Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon T* ZM photos

[Out to Lunch]

Or he didn't. The Biogon 2.8/28 renders very nicely and, in my opinion outclasses the Elmarit. This said, mine also developed the infamous 'wobble' which I had recently repaired at a local shop in Saigon at a cost of $21. Cheers, OtL

 

[krötenblender]

Yes, only he knows. I guess its about what one likes about a lens and what not. For me it was just by far the weakest of the ZMs I had. OTOH, its not really a bad lens, even in my not so enthusiastic opinion about it. And its way better than VC 28mm lenses I had (the f1,9 and the 2,0).

 

[james.liam]

Or he didn't. The Biogon 2.8/28 renders very nicely and, in my opinion outclasses the Elmarit. This said, mine also developed the infamous 'wobble' which I had recently repaired at a local shop in Saigon at a cost of $21. Cheers, OtL

I did mean the 2,8/25, not the 28.

For me it was just by far the weakest of the ZMs I had. OTOH, its not really a bad lens, even in my not so enthusiastic opinion

Concur. The 28 Elmarit ASPH v.2 is such a brilliant and wee lens, now optimized for digital that it always had a petite place in the camera bag. My only gripes were with its comically over-sized hood (as long as the lens itself) and its modest speed.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I did mean the 2,8/25, not the 28.

Sure you did :angel:

 

[james.liam]

Back when I was using DSLRs, found 35 too tight for interior shots and so stick to the Biogon 35 C for street and walk around. A fast 28 is my preferred to shoot gatherings and why I traded in several underused lenses toward the 28 Summilux. 24/25 is for me the perfect landscape or travel/architecture FL that I used on film and DSLRs with 21 too wide much of the time. I’ve got a ZF 2,8/25 that’s really wonderful and want to get a silver ZM to match my M10P Safari one day soon. Rented one for a trip and was very pleased with it.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Try the VC Super-Wide-Heliar 4.5/15 III. Cheers, OtL

 

[james.liam]

Try the VC Super-Wide-Heliar 4.5/15 III. Cheers, OtL

Was considering that as well but heard of QC issues. Had a credit with Head Bartender and picked up a 5,6/12 instead.

 

[Archiver]

I did mean the 2,8/25, not the 28.

Concur. The 28 Elmarit ASPH v.2 is such a brilliant and wee lens, now optimized for digital that it always had a petite place in the camera bag. My only gripes were with its comically over-sized hood (as long as the lens itself) and its modest speed.

Ahh, okay. I have the Biogon 25/2.8 as well, and it's a super lens. Unfortunately, it has developed the dreaded scuffy wobble and is another on the list of things to send back to Zeiss. It's not as bad as the 28mm, which is very scuffy and dry, but getting there.

I'm fortunate to have the Elmarit 28 Asph, which means I'm not wishing for a compact and sharp 28. It's one of my most used lenses for reasons of focal length preference and its place in my collection. I'll likely use it on a post-Christmas drive in the coming weeks, as well as for some documentary work later in January alongside my upcoming Distagon.

 

[PHAROLDO]

This lens is pure magic... really wish to own it someday!
Great photos! How is arto saari?

All the best

 

[Out to Lunch]

but heard of QC issues.

What sort of issues? I was less impressed with the II version but the III version serves me well. Here's a sample with the Epson R-D1x:




Cheers, OtL

 

[Archiver]

I picked it up today after testing it in the shop for a while. There seems to be a tiny bit of focus calibration issue, either with me and my technique, my M9, or with the lens. My other lenses tend to focus fine, but the Distagon has a very slight front focus issue, a bit like the Zeiss Sonnar 50mm at f1.5. As I'm used to dealing with this on the Sonnar, and the issue is only present at close focus distances like from 70-100cm, I can deal with it, especially as I got it for a really good price.

Comparing it with the output of my Voigtlander 35/1.4 v1 and 35/1.2 v1, I'm surprised at just how glowy the f1.2 Nokton is by comparison. The Distagon is super sharp at f1.4. The f1.4 Nokton is better, although it still has a glow that can be annoying. At f8, the Distagon is one of the sharpest lenses I've seen, with almost no distortion.

I'm sure that the Distagon can be calibrated/shimmed if necessary, but I'm so used to leaning in with the Sonnar that I'll just adopt that approach. Apart from that, the build quality is amazing, focus ring is very well damped, the aperture ring has a nice positive click, and it's smaller and lighter than the f1.2 Nokton that I've been using for about 10 years.

And I'm glad that I didn't trade in all my 35's for this lens. Having the option for different rendering and size is great. Photos will come soon!

 

[krötenblender]

Congratulations to that new toy! Great lens!


For me the focus-ring was a little bit too tight on the Distagon. I once asked Zeiss about that and the technician told me, that its partly because of the floating elements so there is more internal friction. I liked it better on the Summilux ASPH FLE, which focused a little bit smoother. But that is very much depending on personal preferences, I think.


Never had any focus-issues, though. And yes, it is ridiculously sharp even wide open. I really loved that about it. IMHO even better than the Leica in that regard.

 

[james.liam]

What sort of issues? I was less impressed with the II version but the III version serves me well.

Cheers, OtL

Some complaints of de-centered elements

I picked it up today after testing it in the shop for a while. There seems to be a tiny bit of focus calibration issue, either with me and my technique, my M9, or with the lens. My other lenses tend to focus fine, but the Distagon has a very slight front focus issue, a bit like the Zeiss Sonnar 50mm at f1.5. As I'm used to dealing with this on the Sonnar, and the issue is only present at close focus distances like from 70-100cm, I can deal with it, especially as I got it for a really good price.

Comparing it with the output of my Voigtlander 35/1.4 v1 and 35/1.2 v1, I'm surprised at just how glowy the f1.2 Nokton is by comparison. The Distagon is super sharp at f1.4. The f1.4 Nokton is better, although it still has a glow that can be annoying. At f8, the Distagon is one of the sharpest lenses I've seen, with almost no distortion.!

Wonder if the previous owner didn’t understand that and let it go because of apparent ‘softness’ wide-open. The Sonnar as you likely know, is optimized for focus at f/2.8 and Zeiss can adjust it for 1.5.

 

[Archiver]

I have never felt this positively about a lens before. Bodies, yes, but not lenses. The Distagon is ridiculously sharp wide open, with no glow and only a tiny bit of chromatic aberration. Purple fringing is easily removed in Lightroom, but glow is not. This lens has sharpness and bokeh similar to the Summicron 50 in the focal length of 35mm. Really quite astounding. It lacks the characteristics that I associate with classical rendering, like glow, cats eye or onion ring bokeh, swimmy/swirly bokeh, low contrast, or the like. The rendering is very clean and almost clinical, not the more rounded, organic rendering of many Voigtlander lenses, or the Zeiss Sonnar.

 

[james.liam]

I have never felt this positively about a lens before. Bodies, yes, but not lenses. The Distagon is ridiculously sharp wide open, with no glow and only a tiny bit of chromatic aberration. Purple fringing is easily removed in Lightroom, but glow is not. This lens has sharpness and bokeh similar to the Summicron 50 in the focal length of 35mm. Really quite astounding. It lacks the characteristics that I associate with classical rendering, like glow, cats eye or onion ring bokeh, swimmy/swirly bokeh, low contrast, or the like. The rendering is very clean and almost clinical, not the more rounded, organic rendering of many Voigtlander lenses, or the Zeiss Sonnar.

At RFF, we would never lead you astray.

 

[the_jim]

I'd forgotten how much I love this lens. Yes, it's big, but in practice I don't really notice it. I took pictures at a friends wedding at Multnomah County Courthouse last Saturday. Needed a lens that was sharp with flat field. All of these at f/2, I think (vignetting exacerbated by less-than-ideal ND).

Brian by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Taylor by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Brian & Taylor by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Brian & Taylor by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Brian & Taylor by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Brian & Taylor by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Brian & Taylor by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Taylor & Brian by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Taylor by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

Brian by Jim Fischer, on Flickr

 

[Out to Lunch]

A very attractive and pricey lens. The lens hood sells separately for $154. I have the CV 1.2/35 and the Zeiss 2/35 and unless I'd sell these, the 1.4/35 Distagon will remain an object of desire, only. Cheers, OtL

 

[kram]

Not as pricey as the Leica alternative, and it has 1/3 of the distortion of the Leica lens. I forgive its size as it is a fantastic lens.

 

[Out to Lunch]

You are undermining my resolve 😀

 

[the_jim]

A very attractive and pricey lens. The lens hood sells separately for $154. I have the CV 1.2/35 and the Zeiss 2/35 and unless I'd sell these, the 1.4/35 Distagon will remain an object of desire, only. Cheers, OtL

I found mine, mint/used with a nice uv filter already attached for $1300. So...'deals' can be had. I'd skip the hood on this, though. Flare isn't an issue and a uv fiter protects the front element enough. The hood would definitely take the already large lens and make it a little too big.

Also, having had the two lenses you mentioned...I still miss the 1.2/35. It has a wonderful quality to it. I will probably never miss the Zeiss 2/35 - I never really bonded with it. That being said, both are really competent and can work wonders.