Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Zeiss 35 f2 for Canon  (Read 6478 times)
peterpix
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


WWW
« on: December 02, 2009, 01:19:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Anybody have experience with this new lens yet? Would like something wide and faster for my 5DMK11, but the 35 1.4 is more than I'd like to pay.
Thanks, Peter
Logged

Peter Randall
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 457


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2009, 11:37:33 PM »
ReplyReply

It's a very good lens, better than the Canon f1.4. Well eaily better between f2 - f5.6. The Canon catches up a bit at around f8 -f11.

The Zeiss does suffer a little  from CA but not to a high degree. Also there is about 2 stops vignetting at f2.

If you don't need autofocus and f1.4 you cant go wrong.
Logged

Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2009, 05:28:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm interested in this lens myself. I wouldn't mind picking one up during my upcoming stay in Japan, but I don't see anyone selling them yet.
Logged
philber
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2010, 01:51:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Peter, I don't think that you can categorize the 35ZE as "a very good lens for those not wanting to spend on 35L". First, it is MF, and 35L is AF, which is a major difference. Second, it is a f:2.0, one stop slower thanthe Canon. Then the ZE comes with the attributes of a Zeiss lens (rendition of colour and contrast, 3D), which makes it different from the Canon. Some people prefer it, calling it more vivid, more contrasty, and the 35L, by comparison, "dull", or "flat", and others not. A clear area of Zeiss superiority is close up, where it is bitingly sharp even at minimum focusing distance.
In summary, people who love the Canon "look" would think of other lenses than the Zeiss if they covet a "lesser 35L", and Zeiss lovers would other lenses than 35L as an alternative to a 35 ZE.
My personal opinion: I sold my 35L and own a ZE 35. A superlative lens with no known weaknesses except those outlined here: very minor, but not minute CA, some vignetting wide open. By comparison, 35 has more CA, easily cured in DPP and vignetting cured in-cam by your 5D MkII.
Hope this helps.
Logged
abattaglini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2010, 12:04:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: peterpix
Anybody have experience with this new lens yet? Would like something wide and faster for my 5DMK11, but the 35 1.4 is more than I'd like to pay.
Thanks, Peter
No, I don't and I would like to buy it, I mean, I need a 35 mm for canon 5d, not canon. But I use 18 mm ZE and sometimes the camera doesn't work with it: it stops and I have to switch off the camera and start again shooting!
Andrea
Logged

Andrea Battaglini
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2010, 06:38:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: peterpix
Anybody have experience with this new lens yet? Would like something wide and faster for my 5DMK11, but the 35 1.4 is more than I'd like to pay.
Thanks, Peter


I've got a ZF 35/2 which I use on my 1Ds3 via an adaptor and it's one of my favourite lenses. Great colour and nice rendition of oof areas as well as sharp in the focal plane. Manual focus of course.

Mike
Logged
archivue
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2010, 08:41:27 PM »
ReplyReply

if you don't have a 50mm... you should also consider the Voigtlander 40mm Ultron II... small (pancake) and good !

The 35 zeiss is really good, but quite cumbersome !
Logged
Rod.Klukas
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2010, 10:38:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: philber
Peter, I don't think that you can categorize the 35ZE as "a very good lens for those not wanting to spend on 35L". First, it is MF, and 35L is AF, which is a major difference. Second, it is a f:2.0, one stop slower thanthe Canon. Then the ZE comes with the attributes of a Zeiss lens (rendition of colour and contrast, 3D), which makes it different from the Canon. Some people prefer it, calling it more vivid, more contrasty, and the 35L, by comparison, "dull", or "flat", and others not. A clear area of Zeiss superiority is close up, where it is bitingly sharp even at minimum focusing distance.
In summary, people who love the Canon "look" would think of other lenses than the Zeiss if they covet a "lesser 35L", and Zeiss lovers would other lenses than 35L as an alternative to a 35 ZE.
My personal opinion: I sold my 35L and own a ZE 35. A superlative lens with no known weaknesses except those outlined here: very minor, but not minute CA, some vignetting wide open. By comparison, 35 has more CA, easily cured in DPP and vignetting cured in-cam by your 5D MkII.
Hope this helps.
I would echo Philber's comments.  I got test the lens and it ran circles around both the Canon and Nikon 35mm's.
And in low light far easier to focus manually with its inherent contrast.
Rod
Logged

Rod Klukas
US Representative
Arca-Swiss International
480-755-3364
rod.klukas@arca-swiss.com



Arca-Swiss Digital Camera Solutions including R-series Technical Cameras, Large Format View Cameras, and Ballheads D4, D4m, P1, P0, Z1 & Z2.
peterpix
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2010, 11:30:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Many thanks for all the comments.
Logged

Peter Randall
dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574



WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2010, 06:27:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I have them both.  The 35L for 2 years and the ZE just recently.  I haven't used the 35L since I got the ZE...  

Not that the 35L is bad, it is quite good.  However, the ZE is better in the respects mentioned above, and it is smaller (not lighter).  The 58mm threads match my 90TS so I can carry fewer filters.  The big thing is autofocus and f/1.4. If those don't matter to you then I recommend the ZE.  I searched my database of photos and found very few that were shot at f/1.4.

Dave
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad