Duane Pandorf Posted September 16, 2014 Share #21 Â Posted September 16, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) One of the reasons I prefer Leica lenses over the Voigtlander or Zeiss lenses is the difference between their aperture settings. Leicas are two clicks per stop and the other two 3 clicks. The two clicks per stop on the Leica lenses matches the two clicks to change a stop on the camera's shutter control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 Hi Duane Pandorf, Take a look here Zeiss has a new 35mm 1.4 ZM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Steve P Posted September 16, 2014 Share #22 Â Posted September 16, 2014 Both my Voigtlander 15mm and 35 f1.2 M lenses are two clicks per full aperture stop. My ZMs are three. I see Voigtlander has announced a more compact and lighter 35 f1.7 VM Ultron. I think I'd prefer that to the Zeiss. Bet it'll be cheaper too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiriusLux Posted September 16, 2014 Share #23 Â Posted September 16, 2014 MTF curves look impressive - as good as Summicron and Summilux 35mm lenses it seems. Indeed they look impressive, they give you better contrast and better resolution compared to the Cron and Lux and the Biogon 2.0/35 ZM. Infact the Distagon according to the MTF diagrams is better at 1.4 compared to the Biogon 2.0 at 2.0. The distortion is maximum of around 0.6% whereas the Lux gives you about 1% more. The length is about 10mm more compared to the Biogon 2.0, the backdraw is that it weighs around 140g more, which is equivalent to an iPhone 4S. Â And when it comes to the logic of three stops between two f-stops, that corresponds to the ISO sensitivity scale. Â I am trying to order one today and I guess it was worth waiting. Â Regards, Joerg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted September 16, 2014 Share #24 Â Posted September 16, 2014 No, never come across a CV lens with three clicks. This new ZM does look good though, I may be tempted. Â Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeStone Posted September 16, 2014 Share #25  Posted September 16, 2014 The length is about 10mm more compared to the Biogon 2.0  Unfortunately the difference should be 19mm. Length incl caps is: Biogon f/2: 68mm Distagon f/1.4: 87,3mm  Biogon T* 2/35 ZM | ZEISS International Distagon T* 1,4/35 ZM | ZEISS International  Regards Jacob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horosu Posted September 16, 2014 Share #26  Posted September 16, 2014 Unfortunately the difference should be 19mm. Length incl caps is:Biogon f/2: 68mm Distagon f/1.4: 87,3mm Jacob  Yes, but without caps it is 9 mm (65 versus 56). Looks quite manageable to me, but I reserve final judgement until I hold it in my hands..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted September 16, 2014 Share #27 Â Posted September 16, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) This lens is compelling, I would have ordered the silver summilux but instead ordered the Zeiss, according to the mtf curves this lens has minimal curvature of field and little astigmatism. If it doesn't live up to it's data then back it goes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 16, 2014 Share #28 Â Posted September 16, 2014 Beware of finder blockage with such a big lens though . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted September 16, 2014 Share #29  Posted September 16, 2014 Digilloyd has posted an article on this lens just now diglloyd: Zeiss ZM 35mm f/1.4 Distagon for Leica M: Best 35mm M Lens Yet?  With 1/3 the distortion of the Summilux, superior control over field curvature, more uniform and higher contrast wide open, more uniform sharpness sharpness across the field, absence of lateral color, no focus shift, the technical prowess on paper is confirmed by yesterday’s field shots showing.  The in-the-field performance at ƒ/1.4 is very impressive, which means that the famed Leica 2010 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M not only has competition, but now appears to play second fiddle to the ZM 35mm f/1.4 Distagon. In the "Guide to Leica" section, Zeiss ZM lenses, there are many example photos and stuff on this lens.I must say, this looks rather impressive! I might just flip my 35 FLE and pre-order this asap. And save some money in the process. This lens basically looks like it's going to be the "APO-Summicron" of the 35mm focal length based on the review. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chito Posted September 17, 2014 Share #30 Â Posted September 17, 2014 Lloyd states that the Zeiss is the best M-mount 35mm lens, period. Beating the 35 Lux FLE in every way. Â It's only weakness is secondary longitudinal chromatic aberration.. which the Lux suffers from as well. Â Man if it just wasn't so big.. but I'm still very tempted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 17, 2014 Share #31 Â Posted September 17, 2014 Man if it just wasn't so big.. Â I agree... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted September 17, 2014 Share #32  Posted September 17, 2014 Man if it just wasn't so big.. but I'm still very tempted  Yes, same here... I use the 35 FLE without a hood, and I find the size to be perfect, especially considering it being a f/1.4 lens. I'm tempted. But at the same time, I don't want something much bigger and heavier... If I was doing architecture or serious landscape photography then I might reconsider, but for my type of use it doesn't really matter that much. But the price being less than half of the FLE does matter, however. It's a hefty price difference to pay for less performance, and a slightly smaller and lighter lens! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted September 17, 2014 Share #33 Â Posted September 17, 2014 Now I am thinking the size might be a deal breaker, I don't mind carrying a larger lens but it is always nice to have the smaller, lighter ones, not unlike carrying the M9 vs. the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeStone Posted September 17, 2014 Share #34 Â Posted September 17, 2014 Yes, but without caps it is 9 mm (65 versus 56). Looks quite manageable to me, but I reserve final judgement until I hold it in my hands..... Â I see your point. My assumption is that the Distagon is measured without the part in the camera, so starting from the bayonet. The Biogon w/o caps is measured including the part in the camera (I checked this for biogon 2/35 and 2,8/21). So I still assume, that the difference will be 19mm. Â The variance of the difference between length with and without caps is not explainable to me, except by different definitions of "without caps" by Zeiss. Â But you are right. We will see. Â Regards Jacob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rirakuma Posted September 17, 2014 Share #35  Posted September 17, 2014 Samples on flickr, sorry if this has been posted before  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiriusLux Posted September 17, 2014 Share #36  Posted September 17, 2014 Unfortunately the difference should be 19mm. Length incl caps is:Biogon f/2: 68mm Distagon f/1.4: 87,3mm  Biogon T* 2/35 ZM | ZEISS International Distagon T* 1,4/35 ZM | ZEISS International  Regards Jacob  Hi Jacob,  you're right, I had gotten the information by comparing two different documents. Also, I figure the lens shade is different between the two, but that's a minor thing.  Regards, Joerg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Sennet Posted September 17, 2014 Share #37 Â Posted September 17, 2014 Although I am impressed by all the Leica camera beauty at Photokina 2014, the best Leica news for me is this Zeiss ZM 35mm 1.4. The images started to come at Diglloyd and look very very promising for me as a Leica M landscape aficionado. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi996sps Posted September 17, 2014 Share #38 Â Posted September 17, 2014 Not a reason for not buying this lens, the minimum focusing distance is 0.7M ie same as the summilux i believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 17, 2014 Share #39 Â Posted September 17, 2014 Any info about how much the lens blocks the viewfinder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr237 Posted September 17, 2014 Share #40  Posted September 17, 2014 Zeiss posted a comparison of their three 35mm ZM lenses on their twitter feed:   photo credit: official zeiss twitter feed Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/233958-zeiss-has-a-new-35mm-14-zm/?do=findComment&comment=2672028'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.