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.