Zeiss 35 f/2 users?

Not a lot has been said about this lens. I'm seriously thinking about picking one up very soon.

I mostly shoot interiors and architecture along with abstract macros. I have the 14-24mm, 17-35mm, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 100 2.8 and 70-200VR. I just got a 28mm ais last week out of curiosity and though it's impressive, it probably can't compete with the Zeiss 35.

I use both the D300 and D700 on every shoot. I don't use my 17-35mm that much though it is an excellent lens. Believe it or not, my bread and butter combo is the 14-24mm on the D300. It goes on the D700 for bathrooms and when ultra wide is needed of course. I keep the 50 1.4 or 85 1.4 on the D700 and use that to capture sections of the space nicely. I figure that the Zeiss 35mm could do that even better on either camera.

I don't need AF for interiors or architecture so that's not really an issue. 17-35's are going for crazy money on bay and if i sell mine, i'll have close to $500 left over. (the sale of the 28mm ais will make that $700).

After all that, it may seem as if my mind's made up, but i'd love to hear from Zeiss 35mm f2 users on either the D3/D700/D300. I've read that a katzeye screen helps but some don't need it. Also might get the DK17/19 eyecup. Has anyone owned both the Z and the 17-35mm? I know that diglloyd has an extensive test available on all Zeiss lenses for $50 but i heard that he simply went gaga over this lens.

Thanx.
--
http://www.ricmarderimagery.com

it is a great lens for sure and makes very distinctive images.

your thought process is sound. you will not regret picking it up and since it looks like you have the range covered (even w/ offloading the 17-35) you will be happy.
--
http://mlmusto.zenfolio.com/

I've got one, and it's good. You will see a bit of barrel distortion, especially close up. It seems to be the most universally well-received of the ZF wide angles.
--
-KB-

Have you also considered the Zeiss ZF 25 2.8? If you plan on using it on FX and DX the 25mm might me more universal for your use. The 25mm 2.8 is supposed to be in the same quality league as the 35mm 2.0.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucdeschepper/

I have considerd all Zeiss lenses. As Pluton says, the 35mm is very highly regarded and has the fewest weaknesses. The 14-24mm is better than the Zeiss 25mm for me as it has regular distortions that i fix easily and the IQ is so close. The 35mm fits perfectly in my collection. Hearing from those who have it solidifies my thinking.

--
http://www.ricmarderimagery.com

nt

Phobos

although wishing you the best, keep in mind that a 35 F/1.4 Nikon might be released soon, according to some recent rumors on a swedish review.
--
All the best
I'm on the NIK side of photography.

I've had a ZF35 for a year, and just sold my 17-35 in order to get a 14-24. The ZF was clearly superior to the Nikon 17-35 at 35mm, though is is more prone to colored flares at highlights. The lens color is also warmer/yellower, which I don't like, but performance was so much better in all other ways that I knew I needed to make the jump to the wider zoom, since I was no longer using the 17-35 for that range.

The ZF is enormously impressive at wider apertures. While the photo below was ridiculed by some the first time I posted it, I believe more than ever that it accurately shows the color bias of the lens (Digilloyd's comments and samples about this lens's "warmth" are in line with my own observations). The shots below are less helpful for resolution because I blew the focus on the 17-35 shot. However, the 17-35 does have significant drop in contrast wide open, and there is veiling flare aroundd all highlights. Basically, at f/2-f/4, the ZF is superior, no contest. And the ZF is really fine wide open.

I did have a 28mm f/2, but the ZF crushed it in edge-to-edge resolution, so I sold it. It wa an older lens and had an oddly warm color bias, too.

I don't use Nikons but have DX and FX cameras along with the 17-35 and the Zeiss 35mm and imo there's no comparison between the two. I simply hate the IQ of the 17-35 in every way, the only reason I bought it was for the fl and positive reviews that I read here, I keep it to remind me that I should trust my own head and eyes in-spite claims by others. On the other hand I love the Zeiss lenses, all of them, and the 35/f2 is one of my favorites in the line. Go for it!
--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk

I've recently acquired the 100mm f2 and it's great for Macro and shoots nicely @ infinity. This morning I just ordered the 50mm F2 Makro. Both for my D700.

From the Zeiss website " The Makro-Planar T* 2/50 uses a new lens design which incorporates fl oating elements to ensure high performance across a wide focusing range. As a result, the lens the lens can be used for non-macro applications and becomes a versatile ‘standard’ lens when used with a full frame camera." --

http://matrixone.zenfolio.com/
Pierre

Thanks for info guys. Dodi, even if Nikon comes out with a new 35 1.4, I'm not so sure it's going to top the Zeiss. Plus, i already have some of Nikon's best lenses - i want a legendary Zeiss. And how many times are we left waiting for vaporware that is never released?

MS, it's hard to judge comparisons at web size. Though I have seen the Zeiss lenses come up with a cooler cast compared to Nikons, but either way i'm confident in my WB skills and pp color. I'm not discounting your findings.

I have one on order at Berger Bros. (I live close by) and will test it out in the store against my 17-35 and 28 2.8 ais and I think it will convince me to pick it up.

Anybody have experience with the katzeye screen and this lens?

--
http://www.ricmarderimagery.com

I just took delivery on a Zeiss 100. AWESOME lens. A friend wants to sell me a 17-35 for $1,200, but i going to either get the Zeiss 28/2 or the 35/2. I have read through many reviews, and the 100/2 and the 35/2 are the highest regarded in the Zeiss line. I am going to start a thread for 28/2 users to see how pleased they are.

Best of luck!

Jay

Phobos 790 said:

MS, it's hard to judge comparisons at web size. Though I have seen
the Zeiss lenses come up with a cooler cast compared to Nikons, but
either way i'm confident in my WB skills and pp color. I'm not
discounting your findings.

Click to expand...

Those three are 100% crops from a D200. Center, mind you. They all do pretty good in the center- the Zeiss is great edge-to-edge.

Be warned that there can be manufacturing turlkeys: my first ZF 35 had a decentered element which made edge performance on one side much worse than the other. I had Adorama send me another.

One of the forum posters send me some samples from ZF 35 and 100 (on D3X), both v. sharp. In the latter I kept zooming beyond 100% sample...and the pix remained crisp. I was bit surprised, even though I shouldn't be.

Though I don't have any ZF's, I'm convinced.

Leswick

mcq67 said:

I just took delivery on a Zeiss 100. AWESOME lens. A friend wants
to sell me a 17-35 for $1,200, but i going to either get the Zeiss
28/2 or the 35/2. I have read through many reviews, and the 100/2
and the 35/2 are the highest regarded in the Zeiss line. I am going
to start a thread for 28/2 users to see how pleased they are.

Click to expand...

the first to tell you that its an excellent lens, actually I like the entire ZF line. Sharpness and contrast is similar to your 35mm but the rendering is somewhat different. I happen to like the difference and use it more than the 35 since I got it.

--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk

Hey there

I own some ZF (18, 35, 50 1.4, 85 1.4) and would love to get some more!!

I owend the 17-35 which i sold for the combo 18 3.5 and 35 2.0!

From my point of view the two ZF are way above the 17-35 in terms of color rendition, sharpness and IQ, love the manual focus and the feel and grip!

You should take a look on your previous photos which focallenght you used the most, if you were on the wide end of the 17-35 take a closer look on the 18 3.5, i think its nearly distortion free and has only minor cornersharpness fall off and as good as no vignetting! if you used the 35mm end more often, get the 35mm 2.0!

hope it helped

robb

Thanks Robb, if you read my orignal post, you'll see that i have and love the 14-24mm, that's why i want the 35mm/2. But your feelings do help me solidify my thinking...

--
http://www.ricmarderimagery.com