Zf 35/2

H

Huck Finn

Well-known
Local time
9:14 AM
Joined
Apr 14, 2004
Messages
1,943
I'm actually considering upgrading some of my Nikon SLR lenses by replacing them with the new Zeiss lenses for F-mount.

I'm looking at the ZF 35/2 & am wondering if anyone here has any experience with it. It looks like a big step up from my old Nikkor 35/2.

However, the Zeiss lens is huge for the 35 mm focal length! I'm not surprised by the 65 mm diameter, but does anyone have any idea why a 35 mm lens would be 73 mm long? My old Nikkor is 43 mm in length.
 
Hi there, I havn`t used the 35zf but I recently got a 50 1.4 zf for my fm2n and my D200. I think build quality and the feel of the lens is better than any of my old MF nikkors. The sharpness, bokeh and general 'look' of it on film and digital is very nice(to me at least).I do agree that the 35 is huge but I`m sure it would be a nice piece of glass.;)
 
I dont know why so many people say the ZF 35mm lens is so big, I was holding one the other day and tinkering with it and I found it to be a very nice size, while its not rangefinder lens small its a good gripable lens that really is a hell of a lot smaller then any of those recent nikon super zoom lenses.

One gripe that I had about that lens though is the one I was looking at had wonky apature blades. Lopsided, uneven hole closed down around f4.
 
The longer-than-usual barrel length is probably dictated by a more "telecentric" design aiming at better performance on digital bodies.
 
The Canon EF 35/2 is petite by comparison to the ZF, and works fine on my 1Ds (my standard digital lens, actually). The EF has an AF motor, delivers an excellent image, and is cheap as dirt. I think Zeiss is taking "relaxed" optical design too far - and I speak as a Zeiss C/Y fanatic.
 
I have the 35/2, 50/1.4, & 85/1.4 Zeiss lenses for the Nikon F mount.

The 35 is my favorite out of those. On the Nikon 1.5x sensor it works out to a focal length which is very comfortable for me. The focusing is very short and fast. Great OOF rendering. Colors POP. It has great detail.

Best,

Ray
 
The Nikon 35/1.4 was a beast- long anyway. I'm tempted by the ZF glass as well- would probably not shoot it enough to justify- I haven't picked up a Nikon F4 other than for demos in the classroom since getting the first M in Feb of '06.
 
The 35/2 ZF is spectacular, but indeed relatively long, rather than big as such. I think this has to do with the 2 new trends at Zeiss - as Erwin Puts says, a lens with more elements ( but with first rate coatings) is actually cheaper to produce at the same level of performance as a fewer elements lens, where the tiniest error in one of the elements degrades the total performance in a more significant manner. The other advantage in making "taller" lenses is the famous angle at which the rays exit the lens: the more acute it is the more digi sensor friendly the result. I believe this is the most sparkling and sharp lens in the ZF line till now - it doesn't have the magnificent uniformity of rendering at all apertures, distances and corner to corner like the Makro Planar 50/2, but the saturation, contrast and 3d effect are incomparable, it resembles directly the 85/1.4 Planar.

For a quick taste of this lens in B&W, take a look at this shot, made handheld on FM3A;
 
Rico said:
I think Zeiss is taking "relaxed" optical design too far - and I speak as a Zeiss C/Y fanatic.
Click to expand...
I have the ZM 35 Biogon, and the performance is wonderful, but I agree, the size of it makes me wonder if they understand what rangefinder photography is about. It's not huge, but even the rigid 50mm Summicron is slightly smaller than the ZM 35 Biogon, and takes a smaller filter.

Then again, there are many people who compare the size to SLR lenses, not to other rangefinder lenses, so its size doesn't look too..."relaxed"...to them.

It makes me respect even more the optics on all versions of the 35 Summicron; so compact...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom