Oh So Tempted by Zeiss 2/35 ZF.2

[sam_hunt]

<p>Just about all lenses, particularly fast ones have a fair bit of vignetting wide open. My new 200 f2 VR II has it too. As for CA, I can't say I've ever noticed it on the Zeiss 2/35.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I guess a 35mm <em><strong>f2</strong></em> is hardly fast....no?</p>

[sam_hunt]

<p><em>Mike Halliwell , Jan 28, 2012; 01:50 p.m. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>I just love this bit.... The IQ is excellent, there was a decent amount of vignetting and CA wide open with a small amount of distortion. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>Maybe these are the 'dreamy' qualities that are so hard to quantify ?? :-)</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Dreamy qualities, seems a bit over the top. However, one way for you to find out for yourself would be to try the lens in question instead of posting sophomoric questions.<br>

<em> </em></p>

[sam_hunt]

 

<p ><a name="00Zw29"></a><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1159437">Mike Halliwell</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Jan 28, 2012; 03:49 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>I guess a 35mm <strong>f2</strong> is hardly fast....no?</em><br>

Hardly fast??? Any lens of f2 could be called fast, hardly or otherwise.</p>

 

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Sam, I suppose you'd call a 50mm f2 fast would you? No thought not. </p>

<p>Now 200mm f2, that's fast!</p>

<p>Half the people here that own one of these beauties have openly admitted they can't tell the difference when they do a test with other lenses.</p>

<p>Sophomoric? Cheers for that. Bit unnecessary name calling..... don't seem to remember insulting YOU?</p>

<p> </p>

[sam_hunt]

<p>Mike, I said fast, not very fast or super fast. I would indeed call a 50 f/2 lens fast, a 50 f/1.4 lens very fast, a 50 f/1.2 super fast.</p>

<p>Steve Wakeman, posted about trying a Zeiss 2/35 lens at a store. As you seem not to have had any experience with the lens, posting a sarcastic comment in response to that, is sophomoric and is a bit unnecessary too.......no?</p>

<p>I don't know whether half the people that own the Zeiss 2/35 lens have admitted that they can't tell the difference or not in a test with other lenses; I somehow doubt it. Nevertheless, each lens has it's own character and in the two Zeiss lenses I own I see a difference in colour, particularly blues, which I find very appealing. This is not an illusion to me or some others and nor is the exemplary build quality.</p>

<p> </p>

[stevejw]

<p>Anyway... The CA was only noticeable in one shot where I managed to catch the ceiling lights in such a way as to bring it out, probably more than it normally would show. I don't mind the vignetting but I really don't like distortion, fortunately the distortion is mild and both are fixed with one click in Lightroom.</p>

<p>I'll try and get some samples up today and post links to them.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I'd be extremely interested to see those Steve, as I'm considering an eventual swap from my Nikons to an NEX and that very lens. Any idea if the performance of F and M mount lenses varies? I would assume the M mount lenses are slightly less susceptible to ghosting (less airspace between lens and sensor), but I'd image performance should be identical otherwise.</p>

<p>And Mike, that was very sophomoric. Everyone else is attempting to have a serious discussion, and you seem to be hung up on the fact that the discussion isn't going the way you want it to. You can either take part in the conversation the way it is, or you can start a new one with a different thread - not both.</p>

<p>Sorry dude, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I'm sure you're a nice guy and didn't mean anything by it, but that's how it reads.</p>

[stevejw]

<p>Rather than go on too much here, I decided to write a quick Blog post about the 2/35 with samples. That plus the fact that I couldn't manage to post my photos here from my Google+ album...</p>

<p>Here's a <a href="http://stevejwphotography.blogspot.com/">link to my Blog</a> and here's a link to the <a href="http://stevejwphotography.blogspot.com/2012/01/carl-zeiss-and-nikon-lens-samples.html">Zeiss Blog post</a>.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Dang. I love it. I was almost hoping I would read something about it that made me not want one.</p>

[stevejw]

<p>The only negative that I can think of for myself personally is manual focus on moving subjects but if you're good at that then I can't see why you wouldn't like this lens.<br>

Just thought I'd mention also that the samples, many online photos for that matter, look better in IE9 as it supports the AdobeRGB colour space. In my Google Chrome browser they look less saturated and less contrasty. I still use Chrome though, I just like it so much more than IE9.<br>

I'm going to do a short Blog post on the 24G next, I really liked that lens as well. I'll post a link when I do. :D</p>

[sam_hunt]

<p>Excellent blogs Steve.</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Steve, I'd be very interested to see your Blog comparison with the Nikon 35mm 1.4G, afterall, it would provide you with the AF you said you wanted back in post No.1!</p>

<p>Sam, Zack, I'm sorry I reduced you equally nice guys to personal comments but I guess I was getting frustrated by the complete lack of objectivity.</p>

<p>I was not being sarcastic when I called them beautiful. They are, their feel, built quality, materials etc are obviously second to none...Oh and yes, thanks for that, I have used one of these in-store. Liked it, but no-way could I justify the cost.</p>

<p> If those qualities make the photographic process better, and who doesn't prefer to use nice tools?, then that may be born out in the results, but it's the process not the optical qualities.</p>

<p>Dropping that much money on a lens that's aimed at landscape photographers and needing some <em>Distortion Correction</em> in post? What about the poor film guys? Sure, design compromises have to be made to produce fast very wide angle lenses, but this lens in neither of those. My Series E 35mm 2.5 has no measurable distortion, but admittedly does feel pretty lightweight and built <em><strong>down</strong></em> to a price.</p>

<p>....and Sam, if I gave you a box with a <strong><em>fast </em></strong>50mm lens inside and you were expecting an <em><strong>f2</strong></em>, I'd think that a little un-usual..... :-)</p>

[stevejw]

<p>Thanks Sam, I'm going to continue putting up little blurbs about the lenses I try out.<br>

It's my journey and I'm merely sharing it, if it helps others decide what they want to use or buy then that's really up to them. It's only meant to document my progress as a photographer from the beginning but as gear is expensive, choices become more crucial and so I suppose sadly, that's part of it as well.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>There are a couple of other possibilities for a high quality 35mm lens in Nikon mount:</p>

<p>1. From time to time I see an ad for a Rollei 35/2.8 Distagon HFT in Nikon mount. I don't know anything about it--I suspect the Nikon mount may be grafted on, in which case the auto-diaphragm probably doesn't work. But if it does, and if f/2.8 is acceptable, it would be a chance to own a Zeiss 35mm for a lot less money than the 35/2. It says "made by Rollei," which could be true, or it could be made by Zeiss and rebadged Rollei. Has anyone used this lens or know about it?</p>

<p>2. My 35/2.8 PC-Nikkor outperforms my 35/2 AF-D Nikkor, as well as my 28-105 AF-Nikkor at the 35mm setting. It's quite sharp, and is uniform across the field. Again, it is only f/2.8; and in addition it has to be used in stop-down mode, since there is no auto-diaphragm at all. For these reasons I'm not sure it belongs in this discussion. But for photographing things that don't move, I often use it for its good optical performance. And there is the benefit of being able to correct perspective when needed.</p>

<p>Any thoughts about these two?</p>

[Brad_]

>>> The only negative that I can think of for myself personally is manual focus on moving subjects...

 

That's an excellent point - one that I can't stress strongly enough.

 

I have a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 Distagon ZE (Canon mount) for my 5DII. It's a very nice lens. But... For the photography I

like to do, street photography and street portraiture, I ultimately went with Canon's 35/1.4. Why?

Autofocus. Can't live without it.

 

>>> ... but if you're good at that then I can't see why you wouldn't like this lens.

 

Much easier said than done; especially if you need to shoot quickly. And that's even after installing the precision focusing screen.

 

Shooting static subjects where you have plenty of time, such as products, buildings, landscapes, statues, etc, it's a fine lens...

[zack_zoll]

<p>Mike, speed is relative. Remember that technically, an f/stop is a self-referencing number. We say that it relates to what the eye can see because on many lenses and to many eyes it's a similar amount of light (and I tell my photo students to think of it that way too), and the math is just WAY easier. But really, a lens' f/number only tells you how bright that setting is relative to that focal length, physical length, and lens opening/diameter. This is why f/2 is not particularly fast on a 50mm prime for 35mm-sized cameras with a 52mm diameter, but it's very fast for the 200mm lens, which is 4 times the focal length, about four times the physical length, but less than twice the diameter. F/2 is also very fast for a medium format 50mm lens, as they are usually longer than a 35mm-sized 50mm lens, but don't generally have a diameter much larger. This has a lot to do with why there are basically no large format f/2.8 lenses: the focal lengths and physical lengths are so long that the maths required to get an f/stop that large would make the lenses so massive that they'd rip the bellows right off.</p>

<p>This is also why high-end cine lenses are rated with t/stops rather than f/stops. T/stops are a measurement of brightness in general, as opposed to brightness relative to that lens.</p>

<p>So yeah, f/2 is fast for a 35mm prime lens. It's not really fast, but it is fast.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>And just to add, in case the question is coming: the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens is the speed it is, and many other compact DX lenses are much faster than their similarly-sized FX versions, because the smaller image circle that they project means that the lens has a much larger opening, relative to itself. </p>

[bob_h]

<p>Steve, lots of opinions have been posted on this, but here goes...If you would like to try Zeiss lens quality, think about picking up a used Sony DSC-R1 camera. It is equipped with a Carl Zeiss 24-120 T* Vario Sonnar lens. Use it to complement your Nikon, you don't need to mess with manual focus unless you feel the need. I have a Nikon D7000 that sits around a lot while I am using the R1. Tons of fun for 2 or 3 hundred bucks. With the money that you save you can get more Nikon lenses.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The Zeiss offerings for 35mm lenses seems to be 2.8, 2 and 1.4 with a rough doubling of price for each increment.</p>

<p>Nikon's current 35mm lens line up for AF FX is 2 or 1.4, (MF @1.4) at a similar cost per jump.</p>

<p>When it comes to relative speed, Nikon never seems to have made a lens <strong><em>slower</em></strong> than f2 for 50mm, with 2.8, 2.5. 2 and 1.4 for 35mm.</p>

<p> </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I think you misunderstand what I mean by relative speed. If you take 10 different models of 50mm f/whatever 35mm format lenses and put them onto a mirrorless, or something else that can function with all of them, and shoot them all at the same aperture, you may not get the exact same exposure. It will be very close, but you may find that Brand A's 50 f/1.4 set to f/2.8 is a fraction of a stop different than Brand B's 50mm f/2 lens also set to f/2.8.</p>

<p>Obviously this doesn't matter for still photography, because each image is separate. But it's important for video, because you don't want your exposure to shift in the slightest if you change lenses or switch to a different camera. If you go by t/stops, everything that says T/2.8 exposes exactly the same.</p>

<p>As far as formats go, every lens transmits about the same amount of light at a given f/stop. But a smaller format allows the lens to 'bottleneck' that same amount of light down and concentrate it more, which is why Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 FX is so much larger than the 35mm f/1.8, even though it's only slightly brighter.</p>

<p>Do you see what I mean now when I say that lens speed is relative, and that 'fast' means different things on different formats and lenses? I mean, a snail that travels at 1 mile an hour is technically fast.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Zack, Snail racing? Never thought I'd think about it that way :-) But yes, I understand speed is relative, but to call a 35mm f2 fast is not necessarily a relative term. There's a numeric <strong><em>fast</em></strong> and a verbal <strong><em>fast</em></strong>. ie, for a 35mm 35mm lens, 2.8 is slow, 2 is medium and 1.4 is fast. But as you say they are all relatively fast. </p>

<p>Just how different are lenses these days? If I put all my available lenses on my D300 (to allow for my FX and DX lenses) and shoot at what the camera says is f5.6 in a studio environment, what sort of deviation can I expect?</p>

<p>Is it just a case of the stills industry just not needing such repeatability to make it worthwhile??</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>If they're all Nikon, I'm assuming (there's that word) that they will all be the same. Even if they aren't, the deviation should be very small. I'm not knowledgable enough to give you specifics, but I think even if you had two lenses that tested on the extreme bright and dark ends it should still be well under a single stop of difference.</p>

<p>And yes, I'm guessing 'lack of necessity' is a very nice way to say why still lenses aren't measured universally. SLR Magic can market an f/.95 lens that's really around T/1.2 (almost a full stop different) because the maths that determine f/stop say it's less than one. Since the industry isn't clamoring for absolute consistency - and really doesn't need it - I'd use the more impressive number too.</p>

<p>Apologies to all for my threadjacking. The Zeiss 35 f/2 looks phenominal, and the OP, myself, and everyone else should go buy one.</p>

[stevejw]

<p>So what Nikon lens would you two recommend instead of the Zeiss?</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>No idea. I'm going to buy the Zeiss.</p>