 1.4 aperture setting on the adaptor. Because the diameter of the lens is so big and there is a little "step" on the outside of the adapter you can't screw it all the way down onto the adaptor. Therefore the piece of the adaptor that pushes the switch/needle to close the aperture to the selected size can't reach just this switch/needle. (I hope you understand what I mean).<br>

But you won't need this lens if you don't work it on f 1.4, so this ain't no real problem to me.<br>

Reagrding the Discussion about colour: I made the same experience, the colours on the zeiss lenses (50 mm 1,4 and 35mm 1,4) just look much more brilliant than using my canon lenses (which are just cheap standard lenses: 50mm 2.8 and the cheap standard zoom on the 20D – so this is probably not very informative, since you guys dont use these cheap lenses)<br>

Hope my information is relevant to anyone at all</p>

[david_platt]

<p>We live in amazing times.<br>

Firstly the canon 35 mm prime in my opinion was/is one of the finest of it's kind and even as a nikon user I have been in love with it for some time. I simply thought that nothing nikon offered held a candle to the cannon 35, having seen it through the lens was enough for me to tell.<br>

I was considering the zeiss f2.<br>

But now there's is the new nikon 1.4 35 and also the new carl zeiss 35 1.4, as well as that yummy cannon 35mm lens which haunted me.<br>

I would love to see a "big 3" 35 mm lens shoot out.<br>

But in loo of that and being a nikon guy because I am waiting for the D700 upgrade. For now I will most probably buy the zeiss!</p>

<p> </p>