mirekti Posted November 4, 2014 Share #41 Â Posted November 4, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sean Reid just published a review on the lens on his site. I am not subscribed to it anymore, but if anyone wants to read a decent review, I believe this would be the right place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 Hi mirekti, Take a look here Zeiss ZM 35mm f/1.4 Distagon. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pieterpronk Posted November 4, 2014 Share #42 Â Posted November 4, 2014 Nice typically thorough review by Sean Reid that seems to conclude with what is quickly becoming the consensus on the lens: It's an optically superior lens (that beats the summilux) that is only hindered by it's size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tmuussoni Posted November 4, 2014 Share #43  Posted November 4, 2014 A few images seen here by mr. Ron scheffler:Leica M/X/T Picture Thread - FM Forums  Looks promising Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richfx Posted November 5, 2014 Share #44 Â Posted November 5, 2014 The 35 Distagon 1.4 appears to be noticeably sharper and lower in distortion than the 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE in Sean's review, but I suspect that there's something wrong with his Lux. It seems to be out of focus wide open and stopped down. Mine is very sharp across the board, as the FLE promised. Thus, the comparison may not be entirely accurate. Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted November 5, 2014 Share #45 Â Posted November 5, 2014 I believe Sean noted his FLE was the stainless version from a trial review camera. Perhaps it isn't typical. However, it still doesn't look like his results with the Zeiss could be beat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivar B Posted November 6, 2014 Share #46 Â Posted November 6, 2014 I believe Sean noted his FLE was the stainless version from a trial review camera. Perhaps it isn't typical.However, it still doesn't look like his results with the Zeiss could be beat. Â He does say however that the particular Leica 35 FLE he tested performed equally to previous tests of this lens so this is perhaps not the answer. Â The Zeiss Distagon really appears to be a superb lens. I noted Seans comment that the Leica "is not even close" when it comes to center sharpness. It is not often one sees this massive jump in quality in this day and age. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 6, 2014 Share #47 Â Posted November 6, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I noted Seans comment that the Leica "is not even close" when it comes to center sharpness. Â I assume Sean Reid brackets the focus or uses live view on an M240 when he does these tests? I've found that the 35 FLE behaves rather eccentrically at middling apertures and middling focus distances. The plane of focus has a parabolic shape that can move unexpectedly and centre sharpness at middling distances can be markedly improved or made worse by very fine focus alterations. When it is sharp it is very sharp (as sharp or sharper than I have seen from any other Leica lens). I can well believe that the new Zeiss is much better behaved but I am surprised that it might be sharper in the centre. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 6, 2014 Share #48 Â Posted November 6, 2014 I noted Seans comment that the Leica "is not even close" when it comes to center sharpness. Â I guess it all depends on the definition of "center". These sentences without proper context may be very misleading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivar B Posted November 6, 2014 Share #49 Â Posted November 6, 2014 I guess it all depends on the definition of "center".These sentences without proper context may be very misleading. Â Maybe, but his test photos are there for everyone to see and it was amazing to see how great the differences are. His choice of words seems reasonable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted November 6, 2014 Share #50 Â Posted November 6, 2014 having tried out the lens a week or so ago, i personally didn't find the viewfinder obstruction all that meaningful. certainly a lot less than the 28mm summicron, and that is a lens most love to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 6, 2014 Share #51 Â Posted November 6, 2014 Maybe, but his test photos are there for everyone to see and it was amazing to see how great the differences are. His choice of words seems reasonable. Â I am not a subscriber, therefore his test photos are not there for everyone to see. I do not think you'll be breaking the copyright by detailing what is his definition of "center" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted November 6, 2014 Share #52 Â Posted November 6, 2014 I noted Seans comment that the Leica "is not even close" when it comes to center sharpness. It is not often one sees this massive jump in quality in this day and age. Â How is that even possible? Isn't the 35 FLE already superlative and super-sharp? I am surprised that a new lens can come along and offer a massive jump in quality. I have no personal experience to contradict his conclusion; just wondering how it can be true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted November 6, 2014 Share #53 Â Posted November 6, 2014 I think we can probably agree it is a leap in quality on a cost basis alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 6, 2014 Share #54 Â Posted November 6, 2014 having tried out the lens a week or so ago, i personally didn't find the viewfinder obstruction all that meaningful. certainly a lot less than the 28mm summicron, and that is a lens most love to use. Â Just curious, but when you say "a lot less" is that with the Leica hood on the 28mm Summicron and the Zeiss with a hood, too? Or without a hood? The 28mm Summicron is very small without the hood (40.8 mm long) and not all owners use the supplied Leica hood, which is so absurdly large. With the older pre-FLE 35mm Summilux hood (or better yet, with a step-up ring for a hood like I use) there is minimal intrusion into the viewfinder. Is this comparison hoodless or with a hood on both lenses? Zeiss lists their lens at 87.3 mm long. It also uses a larger filter (49 versus 46.) I haven't seen a hood for the ZM yet but then again I don't read the review sites that people refer to here. Â Also people are saying the Zeiss is 'light.' Zeiss lists the lens at 381 grams whereas the Summilux 35mm FLE is 320 grams (the 50mm Summilux ASPH is also lighter.) And of course the Zeiss is much longer than both those lenses. But definitely less expensive! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 6, 2014 Share #55 Â Posted November 6, 2014 Yep, the Zeiss 'fast' lenses are typically top notch technically, but larger and heavier than Leica 'counterparts', which as Puts notes, are much harder to build to tolerances at small sizes, hence a major expense factor. This is only the most recent example. Â Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 6, 2014 Share #56 Â Posted November 6, 2014 I assume Sean Reid brackets the focus or uses live view on an M240 when he does these tests? I Â That did occur to me as well ....... I thought the centre 35 FLE images looked out of focus rather than showing poor resolving power. Â I assumed SR was sufficiently anally retentive to have excluded all extraneous factors ...... but it did make me wonder ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted November 7, 2014 Share #57 Â Posted November 7, 2014 The lens had the shade on it and yes I was comparing it to the 28 with hood. It looked like the length of elmarit m 90 and width of 75 summicron. Not exactly just how it felt. Probably more like the 75. When I picked it up it felt very light relative to what I was expecting given the size. In the end I liked it a lot. Liked the pictures and I liked the price. Now I need to convince myself I need it more than the 35 summicron workhorse I have. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivar B Posted November 7, 2014 Share #58 Â Posted November 7, 2014 How is that even possible? Isn't the 35 FLE already superlative and super-sharp? I am surprised that a new lens can come along and offer a massive jump in quality. I have no personal experience to contradict his conclusion; just wondering how it can be true. Â I highly recommend subscribing to Welcome to ReidReviews. You will then see the details of this particular test and a wealth of other interesting information, His pages are to me the most important source of information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 7, 2014 Share #59 Â Posted November 7, 2014 How is that even possible? Isn't the 35 FLE already superlative and super-sharp? I am surprised that a new lens can come along and offer a massive jump in quality. I have no personal experience to contradict his conclusion; just wondering how it can be true. Â Simple - if one increases the size of a lens the designer's task is made easier - exponentially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 7, 2014 Share #60 Â Posted November 7, 2014 Simple - if one increases the size of a lens the designer's task is made easier - exponentially. Â That doesn't answer Zlatkob's question. Your point above is obvious and doesn't add to the discussion. What is more interesting is, given that the 35 FLE (when correctly focussed) is as sharp as any lens available in the Leica lens line-up (and IME it is very sharp) and beyond the resolving power of even the Monochrom sensor, how can the Zeiss be demonstrably sharper to the degree implied above? More consistently sharp, quite possible but I'm not sure how the Zeiss can be more meaningfully sharp in the centre than the FLE when the latter is properly in focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.