Which 35mm for Canon 5D MK2?

[jakob_lagerstedt]

<p>Folks,<br>

I am ready to pull the trigger on a Canon 35L but I came across some really good reviews of the Zeiss Distagon 35/2, however, I can't seem to find many image samples. A lot of Distagon owners mentions that hard to define magic touch of the Distagon and I'd like to see some examples before chalking that characteristic up to purchase justification. I know it's a manual lens and that doesn't bother me one bit. Does anyone have experience with both 35s? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. <br>

<br /><br /></p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>

[ilya_e]

<p><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134</a><br>

200 pages with images taken with all Zeiss lenses.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I once asked one of my professors how it was that a particularly obtuse and obscure sociologist had a following. She replied that she thought that people who understood him had invested so much time in the effort that they had no choice but to be one of his followers.<br /> I wonder if using a Zeiss lens on a modern AF camera may not have some analogous dimensions. If you've gone so far as to get one, you may not care to find fault with it. ;)</p>

<p>Of course, if you don't need features like autofocus, it is a fine lens according to tests like<br /> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/258-zeiss-distagon-zf-t-35mm-f2-review--test-report">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/258-zeiss-distagon-zf-t-35mm-f2-review--test-report</a></p>

<p>On a Nikon, but surely the same glass. Here's a Canon review:<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/503-zeiss35f2eosff">http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/503-zeiss35f2eosff</a></p>

[Brad_]

>>> I wonder if using a Zeiss lens on a modern AF camera may not have some analogous dimensions. If

you've gone so far as to get one, you may not care to find fault with it. ;)<P>

 

No wondering here. Speaking from experience, with a 5DII. <P>

 

I rented a 35mm f/2 Distagon ZE for 10 days shooting a ton every day with it. Was immediately clear it was

better than any other canon lens that I owned. After the rental period ended I bought my own. It's the only lens I

use now for street shooting. <a href= "http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/">Lots of photos here</a>. <P>

 

BTW, Zeiss will have a 35mm f/1.4 available next year...

[scott_ferris]

<p>They are two completely different animals. If you are looking for a very fast lens with razor thin depth of field and top notch auto focus, then nothing compares to the Canon, if you are in the market for a fairly ordinary and comparatively slow manual focus only lens then the Canon L is not the lens to compare the Zeiss to. My personal opinion, which is worth very little, is that for over $1,000 I'd expect the Zeiss to test much better than it does. There are a myriad of 35mm manual focus lenses that can do nearly all the Zeiss does for a fraction of the money. Is the lack of AF worth $300? If so, would the lack of auto aperture be worth $700?</p>

[dan park]

<p>I use an ai converted nikon 35 f2 o-auto <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/wides/35mm.htm">lens</a> sometimes on my 5d. It's a great lens and built like a tank. Think I bought it for around 100 bucks on ebay. It has a scalloped focus ring and I do get focus confirmation with chipped converter. This could be a good starting point if you just want to try a manual focus lens for a while before dropping big bucks on the Zeiss.<br>

<img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_YnKXlWOhGOE/SwyqHhrP0hI/AAAAAAAAyk4/rRwJaUP-9ls/s600/IMG_0850.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[g dan mitchell]

Depending on what and how you photograph, you should not rule out the Canon EF 35mm f/2.

 

Depending on what and how you photograph, the Zeiss could be fine or could be a costly mistake.

 

Any time a poster mentions "magic" as a consideration when choosing lenses, there is a great potential for making

irrational choices, frequently at great expense and with little or no visible effect on the purchaser's photographs.

 

I very much enjoyed JDM's story earlier in this thread. ;-)

 

Dan

[g dan mitchell]

Depending on what and how you photograph, you should not rule out the Canon EF 35mm f/2.

 

Depending on what and how you photograph, the Zeiss could be fine or could be a costly mistake.

 

Any time a poster mentions "magic" as a consideration when choosing lenses, there is a great potential for making

irrational choices, frequently at great expense and with little or no visible effect on the purchaser's photographs.

 

I very much enjoyed JDM's story earlier in this thread. ;-)

 

Dan

[Robin Smith]

<p>Optically they are both very good. The Canon is a stop faster and has great AF. I chose the Canon, although the Distagon may be slightly better optically. I find the Canon is superb, and I'd rather have the extra stop and the fast AF. The Zeiss struck me as a very large and heavy lens for an f2. As Brad says there will be a new 35f1.4 ZE lens soon.</p>

[jakob_lagerstedt]

Thanks everyone. I will be going for the canon due to it's excellent af and lower f.

[mark.brennan]

<p>Hi All - apologies if I'm late to this thread.....<br>

Brad - it's been a while, but I've always liked your work and your latest stuff (presumably taken with the Zeiss?) looks great. There's no question in my mind that the Zeiss is optically wonderful, but I'm wondering how you like how it handles? I have no issue with manual focus lenses, but when I when I picked up a friend's 5D with the Zeiss I was immediately struck by how big and heavy it was....<br>

Regards,<br>

-Mark</p>

[Brad_]

Hey Mark... Good to ask someone that actually uses them...

 

I have mixed feelings on the Zeiss f/2 as well as the Canon f/1.4.

 

Using both, here are some random thoughts...

 

- They're both about the same length. The Zeiss feels a little heavier even though it's a stop slower. Probably because the

Canon is plastic and the Zeiss is all metal. The Canon is larger in diameter because it's a stop faster. I like the Zeiss's hood

*much* better.

 

- Build quality of the Zeiss is much better. The damped focus ring is superb. The Canon doesn't feel cheap, just not to the

same level. The Canon not being as good doesn't bother me.

 

- Optical quality of the Zeiss is better, but not by a lot. One thing you notice immediately is much greater color saturation with

the Zeiss. In Lightroom I consistently need to back down the saturation slider from nominal 0, to maybe -10 to -20. Not so

with the Canon 35 f/1.4.

 

- The ability and degree of throwing the background out of focus is much better with the Canon. It's a stop faster. For the last

week I've been shooting in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco a lot and shooting with only the Canon and at wide-open

f/1.4 most of the time. Works for the way I like to shoot and snagged a lot of nice street portraits. The blur characteristics are

very nice. Something I can't get with the slower Zeiss. Occasionally the out of focus areas looked odd or harsh. Bothers me,

but don't have a conclusion about that.

 

- Autofocus is great on the Canon. It nailed focus every time. Can't say that about the Zeiss. That's because it's manual

focus and you really need to pay attention and be careful. Especially if you shoot quickly. Not so important doing street

portraits.

 

- The Canon vignettes more. But that's correctable.

 

- The Canon costs 30% more.

 

Both lenses are great. Not much more I can say. Thanks for checking out my work...

[mark.brennan]

<p>Hey Brad - <br>

Thanks for the detailed reply and great feedback on both lenses - very helpful indeed. I think given the price and probably what is my nostalgia for manual focus I'll go with the Zeiss. (You didn't try swapping out the focus screen and use the matte focus screen, did you)? <br>

Your latest work with the Canon is a pretty compelling argument for that lens, however.<br>

What's nice is my local camera shop, Adorama, will rent me a Zeiss for the weekend for $27, so I can try before I buy. I'll let you know how it goes.<br>

Thanks again.<br>

Regards,<br>

-Mark</p>

[Brad_]

>>> (You didn't try swapping out the focus screen and use the matte focus screen, did you)?

 

I did. Went with the Ee-S screen - around $35. Better. But if you're in a rush you can still miss. Good on renting the Zeiss. I'd recommend renting the Canon the following weekend too. You'll make the best decision

that way. Good luck!

[mark.brennan]

<p>Hey All -</p>

<p>Thanks again, Brad, for the great feedback on these lenses. My own experience has roughly corroborated everything you've noted.</p>

<p>I rented the Zeiss from Adorama here in NYC - great service to avail oneself of, quite reasonable way to test out good gear.</p>

<p>Loved the feel of the Zeiss, beautifully damped, etc. Optics are lovely - I love the color rendering, etc.</p>

<p>Focusing was a real problem, however. Shooting wide open indoors I consistently was off. However, I didn't swap the screen; none of the NY shops (B&H, Adorama, Calumet, etc.) had the Ee-S in stock. So I don't know how much the super precision matte screen will help. But I was pretty discouraged.</p>

<p>Shooting outside stopped down was easy, however, and I loved zone focusing with this lens. Again, I was very happy with the sharpness and overall rendering of the lens.</p>

<p>I returned the Zeiss and picked up a Canon 35 1.4L rental last night. I was immediately struck by the accuracy of the auto focus! Shooting wide open indoors I nailed focus consistently. Also nice to have that extra stop; since I shoot indoors a lot having 1.4 is quite nice.</p>

<p>So far I'm impressed with the optics, as well, but have only evaluated the more open apertures. The Zeiss may be richer in its rendering, but hard to say. May also be the color saturation that Brad discusses - hard for me to say conclusively and I'm not being scientific. But no question the 1.4L is super sharp and it certainly won't be the limiting factor in my photography - *I* will be.....</p>

<p>The 1.4L feels good, easy to handle, but it's big - wider than the Zeiss and with the Canon hood it's pretty massive. You don't get that beautiful Zeiss focusing ring or distance scale - but then again, you don't really need it. But 1.4L sits well on the 5D and feels quite good in the hand.</p>

<p>For me, the AF will probably win out and I'll probably buy a 1.4L when my rental ends.</p>

<p>Thanks again, Brad. Let's now see if I can get out and shoot some street; I've turned away from street shooting for a while now and concentrated mostly on shooting my family and friends, but this might now inspire me.</p>

<p>Regards to all - have a good holiday.<br>

-Mark</p>