Johan1967
Forum Enthusiast
You have a lot of trouble with yourself then I assume?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New Zeiss 35/1.4 Color Fringing Issue
- Thread starter Fave Photog
- Start date
Ilkka Nissilä
Senior Member
Thanks for bringing to my attention this obviously very nice, and moderately priced lens. Since Nikon is unwilling to making a modern 35mm prime for FX, I will investigate this option further. The 35/2 ZF was already excellent, perhaps the best Nikon mount wide angle in terms of across the frame sharpness. Thanks! BTW the highlights look fine, as does sharpness.
I know right? Steel is so much better than that "magnesium" plastic in pro Nikon lenses! What I don't get is why magnesium is used instead of steel in hi-tech constructions like airplanes or F1 wheels? Those idiots!
Nonsense repeated twice is still nonsense.
How and where you spend your money is your matter, definitely.
--
Rapick
Jalbum supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick
http://rapick.jalbum.net/
So, the OP succeeded in orienting the choice of at least one person in the audience. LOL.
--
Rapick
Jalbum supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick
http://rapick.jalbum.net/
pavi1
Veteran Member
I am almost as old as dirt, but paper pictures are not what photography is all about, not anymore. What do you do with paper pictures? No one has show me a paper picture in a long, long time.
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44
Fave Photog
Senior Member
"Unwilling"? Given to extremism and hyperbole much, are you? Just because Nikon doesn't jump when you whine, doesn't mean they don't have plans to update their already superior 35/1.4 AI-S manual focus lens. I'm sure when they release a new version, it will be vastly superior to anything offered by Zeiss or any other manufacturer. And it will have AF, to boot.
You can bet your sweet bippy that it will not be prone to CA like this latest Zeiss.
If you don't mind occasional CA in extreme situations (obviously you don't, since you enjoy CA in images shot under normal conditions), then save yourself $800 USD and pick up a new Nikon 35/1.4 AI-S. Why spend close to $1,800 USD for the Zeiss that gives results equal to or less than the existing Nikon?
And speaking of "moderately priced" ($1,800 USD), then why don't you shell out a few extra bucks and pick up a real lens...the Nikon 24/1.4 and then you won't need to make excuses for your images. You say you prefer the 35mm focal length? Then use it on a D300s.
You obviously have low standards.
Not for $1,800 USD.
--
'He who works with his hands is a laborer. He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman. He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.'
--Francis of Assisi--
W
windriver
Guest
Maybe it's just me.
scott_mcleod
Senior Member
Apart from the almost unavoidable cat's eyes (which I don't mind - it's "character!") and some mild longitudinal CA it looks completely fine to me - remember those are all specular highlights in the background, which are tough on any lens. At least there's no nisen bokeh! If you want to see some wild LoCA, check out the 135/2 DC (at the risk of blaspheming one of Nikon's greatest...)
Anyway, it's 35mm , so even at f/1.4 you can't expect the background to "melt away" like it would at 85mm or longer.
I look forward to seeing some real tests of this lens! Maybe Nikon will release their 35/1.4 and we will have a pair of awesome lenses to choose from!
my 0.02
Scott
Anyway, it's 35mm , so even at f/1.4 you can't expect the background to "melt away" like it would at 85mm or longer.
I look forward to seeing some real tests of this lens! Maybe Nikon will release their 35/1.4 and we will have a pair of awesome lenses to choose from!
my 0.02
Scott
intruder61
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,064
- Reaction score
- 488
as if you (the OP) really give a Sh*te, that this lens will send you broke and destroy your photographic career. you dont like it, fine, move on and go shoot whatever. as if zeiss really care for your opinion or all the fools that are going to buy it, me being a fool 
.
.I'll take which ever camp you're not in.
Telling someone to sell all of their gear because they don't see cyan fringing? Seriously? Telling someone they have low standards because they have a different view than you do? You're acting like a Zeiss Engineer assaulted you as a child.
Could you tone it down a bit Bernd.
Hey did you see the Rollei version of this with the 3- three blades?
Triangular bokeh ...very trippy.
I just bought a 50/1.2ais for the 1.2 and Im a bit interested in this 35, the c/y version looks like fun, this one might be too.
"special bokeh effects in both the foreground and background"
I wish it was a pic I could understand, I dont have an eye or experience for low light or night.
now , I got your point and agreed.
Riccardo Polini
Senior Member
Have you performed any side-by-side test of AIS 35/1.4 vs ZF.2 35/1.4 to draw such "sound" conclusion?
According to thorough tests performed by Diglloyd, the ZF 35/2 outperforms the AIS 35/1.4 at common apertures.
I guess ZF 35/1.4 wlil not perform worse than ZF 35/2, unless people at Zeiss have become crazy abruptly. My guess comes from the fact that brains of engineers at Zeiss work better than many brains I see writing in Fora ...
It is a well-known fact that D300s has the same low-light/high-ISO performance as D700/D3s ...
andrzejmakal
Senior Member
Ilkka Nissilä
Senior Member
We've been waiting for a properly made autofocus 35mm prime for 25 years. I guess we can wait another 25 ...
I've done a bit of testing of the 35/1.4 Ai-S and I prefer my 35/2 ZF for the most part. The Nikkor has to be stopped down quite deep for edges and corners to be sharp.
All very fast lenses have a bit of longitudinal CA. Including the 24/1.4.
Well, I have used most of the Zeiss primes and they're nice. Zeiss allows a bit of residual aberration to give the impression of slightly increased depth of field. It's a design compromise. I don't want the 35mm f/1.4 manual focus Nikkor.
I own and use the 24/1.4 - it's one of my favorite lenses, but it's not a 35mm. I don't use DX.
Indeed.
Very few and very minor and soft outlinings in some of the many many highlights this example picture features. And by all means not the pronounced onion rings the 35/1.4 AIS, that this funny thread opener calls "superior" shows wide open.
Anyway, it's just a picture, one lonely picture in the big and brutal world wide web. No one should make comparative statements yet, but I had to laugh real hard, when I saw how many folks badmouthed the new Nikon 85 AFS from the first pictures. Seeing what they want to see. Now as more serious folks state their findings from working with that lens, those people have become very quiet.
Kind regards,
Bernd
Anyway, it's just a picture, one lonely picture in the big and brutal world wide web. No one should make comparative statements yet, but I had to laugh real hard, when I saw how many folks badmouthed the new Nikon 85 AFS from the first pictures. Seeing what they want to see. Now as more serious folks state their findings from working with that lens, those people have become very quiet.
Kind regards,
Bernd
Ilkka Nissilä
Senior Member
Just to add - I don't think the Zeiss lenses are "perfect" in any way; they have a different rendering which I like for some situations and subjects, whereas for some other situations I prefer Nikon's (in case there is a good Nikkor at that focal length).
My preferred wide angle focal length for people photography is 28mm. I have two 28/2's one from Nikon and one from Zeiss. The Nikkor is more gentle in its rendition but not sharp wide open, whereas the Zeiss is very sharp but its detail contrast tends to be a bit high for people photography so it must be used with care in backlit situations (where contrast can be especially high if soft flash light is not added). Of these 28's I prefer the Zeiss. However, there are situations where I need autofocus and so I got the 24/1.4 AF-S ... which is without question fabulous, but equally expensive. However, I would like to have something between 24mm and 50mm which is where the 35mm would fall in nicely. Unfortunately Nikon doesn't seem to care about their AF 35mm and 28mm lenses much; the currently available types have been optimized for low price and small size rather than image quality at wide apertures, and the 28/1.4 was never affordable; I do not want to take the risk of buying such an expensive lens second hand. I think the Zeiss 35/1.4 may be worth considering if Nikon's 35/1.4 AF-S doesn't materialize in 1-2 years. The f/2 model of the 35mm ZF is an excellent lens but has some vignetting wide open and as the light gets low, it makes sense to have a consistent f/1.4 set of primes instead of varying apertures between 24mm and 85mm.
I see the Nikon vs. Zeiss more a question of preferred "look" of the image - I think Nikon makes more general-purpose lenses whereas the Zeiss can be used to pull more detail in situations where Nikon has a weakness. At 24mm focal length Nikon has definitely made advancements; two primes (f/1.4 and f/3.5 PC-E) and two f/2.8 zooms, all of which are excellent. I was disappointed to see Nikon introduce the 85mm AF-S before a 35mm AF-S as the predecessor of the former lens (85/1.4D) is a great lens with no real issues to speak of, whereas in the moderate wide angle department Nikon has a weak spot. I do think Nikon should go all AF-S with their autofocus lenses, but the priority should be on the optically weakest lenses, not the best!
My preferred wide angle focal length for people photography is 28mm. I have two 28/2's one from Nikon and one from Zeiss. The Nikkor is more gentle in its rendition but not sharp wide open, whereas the Zeiss is very sharp but its detail contrast tends to be a bit high for people photography so it must be used with care in backlit situations (where contrast can be especially high if soft flash light is not added). Of these 28's I prefer the Zeiss. However, there are situations where I need autofocus and so I got the 24/1.4 AF-S ... which is without question fabulous, but equally expensive. However, I would like to have something between 24mm and 50mm which is where the 35mm would fall in nicely. Unfortunately Nikon doesn't seem to care about their AF 35mm and 28mm lenses much; the currently available types have been optimized for low price and small size rather than image quality at wide apertures, and the 28/1.4 was never affordable; I do not want to take the risk of buying such an expensive lens second hand. I think the Zeiss 35/1.4 may be worth considering if Nikon's 35/1.4 AF-S doesn't materialize in 1-2 years. The f/2 model of the 35mm ZF is an excellent lens but has some vignetting wide open and as the light gets low, it makes sense to have a consistent f/1.4 set of primes instead of varying apertures between 24mm and 85mm.
I see the Nikon vs. Zeiss more a question of preferred "look" of the image - I think Nikon makes more general-purpose lenses whereas the Zeiss can be used to pull more detail in situations where Nikon has a weakness. At 24mm focal length Nikon has definitely made advancements; two primes (f/1.4 and f/3.5 PC-E) and two f/2.8 zooms, all of which are excellent. I was disappointed to see Nikon introduce the 85mm AF-S before a 35mm AF-S as the predecessor of the former lens (85/1.4D) is a great lens with no real issues to speak of, whereas in the moderate wide angle department Nikon has a weak spot. I do think Nikon should go all AF-S with their autofocus lenses, but the priority should be on the optically weakest lenses, not the best!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum