ZM 35/2.8 lens - whats up with it?
- Thread starter Krosya
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 43
- Views 6K
casualuser
Member
Comments on Color?
Comments on Color?
Tom, i recently borrowed a 35 Biogon f2 and shot a couple of rolls of fuji 400. I was most impressed by the color rendition. Can you comment on the performance of the C Biogon with color film vs. the Biogon?
Comments on Color?
Tom, i recently borrowed a 35 Biogon f2 and shot a couple of rolls of fuji 400. I was most impressed by the color rendition. Can you comment on the performance of the C Biogon with color film vs. the Biogon?
sockeyed
Well-known
The 35mm f/1.4 should never be categorized as a flop, IMO. Some folks torture-tested it and found some weakness under extreme conditions, and another had problems on an M8. I picked up one a few weeks ago and have shot multiple roll of colour neg and b&w, and the results are very impressive in real-world shooting conditions. Now, I wish that I could say my skills were impressive, but that's something money can't buy.
CV 35mm f/1.4 @ f/1.8, Leica M2, Fuji NPZ
CV 35mm f/1.4 @ f/2, Leica M2, Fuji NPZ
CV 35mm f/1.4 @ f/??, Leica M2, Super XX
back alley
IMAGES
kevin, you know full well that i was talking about size and feel. it's a perfect size for my hands and i think it fits better when using it on the zi than the 35/2.
as to sharpness, i don't think there is any doubt that it's sharp so i don't need that proven by my shots.
as to character, time will tell and as to great shots, i can make no promises...😉
joe
kevin m
Veteran
Actually, I didn't. Can't blame you for that, though...handling is a big part of lens compatibility.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Hello Tom,
The Nokton 35f1.4 is not a flop when one can live with it's terrible barrel-distortion. This distortion (curved lines at the borders of the picture) is visible on allmost all of the pictures in this tread!
The Ultron 35F1.7 is a better choice, also for B&W. Fitted with an old Leitz 12585 shade, it works like a dream.
Erik.
Matt(1pt4)
Established
'when one can live with it's terrible barrel-distortion'
Agreed. Barrel-distortion is the biggest weakness of this lens, but for those who scan and print digitally, you can correct the 1.4's barrel distortion with PTlens or similar tools. I've resorted to this on a few occasions, but you can also just shoot around the distortion. I'm not sure this is a satisfying long term solution, but it is something to consider.
Agreed. Barrel-distortion is the biggest weakness of this lens, but for those who scan and print digitally, you can correct the 1.4's barrel distortion with PTlens or similar tools. I've resorted to this on a few occasions, but you can also just shoot around the distortion. I'm not sure this is a satisfying long term solution, but it is something to consider.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
There is one factor that we keep ignoring about the 35f1.4 Nokton. It was made as a"retro" lens, primarily aimed at the japanese market. The old 35f1.4 Summilux is a hot commodity in Japan, both as a "collectible" and as an image maker. The 35f1.4 was created to duplicate the "style" of this lens, with improved flare resistance, but keeping the qualities that endeared it to the Japanese users (which is a major market for any M mount lens. North America is a small and rather insignificant player here).
The Japanese photographers are looking for a different style of rendition. They like the retro look and they are also much more interested in film, rather than digital!
If you want rectilinear rendition and modern "look", get the 35f1.4 Asph or the Biogon 35f2 (or even the Biogon 35f2.8). However, if you want a classic look to your pictures, go for the 35f1.4's (be it Summilux or Nokton).
I agree that the 35f1.7 is a good lens, but I cant stand the ergonimics of it. The aperture ring is difficult to handle.
The Japanese photographers are looking for a different style of rendition. They like the retro look and they are also much more interested in film, rather than digital!
If you want rectilinear rendition and modern "look", get the 35f1.4 Asph or the Biogon 35f2 (or even the Biogon 35f2.8). However, if you want a classic look to your pictures, go for the 35f1.4's (be it Summilux or Nokton).
I agree that the 35f1.7 is a good lens, but I cant stand the ergonimics of it. The aperture ring is difficult to handle.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
just my personal impression ... someone _wants_ to nit-pick certain lenses (no matter whether it's leica, zeiss or cosina/voigtländer). useless to discuss, useless to mention well founded reasoning. i'm tired. i shut up.
Turtle
Veteran
Krosya,
What do you expect to see online? The lens has not been out long and 99.9% of wen images tell you very little about lens performance. People see nice shots from a lens and make assumptions about the lens, just as they do when they see bad shots. Judging by all ZMs, performance was always going to be bloody good and possibly spectacular. It made sense that it would be smaller and cheaper...and it is! I suspect that the reality is that if two photographers went out and shot the same scenes using the two lenses at 2.8 and beyond (f2 and 2.8 versions) and printed them optimally in the darkroom (B&W), nobody would have the foggiest which lens was used. I cannot tell based on look (persepctive yes) whether I used by 35 Biogon f2, Planar or 29 biogon, so I dont see why this would be any different.
I think the lens' only problem is the price - too darned close to the f2.
What do you expect to see online? The lens has not been out long and 99.9% of wen images tell you very little about lens performance. People see nice shots from a lens and make assumptions about the lens, just as they do when they see bad shots. Judging by all ZMs, performance was always going to be bloody good and possibly spectacular. It made sense that it would be smaller and cheaper...and it is! I suspect that the reality is that if two photographers went out and shot the same scenes using the two lenses at 2.8 and beyond (f2 and 2.8 versions) and printed them optimally in the darkroom (B&W), nobody would have the foggiest which lens was used. I cannot tell based on look (persepctive yes) whether I used by 35 Biogon f2, Planar or 29 biogon, so I dont see why this would be any different.
I think the lens' only problem is the price - too darned close to the f2.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Hello Tom!
I do have and use the pre-asph 35mmf1.4 Summilux number 2060691. I never saw any distortion on the pictures it makes. OK, at f1.4 and f2 it shows all kinds of lens faults (a lot of coma), but at 2.8 its a perfect lens and it performs better than the 35mmf2.8 Summaron. No distortion.
Because its a classic lens, the Nokton 35mmf1.4 was made a-symmetrical to correct coma. This correction however causes it's terrible distortion.
I have no ergonomical problem with the 35mmf1.7 as long as the Leitz shade 12585 is mounted. The back of the shade makes you feel exactly where the f-stop is. This lens beats the old Summilux 35 at f2 and f1.7 by miles!
Erik.
back alley
IMAGES
sorry, i thought i was more clear...
Krosya
Konicaze
'Is it really as much of a flop as CV 35/1.4 turned out to be?'
The CV 35/1.4 is a flop, really? Didn't know. Guess I better stop using it . . .
M6TTL, CV 35 1.4 SC, New TMYAs to the Biogon 2.8, I didn't understand the appeal until I got used to the small size of the CV 35 1.4. The Biogon F2 seems huge by comparison, and I'm thinking of replacing it with the 2.8 for the times when I want a 35 that doesn't have the distortion of the CV; when I need speed, the 1.4 is hard to beat at this price point.
FWIW, the UC Hex doesn't focus down to .7, which is something I find useful on a 35.
Matt,
When I said "flop" - I meant from the economical sence, as not many people seem to be getting one, compared to other 35mm lenses and thats with all the excitemnet there was about it.
As far as pics - I'm a fan of your web site and often agree with your reviews, yet here - CV 35/1.4 just looks terrible compared to your Biogon 35/2 photos and Hex 50/2 photos (I know it's 50mm, but I'm talking about the look it delivers). I really don't see what you like about the CV 35/1.4. But if you are happy with it - good. Looking at your photos - to my eyes it's the worst lens you got.
hiorgos
Established
Hi
I like the nokton!, i bought it instead of the biogon f2 because it's very compact, it fits very well with the zeiss ikon, it's cheaper and has that extra f stop that I need in low light. In a perfect world I would have the biogon f2 in my bag too, ..ummm maybe i will consider the 2.8 in the future, so i have 2 different lenses for different purposes. 😀
I like the nokton!, i bought it instead of the biogon f2 because it's very compact, it fits very well with the zeiss ikon, it's cheaper and has that extra f stop that I need in low light. In a perfect world I would have the biogon f2 in my bag too, ..ummm maybe i will consider the 2.8 in the future, so i have 2 different lenses for different purposes. 😀
Krosya
Konicaze
If this is all you have to say about the new ZM 35/2.8 lens (as this is what this thread really about), I suppose going through threads and checking spelling would be a time better spent......🙄
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Not only does sarcasm inhibit more than your spelling, rudeness evidently prevents you from reading. My comments about the lens are numerous, in this very thread and in others... Open your eyes and shut your mouth for once.
Moderators: people who post this kind of trolling remark ought to be censured. (censured, not censored).
Cross-Ya: the only thing you add to this site is consumer envy and bad vibes.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
If, as Joe says, the only real advantage of this lens over it's sibling is it's compactness then it's hard to see the point in shelling out the money for the speed loss against the f2 Biogon. I suspect Zeiss were never expecting to sell a lot of these but were just offering an alternative for those who value the small dimensions and aren't concerned about the loss. I think I'd be spending my money on the UC Hexanon though which admittedly can be hard to get!
Roland ... I hadn't thought about the reason for that effect in the pic in the upper right. There appears to be a line of light foliage that is right on the borderline of the depth of field. Still looks strange though and it would be interesting to see what a different lens may have done with it? 🙂
Roland ... I hadn't thought about the reason for that effect in the pic in the upper right. There appears to be a line of light foliage that is right on the borderline of the depth of field. Still looks strange though and it would be interesting to see what a different lens may have done with it? 🙂
Last edited:
sam_m
Well-known
On price, Zeiss have priced the 35 2.8 identically to the 50 planar:
https://photo-shop.zeiss.com/epages/cz.d/?ObjectID=3489&Locale=en_GB
Unfortunately this price structure does not appear to be used by resellers, either on ebay or the other usual outlets, from what I can see.
On the 35 nokton classic, I bought it for it's combination of ergonomics (excellent), size (no viewfinder intrusion without the hood, and very minimal with it), speed and price. Of the sample shots in this thread, the last thing I was looking at was the out of focus region and the straightness or otherwise of lines at the edge of the frame! If the samples were of architectural subjects, then the argument might be valid, but for low light candid shots, who cares? Personally I think you're priorities are pretty out of whak if those are the thing you look for in these type of photos.
On the OP's comments about character, I would be pretty impressed if you could identify which lens took which photo in a blind test, based on "character".
https://photo-shop.zeiss.com/epages/cz.d/?ObjectID=3489&Locale=en_GB
Unfortunately this price structure does not appear to be used by resellers, either on ebay or the other usual outlets, from what I can see.
On the 35 nokton classic, I bought it for it's combination of ergonomics (excellent), size (no viewfinder intrusion without the hood, and very minimal with it), speed and price. Of the sample shots in this thread, the last thing I was looking at was the out of focus region and the straightness or otherwise of lines at the edge of the frame! If the samples were of architectural subjects, then the argument might be valid, but for low light candid shots, who cares? Personally I think you're priorities are pretty out of whak if those are the thing you look for in these type of photos.
On the OP's comments about character, I would be pretty impressed if you could identify which lens took which photo in a blind test, based on "character".
Krosya
Konicaze
You post this and you call me rude and a troll? Amazing! I suppose moderators should let your comments like those above go, right?
As far as what I add to this forum - well not for you to decide - I have been a member here longer than you and somehow you are the only one to make such a comment. If you cant take any criticism - well - your problem. As far as envy - what exactly to I have to envy?
Oh and btw, I have read your posts about the lens - they didnt provide me with enough useful info - part of a reason I started this thread. And in this thread you didn't add anything other than your lack of manners and a weak attempt to justify your new lens. Oh well - you like it - good for you. I happen to question this lens. If you hurt by this - too bad. The only way you could prove your point is - show some photos from it that would be impressive enough. So far I'm yet to see that.
All right kids, enough of the name calling or I will have to send both of you to your rooms.
