Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/35 ZM availability? Has anyone gotten a serial version yet?

[biglou]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Honcho,

Both are lovely lenses and very, very sharp.

I doubt any present digital camera will be able to show pure resolution differences.

What you can see is different, flatness of field, signature of the lens, contrast maybe, vigneting, distorsion.

 

For resolution tests you would need an appropriate target and good old argentic film like technical pan, no more made alas or the much more recent slow speed emulsions remaining.

[honcho]

.....What you can see is different, flatness of field, signature of the lens, contrast maybe, vigneting, distorsion......

 

No. What I see is one image in focus and the other image out of focus.

 

'Signature' is a different concept to utter bollocks.

[biglou]

No. What I see is one image in focus and the other image out of focus.

 

'Signature' is a different concept to utter bollocks.

 

 

 

If you refer to the picture upside you are right, i was talking about any in focus pictures from a digital 35mm, you cannot separate two very good lenses on the criteria of definition.

[microview]

FWIW I redid test using tripod and delayed exposure. Cannot be bothered to upload results here, but they did show a marginal lesser resolution with the Biogon at f4/5.6.

[biglou]

Microview,

I don't want to dismiss your experiment but if you refer to Erwin Puts (Tao of Leica) the M240 can resolve theorically about 80lp by mm (nyquist) and in fact there is a loss of 10/15%

Apo Summicron 50mm resolves, following Puts, 160lp mm wide open.

The 35mm we refer to are both able to resolve more than the M240 can differentiate, even wide open.

 

For such experiment visual focus is not precise enough, you would need also a few very small micrometric adjustments of focus and choose the best result for each lens.

Then do it all over again each time you move the diaphragm since the plane of best focus may change.

As stated by Puts, use a high definition film is mandatory since the sensors (particularly color sensors) are not yet able to discriminate enough, even the best availiable on the market having the highiest pixel count.

 

That said the Biogon is possibly, even probably bested by the Distagon on this criterium, but i don't believe you can show that on a M240.

 

Maybe an expert will tell us here.

[Jon Warwick]

Microview,

I don't want to dismiss your experiment but if you refer to Erwin Puts (Tao of Leica) the M240 can resolve theorically about 80lp by mm (nyquist) and in fact there is a loss of 10/15%

Apo Summicron 50mm resolves, following Puts, 160lp mm wide open.

The 35mm we refer to are both able to resolve more than the M240 can differentiate, even wide open.

 

For such experiment visual focus is not precise enough, you would need also a few very small micrometric adjustments of focus and choose the best result for each lens.

Then do it all over again each time you move the diaphragm since the plane of best focus may change.

As stated by Puts, use a high definition film is mandatory since the sensors (particularly color sensors) are not yet able to discriminate enough, even the best availiable on the market having the highiest pixel count.

 

I am certainly no expert, but film like Adox CMS 20 claims to resolve up to 800l/mm. Regardless of that claim, if you go onto the German side of the Adox website, you can find 2 recent sample images of Chevy trucks taken with CMS 20 film that were scanned to open up in Photoshop at a size of 57" wide (approx 150cm) with no resampling needed. Grain even at that huge image size from 35mm film is basically invisible, and the image is full of detail that looks "organic" and "real".

 

It really is an extraordinarily high rez film and the samples are worth a look. The tonal qualities, resolution and 3D look are mesmerising. The downside is that one is best using it with the Leica bolted to a tripod due to its ISO of 12(!) - but to get maximum rez off even 24mp sensors, a tripod is perhaps also a benefit especially for large prints.

[biglou]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Exactly, when i had my darkroom availiable i used a lot of Kodak Technical Pan at 50/60 iso, very nice as you could easily adapt contrast by exposing and developping more or less, wonderful film and results.

Adox is very good too, with a different color sensitivity.

Digital is still far behind.

[Mornnb]

Microview,

I don't want to dismiss your experiment but if you refer to Erwin Puts (Tao of Leica) the M240 can resolve theorically about 80lp by mm (nyquist) and in fact there is a loss of 10/15%

Apo Summicron 50mm resolves, following Puts, 160lp mm wide open.

 

The Canon 5Ds has a 50MP sensor which is capable of resolving around 120lp mm.

We may need a 75MP sensor to match the 50mm APO's capabilities.... Suffice to say this lens will have much longevity and usefulness over the course of this century. It will be a long time before this level of image quality is normal.

[biglou]

The Canon 5Ds has a 50MP sensor which is capable of resolving around 120lp mm.

We may need a 75MP sensor to match the 50mm APO's capabilities.... Suffice to say this lens will have much longevity and usefulness over the course of this century. It will be a long time before this level of image quality is normal.

 

Less for a monochrome, Puts found a resolution for the monochrom above the theorical limit, dont ask me how it is possible.

A new 50MP monochrom would also be very nice and already within today's possibilities.

Smaller captors reach or surpass this kind of small pixel, also the canon you said, in colors, and the sony that will come very soon.

We are not far.

[biglou]

I would buy a 37mp monochrom also, if they want to build one

[microview]

Just replaced the wretched Zeiss lens cap with Leica's E49 front cap (14 001) It's a perfect fit, with its outer diameter matching that of the aperture ring.

Given the price, I appreciated the remark made by the dealer "Put the Zeiss on when you go out. Use the Leica for when it's back at home."     

[sdk]

I just finally got the lens hood from B&H. I also am trying the Sony 49mm cap which seems nicer than the Zeiss. I really don't know why Zeiss didn't do a new cap design like they have for the Touit and Otus lenses. Those seem better than the older designs.

[SiriusLux]

I just finally got the lens hood from B&H. I also am trying the Sony 49mm cap which seems nicer than the Zeiss. I really don't know why Zeiss didn't do a new cap design like they have for the Touit and Otus lenses. Those seem better than the older designs.

They probably want us to loose the lens caps and buy new ones every time

For the Biogon 2.0/35 my solution is the Voigtländer lens cap, it is cheaper and better to handle. Maybe they have an E49 lens cap as well.

[wlaidlaw]

I am wondering, from what folks are saying, if the Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon has some similar characteristics to the Zeiss 35/2 Planar G. That had a very sharp drop off from the in focus area to the OOF, when used wide open and not the world's nicest bokeh. You got what amounted to a focus plateau with a fuzzy OOF behind it. Could occasionally be very effective when you got it right but it made it not the easiest lens to use, particularly with the auto-focus G camera. I am not going to be in the market anyway with an excellent if heavy, chrome 35 ASPH Summilux and having recently bought a delightful, tiny and light 35 ASPH Summicron. 

 

Wilson

[iwc852]

... what a great lens this 1,4/35 Distagon is! I got mine today and putting the in my view minor size issue aside: the optical performance is outstanding.

The coding for the Leica 35ASPH (11873) seems to work very well. Any different recommendations?

 

Thanks

[jrp]

The lack of coding is an irritation; I don't use any in camera but use the Lightroom profile, which takes care of the vignetting.

[Mornnb]

... what a great lens this 1,4/35 Distagon is! I got mine today and putting the in my view minor size issue aside: the optical performance is outstanding.

 

 

I find it to have smoother bokeh and faster focus fall off than the Summilux 35mm FLE.

[edwardkaraa]

I find it to have smoother bokeh and faster focus fall off than the Summilux 35mm FLE.

And absolutely no focus shift (the lux still got it despite the fle).

[alan.y]

The ZM 35 1.4 is technically marvelous, sharp and very faithful, and the extra heft is actually a plus for me ergonomically, but so far I haven't been completely taken by it aesthetically. I prefer the luxuriously subtle (I mean it) colors of my Summilux-R 35. The Summilux-M Asph pre-FLE I had was also very romantic.

 

People who have experiences with both Z and L, I wonder if you'd agree that the ZM's neutrality makes it more flexible and context-independent (my R35 often fails under artificial or insufficient light), and perhaps also more demanding on the photographer's skill and decision.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[microview]

I just finally got the lens hood from B&H.

The second time I fitted the lens hood (exactly as instructions in the lens booklet) it jammed and had to be forced to remove. It looks as if the metal spring had somehow distorted. Anyway the supplier (Classic Cameras, London) is trying to get it repaired and says there's still a desperate shortage of supplies. Can't help wondering if there's a problem with the locking design.