The ZM lens I really want...

Harry:

I have the 35 1.4 Canon L too and also have the 35 1.2 CV and 35 summicron asph and 35 biogon. In the 80's I had a Rollei 3003 system with all Zeiss glass. My 34 1.4 Distagon was about the same size as my 35 Canon L.

As to performance, the Zeiss Biogon wipes out all the others including the Canon which is the closest thing in performance to the Biogon. The CV is quite good for a super fast lens and has flare well under controll. It actually flares less than the 35 asph summicron which is the least of the lenses in flare controll. The 35 Biogon and Summicron asph are about equal in sharpness with a slight edge going to the Biogon at full aperture but the Biogon is a much smoother lens in tonality. The Summicron asph is a bit harsh with flare problems from sources outside the frame. The result in flare in the Summicron is a haze of flare over the subject. The 35 1.4 Distagon just wasn't great wide open and good stopped down. It was just an average lens at best. Going back to the Summicron asph, I recently sold my v4 summicron and since have concluded it renders a much prettier image than the asph summicron but it wasn't nearly as sharp as the asph.

If f2 will fill the bill then the Biogon is the best performer in every respect.
 
Harry Lime said:
I think the problem is more along these lines. Leica performs the impossible on a regular basis, by designing lenses that offer extremely high performance in a very compact package. This is very difficult to do. It is much easier to design a lens that delivers high performance, when you are not limited by size. So, once you start to shrink the size you have to resort to more exotic glass and extremely high production tolerances to maintain performance. That's one reason why Leica gear is so expensive.

So, I don't know if Zeiss can make a lens as small and good as the Lux ASPH, for less money. I know that the 2/35 Biogon is very good, but the jump to f1.4 is a whole different ballgame. The Biogon is also a lot bigger than the 4th gen Cron or Cron ASPH.

As an example. I own both the 35 Lux ASPH and the Canon EF 1.4/35. The Canon is very good, maybe even as good as the Lux ASPH, but it dwarfs it by a scale of 3 or 4 in physical size. It looks more like a compact zoom, than a prime lens.
Click to expand...

Harry,

Very well said, I agree with every sentence above. I also own the Summilux 35 Asph and the EF 35 f1.4. I used them side by side on some very informal test of mine and it seemed to me (and to my girlfriend, who I may add, is not interested one bit for lenses) that the Lux was the better of the two in terms of fine detail definition and (surprise) flare suppresion.

It would be a welcome decision if Zeiss added a 35/f1.4 lens but I wouldn't expect it to be cheap (and Zeiss is quite capable of outpricing Leica when, for reasons that have to do with the complications of the optical design, they have to manufacture the lens in Germany). Unless, that is, Zeiss abandoned considerations of size and built a bigger lens, albeit smaller than the Nokton. Then, of course, we 'd have to debate endlessly about which lens compromise is better - again. But, hey, we are quite capable of doing that even now, without any Zeiss 35mm f1.4 in sight.

Best,
 
Sheesh, I wish Zeiss would throw some more of their Ultra and Master Primes from the Cine Department our way. They've got a 35mm 1.2, Tstop of 1.3 that they're holding, wonder how That looks. Also got a 50mm and a 75mm 1.2 as well.
 
I'll throw in my vote for an LTM lens...How about a collapsable Tessar? Same cosmetics as the old Contax lenses. I'd pay $600 to stick that on my IIIF.
 
How about ZM Planar T* 50/1.4? It would be interesting to find out, is it as good as 50/2 version.

OT: By the way, has anyone compared CV Ultron 35/1.7 Asph with ZM Biogon 35/2?
 
Noserider said:
Sheesh, I wish Zeiss would throw some more of their Ultra and Master Primes from the Cine Department our way. They've got a 35mm 1.2, Tstop of 1.3 that they're holding, wonder how That looks. Also got a 50mm and a 75mm 1.2 as well.
Click to expand...

I believe those lenses cost in the neighborhood of $15,000 + each. I'm not sure there is much of a market in still photography even in the Leica segment at that price point.
 
HAnkg said:
I believe those lenses cost in the neighborhood of $15,000 + each. I'm not sure there is much of a market in still photography even in the Leica segment at that price point.
Click to expand...

You're right about price. they range from around $8,000 up depending on lens and mount. I've used the Zeiss primes on 35mm Arri cameras and they're excellent for cine but aren't good enough for still photography. Cine doesn't require the optical performance of stills. Another issue is 35mm cine is roughly 1.2 frame still format. The cine lenses won't cover 24x36.

In 35mm cine work we shoot mainly color neg film. I've taken frames from the original color neg and printed them with very poor results. It's very surprising how soft the images are compared to regular still photography.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom