Zeiss has a new 35mm 1.4 ZM

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Real pics, and prints, of course provide the real test.

 

For those who like stats, though, Zeiss lenses tend to compare well to Leica counterparts, except for the size issue, as Puts shows in this comparison of 50mm lenses. As he says, it's a lot tougher to produce technically stellar results in a small package. Whether one prefers the rendering is another issue.

 

Jeff

 

Yes I agree with you.

[gberger]

It's interesting, to me, that Zeiss does not advertise that the 1.4 ZM has a floating lens element and asph lenses, although the lens does have them.

[Ivar B]

It's interesting, to me, that Zeiss does not advertise that the 1.4 ZM has a floating lens element and asph lenses, although the lens does have them.

 

Agreed. Where did you get this information?

[lct]

[...] Zeiss does not advertise that the 1.4 ZM has a floating lens element and asph lenses.

Seems like it does now : http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/brochures/ikon/ikon_leaflet_en.pdf

[Ivar B]

Seems like it does now : http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/brochures/ikon/ikon_leaflet_en.pdf

 

Very interesting. Two lens elements are said to have aspherical surface so there must be at least two.

[Brenton C]

...

The linked flagship lens points to the APO-Summicron 50/2. "a stop slower" is probably a typo, and should be "a stop faster"

 

Too bad it's backwards. "A real slow stopper" might have made a good line for marketing.

 

As an accurate alternative, "A real fast F-er" . . . is too suggestive a double entendre.

[percepts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just curious but how often would you all use an aperture of 1.4 ? I can see the benefit on an slr where you'll get a much brighter view finder image but on a range finder and very occasional actual usage of 1.4 is it really worth having that extra stop with its extra size and weight?

[CheshireCat]

Just curious but how often would you all use an aperture of 1.4 ? I can see the benefit on an slr where you'll get a much brighter view finder image but on a range finder and very occasional actual usage of 1.4 is it really worth having that extra stop with its extra size and weight?

 

Is it worth having the extra depth of field and subject isolation ?

Is it worth having a better quality even stopped down to f/2 ? I have the Biogon ZM f/2, and the performance wide open leaves a lot to be desired. Never tried the Summicron, but I doubt it is much better than the Biogon.

[percepts]

That is what I was thinking. Unless the performance generally is superior to the ZM 35/2 then for me the additional narrowness of depth of field wouldn't be worth it.

But a 1.4 seems to have a certain kudos for many which is why I suspect the price is so much more.

[gberger]

I believe the price reflects the addition of a floating lens element (FLE), aspheric lens and additional lens elements. Also, going from a 43mm to a 49mm. Once they appear for sale, I still want to see what the reviewers say about the production-run lenses. ( I have the ZM 35/2).

[asabet]

I made this size comparison using the mounts for scale:

 

 

 

To me the size of the Zeiss is acceptable. If it's as sharp as the MTFs indicate, the bokeh is more pleasing, and it really is free of purple fringing, I might consider switching from my Summilux ASPH II.

[algrove]

Any info about how much the lens blocks the viewfinder?

 

Sean Reid will report on that in immense detail.

 

Also Ming Thein will have a review shortly, I would think.

[AlbertTRAL]

While we wait for a real test or we are able to test the lens by ourselves, knowing that both Zeiss and Leica's curves are mesured ones and not calculated (as most of the rest), I have put the Distagon and the Summilux curves one on top of the other... I think that, on paper, the outcome is pretty clear... (although the weight and size also... ;-) :-)) .... well, and somebody will also say..."do not forget the price"... :-D

 

I think is really impressive how the distagon perfoms at f/4.0 over the SX at f/5.6!!!

 

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!

 

[percepts]

these things become very subjective. For some the vignetting will be an issue with the zeiss and for others the distortion towards the corners will an issue with the leica. Depends what you are specifically looking for from a lens.

[CheshireCat]

While we wait for a real test or we are able to test the lens by ourselves, knowing that both Zeiss and Leica's curves are mesured ones and not calculated

 

Thanks for sharing, very interesting.

However, according to Erwin Puts, Leica graphs are calculated.

[AlbertTRAL]

these things become very subjective. For some the vignetting will be an issue with the zeiss and for others the distortion towards the corners will an issue with the leica. Depends what you are specifically looking for from a lens.

You are very right and more if we consider that we are looking at a "photofinish", but in any case, probably vignetting is the easiest to correct in "postpo" and also the closest curves of all the above... ;-)

However, according to Erwin Puts, Leica graphs are calculated.

To be really precise, what Erwin Puts says is:

 

"One can occasionally read or hear claims that an MTF diagram derived from measured values is superior to a computed MTF diagram, but this should not be taken very seriously. One should also consider the fact that at Leica, the measured version and the computed version are nearly identical, which is also a sign that the manufacturing department is capable of producing what the optical designers have devised."

Erwin Puts, page 17, Leica M Lenses Their Soul and Secrets.

 

 

Diglloyd about "Measure vs computed MTF" in "Understanding MTF":

 

"Zeiss and Leica publish MTF charts that are measured from a real lens.

You can view Nikon MTF charts on the Nikon global site (select a lens). It is not clear whether Nikon measures MTF, or computes it.

Canon's MTF charts are posted with their lens descriptions. Apparently, Canon computes MTF and does not measure it with real lenses."

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks for sharing, very interesting.

However, according to Erwin Puts, Leica graphs are calculated.

 

That's my recollection as well.

Shouldn't we assume that measured and calculated values are pretty close together?

Well, as long as the lens is within spec.

[don daniel]

I made this size comparison using the mounts for scale:

 

 

 

To me the size of the Zeiss is acceptable. If it's as sharp as the MTFs indicate, the bokeh is more pleasing, and it really is free of purple fringing, I might consider switching from my Summilux ASPH II.

 

Wow! This completely destroys the new Zeiss for me. I already found the SL 35 FLE too bulky. Such a size and weight I would only accept from a less boring focal length.

[k-hawinkler]

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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mmradman]

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.

 

K-H,

 

Finger crossed for you but I think Zeiss were primarily targeting M users with new Distagon M 35mm so performance may not be all that good on Sony Alpha. From Lloyd Chambers blog all the raving comments are based on shots made on M 240 (so far).

 

For Alpha 7's there are new Loxia 35mm & 50mm - ZM 35mm f2 and 50mm f2 optics in new Alpha E mount.