james.liam Posted October 27, 2014 Share #161  Posted October 27, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am still looking foward for the first shots of this lens on a Sony A7R with regards to discoloration and corner smearing if any, assuming there won't be any when used with my M9. For me size of the lens doesn't matter that much when used on the A7R.  The misbehavior of the a7R and M lenses has by now been copiously documented so "waiting" for that miraculous exception is at this point, and for want of another term, pointless. A scant few Voigtländer M wides seem to do just fine but they are the rare exception to the rule.  Zeiss Loxia lenses, if MF is your preference, are optimized for the E format and that seems a wiser course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Hi james.liam, Take a look here Zeiss has a new 35mm 1.4 ZM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
CheshireCat Posted October 27, 2014 Share #162 Â Posted October 27, 2014 The misbehavior of the a7R and M lenses has by now been copiously documented so "waiting" for that miraculous exception is at this point, and for want of another term, pointless. Â It is far from pointless. It all depends on the lens design, and the size of the ZM 35 suggests a nice retrofocus design. Â Testing the Zeiss Loxia, ZM 35 1.4 and Otus lenses on the A7r by Dirk De Paepe | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 27, 2014 Share #163  Posted October 27, 2014 It is far from pointless. It all depends on the lens design, and the size of the ZM 35 suggests a nice retrofocus design. Testing the Zeiss Loxia, ZM 35 1.4 and Otus lenses on the A7r by Dirk De Paepe | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS   Thanks for the info. Very encouraging! I will be looking forward to the first indepth reviews. Thanks again! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted November 6, 2014 Share #164 Â Posted November 6, 2014 At this time I have the Summilux ASPH and the Nokton f/1.2, having acquired the latter for a bargain. Since the Zeiss is slightly larger than the Nokton (although definitely lighter), and I don't use the Nokton nearly as much as I thought I would due to its size, the Zeiss would be pointless, in spite of its apparently small but noticeable advantage. Â When one of my photos doesn't make the cut, it's hardly ever because of slight technical deficiencies, but due to missing the moment, inadequate composition, etc. If I'm reluctant to take a lens along due to its size, that lens is less likely to help me make better photos. Â On an SLR the difference in size of the two lenses would matter little, but on a rangefinder, with the viewfinder blockage (and no, for me shooting with a 35 live view or an accessory finder are out of the question) a larger lens would be a definite detriment. Â I often go out with a vers. IV Summicron due to the size, and am happy to have the Macro-Elmar along for similar reasons even though the former is hardly an outstanding performer by modern standards, and the latter is only f/4. Â I'm with many others on this topic: if I didn't have a 35, I might well go with the Zeiss at this point, but it's not convincing in my present case. Â Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horosu Posted November 6, 2014 Share #165  Posted November 6, 2014 Since the Zeiss is slightly larger than the Nokton (although definitely lighter), ...Henning  Might I ask where did you get that information from? The dimensions specified by Cosina and Zeiss are not comparable Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted November 6, 2014 Share #166 Â Posted November 6, 2014 I measured them. The Zeiss is 63mm in diameter and 65mm long, while the v.1 Nokton is 62mm in diameter and 62mm long. V.2 is a tiny bit smaller again. The length is measured to the mounting flange. Lens hoods are not considered, although there are certain to be variances. Â Truly not much of a difference, but as I said, the size of the Nokton bothers me, so I will find no joy in the Zeiss in that regard. Â Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horosu Posted November 6, 2014 Share #167  Posted November 6, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I measured them. The Zeiss is 63mm in diameter and 65mm long, while the v.1 Nokton is 62mm in diameter and 62mm long. V.2 is a tiny bit smaller again. The length is measured to the mounting flange. Lens hoods are not considered, although there are certain to be variances. Truly not much of a difference, but as I said, the size of the Nokton bothers me, so I will find no joy in the Zeiss in that regard.  Henning  Thanks, now I understand. Did you get a chance to photograph them side-by-side?  I was under the impression that the Zeiss is slightly smaller and lighter than the CV II Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted November 7, 2014 Share #168  Posted November 7, 2014 Did you get a chance to photograph them side-by-side? I was under the impression that the Zeiss is slightly smaller and lighter than the CV II  No, I didn't get to shoot anything useful with the Zeiss (quick camera store stuff). The Zeiss is very slightly larger, but definitely lighter. Felt like halfway between the Summilux ASPH (black) and the Nokton.  Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.