Anybody talking about the ZM 35mm Distagon f/1.4?

michaelwj said:
It seems this is the new direction for Zeiss. All out performance, with huge size and cost (quite a departure from the original ZM lineup which are all reasonably priced).
Michael
Click to expand...

In their Otus line, yes. But in ZM, size of 35/1,4 looks acceptable if it performs well. We now have options (c-biogon, biogon, distagon) - speed/size and not performance/size philosophy.

Pricing is as also as usual IMO = +-half or less of leica's counterpart.
(except 15/2,8 or 85/2 but that's is a different story)
 
Noserider said:
......Very impressed that yes it includes a floating set of elements; this prob due to needed to squeak out more MTF and APO for newer sensors and in fact Zeiss states something to that effect; optimized for digital sensors......
Click to expand...

The floating element is probably there to, among other corrections, to avoid the sort of focus shift that affects (afflicts?) the 50mm f/1.5. This 35mm lens looks very interesting indeed!
 
yoyo22 said:
I wonder if it is made in Germany. Is Cosina now capable of producing lenses with floating elements? The expensive 15mm Zeiss was the only ZM lens so far not being produced in Japan, as it was the only lens of that lineup with floating elements.
Click to expand...

To answer the Q

ZEISS Camera Lenses said:
18. September 2014 at 10:22
Dear Tom,
for the manufacture of ZEISS lenses we use a global production network of trusted partners in the optical industry that has been built up over many years. ZM lenses are produced in Japan.
Best regards,
Your ZEISS Lenses Team
Click to expand...
 
Btw, diglloyd has already some info on his site about it, looks like a decent alternative to Summilux 35 FLE.

That said - if I would be Zeiss, I would triple check and adjust the lens I am sending to him :)
 
Having finally acquired a non-FLE 35 lux and getting it nicely calibrated by DAG, and really liking its imaging and sweet size, I'm not so interested. But if I never had the lux, I would be.
 
It's much lighter than the CV 35/1.2, if a similar size. If digilloyd is to be believed, it might be the best 35 made to date from a technical standpoint, out performing the CV from 1.4 on.

Frankly the graphs look better than the FLE--not that they can be directly compared---but the wavy midzone dips of the FLE are absent.

Time will tell.
 
Better than the Leica FLE performance wise and roughly half the price. The resolution wide open looks impresive.
 
I am not sure if the Distagon has the same potential for focus shift as the Sonnar design does, regardless IMO Zeiss I believe took into account the more recent Leica sensors. To me it looks like a well balanced design in general but with a few adjustments to make it more appealing to the target market, namely I think the bokeh will be *better* than the comparable Leica 35mm FLE.
 
There seems to be not much distortion: sub 1%, and wide open mtf curves look very appealing, the lens seems sharper than the Leica equivalent, and potentially with better bokeh. Let's wait for some practical comparison reviews.
 
One thing I've found interesting is that the rear set of elements extends past the lens mount. This leads me to believe that Zeiss took the Distagon formula/ optical thoughts and applied them. Essentially utilizing a strength of the Distagon (extended rear distance for mirror clearance in SLR's) and moved it closer in, since with Leica M mount you don't have to worry about the mirror. I wonder how this optical expression of Zeiss compares with Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 in ZF and the old Contax mount (there may be a Rollei version I missed). Hmm will look for diagrams....
 
Noserider said:
One thing I've found interesting is that the rear set of elements extends past the lens mount. This leads me to believe that Zeiss took the Distagon formula/ optical thoughts and applied them. Essentially utilizing a strength of the Distagon (extended rear distance for mirror clearance in SLR's) and moved it closer in, since with Leica M mount you don't have to worry about the mirror. I wonder how this optical expression of Zeiss compares with Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 in ZF and the old Contax mount (there may be a Rollei version I missed). Hmm will look for diagrams....
Click to expand...

I do not think this lens has much in common with the ZF 1.4/35. "Distagon" just sais it is a retrofocus lens. The ZF need to be much more asymetrical due to make space for the mirror box of SLR cameras. This one is not symetrical as the Biogon, but probably closer to the ZM Biogon than to the ZF Distagon.

The Biogon construction would be overstretched with 1.4 speed
 
Yes; which is why it is interesting. One major strength of the general Distagon design idea is the ability to increase the back focus distance to clear the mirror; obviously in this Version Zeiss doesn't need to clear the mirror so adjustments can be made to the back focus distance; this then gives rise to more freedom in other optical parameters (still starting from the Distagon idea). In particular I find the use of the three cemented pairs to be quite interesting!
 
mfogiel said:
........ and wide open mtf curves look very appealing........
Click to expand...

When the Sonnar-C 50mm f/1.5 was released the MTF graphs at full aperture looked very encouraging. They just didn't tell us that such sharpness was not available if focusing with a rangefinder (due to the focus shift debacle).
 
Looks like a stellar lens, but a bit fat and heavy compared to the 35lux FLE.

I use 35mm lenses mostly for the streets, so performance takes a backseat to being as thin and light as possible...
 
The Sonnar focus shift is mostly unrelated; first off close in focus shift is a known aberration in Sonnar designs; second one of the reasons why an FLE works so well on medium to short wide-angle is to correct for focus shift close up.
 
I only had a few minutes with it, but the initial impression is that it feels like the other ZM lenses I've shot with. I'm going to try and call one in from Zeiss for a more formal review.
 
I like those images; in my mind those shots you did a good job of showing what that lens is capable of. What were the f-stops you shot at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom