« Open Mike: Plugs | Main | TOP's Most Popular Small Camera(s) »

Monday, 12 October 2009

Comments

Say what you want, but the 28mm ZE is a pretty lens:

It's also and interesting `medium-fast normal' on DX cameras, though probably on the heavy side. (and DX viewfinders aren't exactly perfect for manual focus). But options are good...

The 35mm f:2 Distagon is also available in M42 mount (ZS). Here's a sample on my EOS 40D--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/3815620097/

Click the Distagon 35mm tag for more examples.

Not a fan of the bokeh most Zeiss lenses seem to portray. Is the 35 much different?

Regarding the bokeh of the 35/2 Distagon, such considerations depend to a certain degree on context and subject distance, but in general, I'd say it works for me--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/3764127756/

Again, more examples here--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/tags/zeissdistagont35mmf2/

I've had a look through the Zeiss 85/1.4 Planar, which is available in Nikon, EOS, and Pentax K mounts, and the bokeh is very smooth from what I could tell at a glance.

The-digital-picture.com tested the Zeiss 85/1.4 and had big problems with focus shift when stopping down. Don't know how big a problem this would be in real life, but he dismissed the lens because of it (but then, he dismisses everything but Canon L glass, so draw your own conclusions)

I do not see how can the Zeiss 35 mm compete with the Canon 35mm f/1.4.

"I do not see how can the Zeiss 35 mm compete with the Canon 35mm f/1.4."

Well, I can name one way: the Canon is $1400 and the Zeiss (at least the Nikon and Pentax versions, and I presume the Canon version too, more or less) is $826.

Of course the Canon is faster and has AF, too.

Mike

"The-digital-picture.com tested the Zeiss 85/1.4 and had big problems with focus shift when stopping down. Don't know how big a problem this would be in real life..."

Not really a problem when using this lens. I read about the 85/1.4 focus shift on diglloyd.com (excellent reviews of the entire Zeiss line, BTW) and bought it regardless. I prefer it to the 85/1.4 AF-D Nikkor, which is an excellent lens by itself.

That Zeiss glass sure is appealing from the gearhead perspective... but can a difference really be seen in an A3 print versus the Pentax SMC-Takumar/-M/-A lenses, at f/2.8 or above? Especially if one has a compatible camera (which is pretty much everything, isn't it...)?

My heart sez buy one of these. My head says, "Are you nuts??!! Buy the Limited 35/2.8 Macro instead!"

BTW, @David Goldfarb, it's hard to evaluate lens performance without knowing more shooting data, e.g., aperture. The sample image you listed of the man engraving a knife, was obviously not shot wide-open... and in my admittedly limited experience, even kit lenses look surprisingly good at f/5.6 to f/11, especially in small images.

The comments to this entry are closed.