k-hawinkler Posted October 12, 2014 Share #1 Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) diglloyd: Zeiss ZM 35mm f/1.4 Distagon: I rate it the best M Lens Available What to make of this claim? Also, how does the lens perform on the A7R? Edited October 12, 2014 by k-hawinkler Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Hi k-hawinkler, Take a look here Zeiss ZM 35mm f/1.4 Distagon. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
biglou Posted October 12, 2014 Share #2 Posted October 12, 2014 Sue him ? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share #3 Posted October 12, 2014 Sue him ? Why? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted October 12, 2014 Share #4 Posted October 12, 2014 You understood of course it was a joke ? That said some parts of myself think it is not so nice for a tester to insist that much not only on the qualities of the Zeiss lens, i am very sure it is wonderful, but on the shortcomings of the Leica one. This goes as far as having a post nearby to sell his summilux and many comments on differents parts of his blog. I am sure he could have found a more elegant way to express exactly what his opinion is, superiority of the Zeiss lens, limitations of the Leica one. Some more " tact ", if you will. Meanwhile i read his reviews with great interest. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share #5 Posted October 12, 2014 I agree, he is certainly known for his bias. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted October 12, 2014 Share #6 Posted October 12, 2014 I agree, he is certainly known for his bias. But having bias is OK. Remove bias and all that's left is empirical data; MTF curves available from all brands free of charge, brick wall crops showing differences that will never be seen by any viewer or client and Flickr images viewed on a million different monitors, none of them calibrated or in color and geometry agreement. Everything you need to make a good choice (except for the touchy-feely to be had at a dealer) is there for the asking. Except maybe trust. That is between you and the reviewer. In any case, a clean, modern digital image file is so malleable, and current software so powerful, I don't think the lens makes a damn bit of difference anymore. It comes down to money, filter size, handling and, if you're like The Leica Man, prestige. Best to just buy whatever you want and move on. s-a 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted October 13, 2014 Share #7 Posted October 13, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) diglloyd: Zeiss ZM 35mm f/1.4 Distagon: I rate it the best M Lens Available What to make of this claim? Also, how does the lens perform on the A7R? The latest = the greatest.....until the next review. No matter, if only among the greatest of M lenses it is worthy of a trial for me, and now that I give it more thought, the more mundane M lenses have qualities that make them extraordinary for their intended purpose. re: A7R, much is being written about M lens performance and the effects of thicker cover glass on the adapted cameras. The Leica M glass is .8mm iirc and the A7R is thicker: LensRentals.com - Sensor Stack Thickness: When Does It Matter? From what I read it isn't a good match, but I haven't had any hands-on use to back this up. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted October 13, 2014 Share #8 Posted October 13, 2014 Yes, he ranks it as the 'Best'. But you see. The 'Bestest Best' is better. And I think that 50 Summilux is in the second category. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted October 22, 2014 Share #9 Posted October 22, 2014 The field curvature of the 35mm and 50mm Summilux'es can sometimes drive me crazy as well. It's all good for pretty people pix, wide open artsy shots with lots of bokeh and not much detail... but... for pictures where it is critical that you have edge-to-edge sharpness, and a flat field of focus to get the entire scene in proper focus, it's extremely frustrating to work with lenses with the amount of field curvature that the Summilux'es has. So I can completely understand his review. And I am probably selling my 35 FLE myself and getting the Distagon since I make many photographs where I want a flat field of focus, and as little field curvature as possible. Field curvature is a royal pain in the arse, and it also requires you to stop down unecessarily much just to try to avoid it. Now if only Zeiss could launch a similar 50mm for the M-mount: The performance of the APO-Summicron, but at f/1.4, and at half the price. It would sell soooo good. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 22, 2014 Share #10 Posted October 22, 2014 I have taken many shots with Zeiss ZM lenses and there is a certain vibrant signature to them which some like a lot and others might not like. Deep blue skies and rendering like the famous Hasselblad V lenses. If only Zeiss could find a way of 6 bit coding their lenses which would not infringe on the Leica patent. Maybe code them like Novoflex is doing with their adapters. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 22, 2014 Share #11 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) I have taken many shots with Zeiss ZM lenses and there is a certain vibrant signature to them which some like a lot and others might not like. Deep blue skies and rendering like the famous Hasselblad V lenses. If only Zeiss could find a way of 6 bit coding their lenses which would not infringe on the Leica patent. Maybe code them like Novoflex is doing with their adapters. I don't think there would be any copyright infringement in Zeiss coding their lenses. Now if the had a code reader in one of their cameras..........but they don't. There are a lot of companies making 6 bit adapters that aren't being persued by Leica. The coding on a third party lens could just be half a notch off from a true Leica lens. THAT would be the reason I think Zeiss won't code their lenses and leave it to the user to decide which code to use. Edited October 22, 2014 by jdlaing Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted October 22, 2014 Share #12 Posted October 22, 2014 If I were Zeiss, I wouldn't want my Zeiss lenses coded as Leica lenses either. This sticks in the EXIF, and the EXIF info is shown online - everywhere... So it makes complete sense for them not to code their lenses and have them represented as Leica lenses in the Exif. Now, if only Leica could allow other manufacturers to provide lens profiles that would be included in the Leica firmwares, however... That would change the situation. But my guess is that Leica will never ever provide such a service to any 3rd party manufacturer. So we're kinda stuck with uncoded 3rd party lenses. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted October 22, 2014 Share #13 Posted October 22, 2014 But having bias is OK. Remove bias and all that's left is empirical data; MTF curves available from all brands free of charge, brick wall crops showing differences that will never be seen by any viewer or client and Flickr images viewed on a million different monitors, none of them calibrated or in color and geometry agreement. Everything you need to make a good choice (except for the touchy-feely to be had at a dealer) is there for the asking. Except maybe trust. That is between you and the reviewer. In any case, a clean, modern digital image file is so malleable, and current software so powerful, I don't think the lens makes a damn bit of difference anymore. It comes down to money, filter size, handling and, if you're like The Leica Man, prestige. Best to just buy whatever you want and move on. s-a Actually I am quite happy with MTF graphs and samples. Can work out the rest myself. Also I think the lens is simply the most important part. The character, sharpness, colour, levels of contrast are all created initially by the lens. In fact it's far more important then the bodies. Interchangeable lens systems are usually sold on the quality of lenses available rather then the out and out performance of the body. I'll take a top lens and an average sensor any day over a average lens and a good sensor Post processing quality depends on the quality of the original. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newnew Posted October 22, 2014 Share #14 Posted October 22, 2014 After looking at the diglloyd's pictures and the MTF curves for the Distagon, I just went ahead today and bought the Summilux 35mm. I was, somewhat "horrified :eek:" with the Zeiss rendering. For me it is as cold as a steel knife - now, some people might prefer and I understand them. Yes it is damn sharp but the impression I got is that the whole picture is drowned in unnecessary detail. For the proponents of the "mimesis" in photography,... fine. Anyhow, sharpness is always a question of scale. But what about the color, the transitions, the overall atmosphere ? They are not the measurable but perceptible components. Summilux corresponds better to my conception of photography and I just went ahead with it. The size advantage in a small bag will not be the least. As to the price, I could trade in some other lenses which I knew I would not use after this one. I had the same impression when I had compared the zeiss 21mm with the SEM and never regretted. However, I understand that there are all sorts of needs, and the run for sharp, sharper, sharpest will always have a lot of supporters, be it just for continuous marketing. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 23, 2014 Share #15 Posted October 23, 2014 the whole picture is drowned in unnecessary detail. Unnecessary detail. Interesting concept. Please detail However, I understand that there are all sorts of needs, and the run for sharp, sharper, sharpest will always have a lot of supporters, be it just for continuous marketing. Rendering character apart, a sharper lens gives you more. Think about cropping on a 36+ MP camera. You can always make your picture less sharp in post. And perceived sharpness is just one of the qualities of a lens. I have not yet got the ZM 35/1.4, but it seems the Summilux extra price just buys you: - A more compact lens. - The Leica brand name. - The Leica brand name. - The Leica brand name. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted October 23, 2014 Share #16 Posted October 23, 2014 Unnecessary detail. Interesting concept. Please detail I have not yet got the ZM 35/1.4, but it seems the Summilux extra price just buys you: - A more compact lens. - The Leica brand name. - The Leica brand name. - The Leica brand name. And lest we forget -6-bit Coding 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newnew Posted October 23, 2014 Share #17 Posted October 23, 2014 Cheshire Cat, Thanks for commenting. All the discussion is about "reproduction" versus "picture". My feeling was that the Zeiss (indeed a very sharp lens, probably better sharpness than Leica) is more a "reproduction" lens , i.e. it will capture the physical details that I may not need in my pictures. (that is what I call unnecessary detail). Photography is a very vast area and different people follow different purposes. What I am saying, is that sharpness is only ONE criteria in evaluating a lens. There are others like color tones (where I always found Zeiss has colder tonalities), the way the areas between the sharpest and blurred zones are drawn, ergonomics, ease of use etc... They will vary depending on the user requirements of each individual. Therefore it is not a question of branding (as you seem to suggest) but what system fits the requirements of a user. M9+ summilux 35 , as far as I could see, corresponded very well together as a system. I am an engineer by education and like technical progress; however I always put user requirement before branding. As to the price question, I paid less than the Zeiss price in additional cash by turning in lenses that I would not use anymore (so for me their cash value was zero). 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted October 23, 2014 Share #18 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) I'm very happy with the sharpness of the 35 FLE. But... The amount of field curvature on the FLE is not something that I'm happy with. The field curvature makes it necessary to stop down a lot to minimize the effect. A lens with a flat field of focus doesn't need to be stopped down nearly as much to achieve the same sharpness across the frame. This is the biggest improvement with the Zeiss Distagon over the FLE in my opinion. It's basically the same as comparing a 50 Lux vs a 50 APO-Summicron. The Lux has a lot of field curvature whereas the APO-Summicron doesn't, which results in the APO-Summicron having a lot better sharpness across the frame even from f/2, whereas the Summilux needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 to minimize the field curvature. Edited October 23, 2014 by indergaard 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 23, 2014 Share #19 Posted October 23, 2014 Personally a flat plane of focus is relatively unimportant to me, as I normally photograph three dimensional objects. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 23, 2014 Share #20 Posted October 23, 2014 And lest we forget-6-bit Coding Right. But this just means the lens info in the file, as it seems there is no need for in-camera lens profile corrections. You can add the lens info later with the "exiftool" app. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.