why is not 35mm f1.4 ZM lens made?

[jaap]

There is a 35mm f/1.4 Distagon? Learn something new every day.

yes it's there for nearly 40 years and it's one of the best 35mm ever made

 

[x-ray]

yes it's there for nearly 40 years and it's one of the best 35mm ever made

The performance of the 35 1.4 Distagon that I had was rather poor at 1.4. Stopped down to 2.8 is was fine but otherwise nothing special. I always felt my 35 1.4 Nikkor and Canon 35 1.4L outperformed it particularly the canon.

 

[Xmas]

Zeiss killed the contax IIa some time before thay stopped making it, they decided to make SLRs, Nikon did the same with the SP/S3/S4 neither did a 1.4 35mm in rangefinder '60 was too early.

Noel

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Next time, try reading the whole thread before jumping in: it was Huck Finn who said "making SLR lenses in RF mount" (or vice versa) as if it's impossible, worthless or never been done. 🙄

Then, go look up Leica's 90/2.8 2nd version (R and M), the current 50/2 (R and M), the 1st and 2nd versions 135/2.8 (R and M), to name just four.

Sir, yes, sir! Anything else? Shoeshine? Since we're on patronizing mode, it's "to name only four". 🙄

 

[fuwen]

The performance of the 35 1.4 Distagon that I had was rather poor at 1.4. Stopped down to 2.8 is was fine but otherwise nothing special. I always felt my 35 1.4 Nikkor and Canon 35 1.4L outperformed it particularly the canon.

I owned both the Rolleiflex and the Contax version of the 35/1.4 and has no problem with it even at f1.4. Maybe the lens character at f1.4 does not suit you (Zeiss beauty for large f stop is it characteristic softness and bokeh rather than kind of sharpness if I can put it this way) or as the lens employed floating element design someone has serviced the lens and did not adjust properly after that.

However, I do not have any experience with Nikon or Canon 35/1.4 though.

 

[x-ray]

I purchased the Distagon 35 new and can agree it was very soft wide open. My 25 and 35 Biogons (M mount) are tack sharp wide open and the 50 planar M is razor sharp at f2. All of my other Zeiss lenses for the Rollei, 15, 16, 18, 25, 50, 60, 85, 135 and 200 were superb. It maj have jst been the one I had but it's wasn't sharp at 1.4.

 

[jaap]

Of course it's a bit soft at f1.4 Most of the high speed lenses are (at least the ones i know). But at 2.0 the centre and the edge are sharp ! At f2.8 you''l get extreme sharpnes form edge to edge No really the 35mm F1.4 Distagon is still a master piece from the guys in Oberkochen

 

[x-ray]

Of course it's a bit soft at f1.4 Most of the high speed lenses are (at least the ones i know). But at 2.0 the centre and the edge are sharp ! At f2.8 you''l get extreme sharpnes form edge to edge No really the 35mm F1.4 Distagon is still a master piece from the guys in Oberkochen

If it's soft at 1.4 and particularly as soft as the one I had then what's the point if it gets good by 2.8. My 35 1.4 L Canon is much sharper than the distagon was even at 1.4. I felt my 35 1.4 v1 summilux was even better at 1.4.

 

[fuwen]

Leica approach to f1.4 is very different from Zeiss. So if sharpness is the criteria not surprising that Leica will fare better at f1.4 than Zeiss.

 

[jaap]

It must be my lack of feel for quality

 

[Nemo]

It's no surprise that both Leica and Cosina's current fast 35s are retrofocal.

The Summilux 35mm ASPH isn't a retrofocus design. It is a symmetrical Double-Gauss expanded with two additional concave elements and an aespheric just after the stop.

 

[Mazurka]

The Summilux 35mm ASPH isn't a retrofocus design. It is a symmetrical Double-Gauss expanded with two additional concave elements and an aespheric just after the stop.

It's funny how Nikon seems to think a double-Gauss design becomes retrofocal with the addition of a single, weak concave element. http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/nikkor/n02_e.htm

 

[Turtle]

my summilux 50 1. asph is not soft at 1.4 either.