Zeiss Distagon f2/35mm on Canon FF

[george_doumani]

<p>I just noticed Zeiss has finally released some more wide primes with the ZE (Canon EF) mount to fit between the already available 21mm and 50mm. My heart is set on either the 28mm and 35mm Distagons. I know the M-mount 35mm Distagon is a very nice piece of glass (on par with the Summicron). Has anyone picked one up and if so what experience have they had with them thus far on any Canon FF body?</p>

<p>Btw. Do you think a AI Nikkor or even a M42 mount Takumar via the relevant adaptors is really much inferior than the Zeiss optics in terms of IQ?</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>George</p>

[morthcam]

<p>There's quite a community of alt lens users at <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55">Fred Miranda Forums</a>.</p>

[funkag]

<p>I've used a Super Tak 35mm 3.5 and 50mm 1.4 (plus a bunch of older Nikkors) on my 1.6x Canon, and all are/were fantastic. I do know some won't mount (Pentax 50mm for one) on full frame, though. From what I have seen, newer glass will give you better coatings, possibly better performance wide open, and you won't have to stop-down meter. I'm willing to bet that at f/8, you won't see too much of a difference, except in your wallet...</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>If I were you, I would consider the Canon f1.4 L 35mm. While the Distagon is a very good lens, so is the Canon L and it is a stop faster and has very fast AF too. The Distagon is a large, heavy lens for an f2. I was a Leica user for 25 years and consider the 35mm L to be on a par with the 35mm Summicron for the R. Not bad at all for an f1.4 lens. If you were a Nikon FF (Nikon F mount) shooter I might feel differently, but the 35mm L is a sweet lens and about the same price as the Zeiss too.</p>

<p>If you must go Zeiss I would give a stronger recommendation to consider the 28mm as Canon are lacking a stellar lens in this focal length. On the other hand, the 28mm Zeiss is not really on the same level as the 35mm Distagon according to the reviews I have read.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Has anyone picked one up and if so what experience have they had with them thus far on any Canon FF body?

 

I use the 35/2 ZE on my 5DII. Perfect for what I do, which is a lot of street and street portraits. Superb for

both. It's good that you're seeking advice from people that have actually used it.

 

Will soon be getting rid of my 24-70 f/2.8 L...

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>I'd personally opt for the 35L for the reasons given by Robin. There's a lot of this "grass is greener" regarding equipment brands but it seems really silly to given up AF and some speed for no practical difference in IQ (unless you buy into the whole Zeiss magic thing).<br>

<br /> My general sense is that we all desperately want to believe that brand X is going to be better than brand Y, especially when we own Y. That way when the shots come out worse than we prefer there's always that subconscious "if I only had X." In the supertele community I have noted that Canon users always think Nikons are sharper and faster focusing while the Nikon users think the opposite. God help us if Sigma ever gets stabilizers on their long glass as then there will be no end to the agonizing.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>I have recently acquired 35mm ZE and could not be happier. Its very sharp and with excellent color rendition. The images jump at you. I've rented Canon 35L and IMO it easily beats Canon 35L in IQ. It had become my "normal" lens now and almost never comes off. And did I mention the build? Canon can only wish to build lenses like that. The only advantage of Canon is AF and only if you need one. I also suggest visiting fredmiranda for answers from real Zeiss ZE users and not people who only read or heard about them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but the 35mm L is a sweet lens and about the same price as the Zeiss too</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure where you got that information. Its about $350 less than Canon and even more if you buy from international sellers. I bought mine from a guy in Germany brand new for $828 (after Bing cashback)</p>

[george_doumani]

<p>thanks for all the responses people.</p>

<p>the Canon 35mm f1.4L is considerably more expensive in my part of the world. Around 40% more infact.</p>

<p>I can feel the Zeiss bug biting!</p>

<p>@Brad - I to will be rid of my 24-70 f2.8L. The most expensive lemon I have ever forked out for! Canon tells me (when I returned it to them to check out) that their is nothing wrong with it. I just cannot work out why my "hit" rate with this lens is around 40% less than with my 50 1.4 and my 100 macro USM? It seems the guy at photozone had the same problem trying to find a "good" not "great" copy. Shame on you Canon!</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Zeiss lenses have problems as well. Also, despite what many people believe, they are not magic. </p>

<p>However, for a 40% price difference, I'd get the ZE over the EF, but here in the states where the prices are more similar, the EF is hands down the better lens. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> Zeiss lenses have problems as well.

 

Being a photographer and daily user of a 35mm ZE, I'd be very curious about your first hand experiences

with that lens and it's problems. Perhaps you can post some photos showing the problems you reference.

 

Magic? Since you're the only person in this thread that mentioned that word, I'm curious about that as

well.

[Tony-S]

<p>I have the 35mm f/2 ZE and use it on my 5Dii and A2E film camera. It has great saturation and its corner and edge performance are spectacular (center, too). It also gives feedback to the AF system so that when you hit the focus point the camera alerts you. My only complaint is that my B+W polarizer won't fit with the lens hood on, nor can you put the lens hood on after seating the polarizer. Pretty frustrating.</p>