Zeiss 2.8/35mm C + 2.8/25mm ZM Shots

Started Apr 20, 2011 | Discussions
Alupang
OP Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
Re: More please?

Uncropped--I'd like to see the whole image to determine to what extent the shift radiates out of the corners and spoils the image. Hard to see in just a crop.

It would be like me saying I have a problem with an ugly mole on my face. Then I showed you 100 percent crop of just the mole only. Could you determine if I really have a problem?

ZoranC Veteran Member • Posts: 5,569
Re: More please?

Alupang wrote:

Uncropped--I'd like to see the whole image to determine to what extent the shift radiates out of the corners and spoils the image. Hard to see in just a crop.

It would be like me saying I have a problem with an ugly mole on my face. Then I showed you 100 percent crop of just the mole only. Could you determine if I really have a problem?

Makes sense. But how are you going to find exact extent shift radiates out without shooting a surface that is light in colorl?

maxuci Contributing Member • Posts: 737
Re: More please?

I was initially swayed from the 35/2 by the report of bad vingetting when wide open here:
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/555-zeisszm35f2nex

The 35/2.8 doesnt seem to have this issue. Then i liked that the 35/2.8 was smaller and the sharpness and bokeh i've seen in samples has been A++.

sample gallery (on Nex):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minami/sets/72157624273277559/

ZoranC wrote:

headofdestiny wrote:

FWIW, the 35/2.8 has better bokeh than the 35/2, and is also a little sharper at f2.8.

Buddy, you know I am tempted with 35/2, have any samples that would sway me to 2.8?

ZoranC Veteran Member • Posts: 5,569
Re: More please?

Thank you! Hmmmm... Rats.

maxuci wrote:

I was initially swayed from the 35/2 by the report of bad vingetting when wide open here:
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/555-zeisszm35f2nex

The 35/2.8 doesnt seem to have this issue. Then i liked that the 35/2.8 was smaller and the sharpness and bokeh i've seen in samples has been A++.

sample gallery (on Nex):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minami/sets/72157624273277559/

ZoranC wrote:

headofdestiny wrote:

FWIW, the 35/2.8 has better bokeh than the 35/2, and is also a little sharper at f2.8.

Buddy, you know I am tempted with 35/2, have any samples that would sway me to 2.8?

Alupang
OP Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
Re: More please?

maxuci wrote:

I was initially swayed from the 35/2 by the report of bad vingetting when wide open here:
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/555-zeisszm35f2nex

The 35/2.8 doesnt seem to have this issue. Then i liked that the 35/2.8 was smaller and the sharpness and bokeh i've seen in samples has been A++.

That same site also shows the Zeiss 35/2 @f2 outperforming the Leica Summarit-M f2.5 50mm @f/2.5 in border resolution. I would be happy with any of these fine lenses so for me, it all boils down to size VS speed VS price. Is 1 stop worth the increase in size and weight and slightly higher price?

What's the price delta between Leica 35/2 & 35/2.5? The Zeiss 35/2 is a steal.

headofdestiny Veteran Member • Posts: 9,226
Re: More please?

Alupang wrote:

maxuci wrote:

I was initially swayed from the 35/2 by the report of bad vingetting when wide open here:
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/555-zeisszm35f2nex

The 35/2.8 doesnt seem to have this issue. Then i liked that the 35/2.8 was smaller and the sharpness and bokeh i've seen in samples has been A++.

That same site also shows the Zeiss 35/2 @f2 outperforming the Leica Summarit-M f2.5 50mm @f/2.5 in border resolution. I would be happy with any of these fine lenses so for me, it all boils down to size VS speed VS price. Is 1 stop worth the increase in size and weight and slightly higher price?

What's the price delta between Leica 35/2 & 35/2.5? The Zeiss 35/2 is a steal.

Another thing to consider is that, due to angle light rays interacting with a digital sensor, EV differences aren't usually linear when you get faster than f2.8 or so. ie, you may only get something like a .5 or .7 EV advantage with the f2 version over the f2.8. Of course, it just depends on the lens, so you'd need to test it out. If you're ok with Summicron 35 pre-asph performance, the Contax G 35 is another option (they're very similar in design and mtf.)

Alupang
OP Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
Re: More please?

ZoranC wrote:

Makes sense. But how are you going to find exact extent shift radiates out without shooting a surface that is light in colorl?

By looking at the real world shot you took uncropped.

Alupang
OP Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
Re: More please?

headofdestiny wrote:

Another thing to consider is that, due to angle light rays interacting with a digital sensor, EV differences aren't usually linear when you get faster than f2.8 or so. ie, you may only get something like a .5 or .7 EV advantage with the f2 version over the f2.8. Of course, it just depends on the lens, so you'd need to test it out. If you're ok with Summicron 35 pre-asph performance, the Contax G 35 is another option (they're very similar in design and mtf.)

For handheld low light candid shooting, even a half a stop is easily worth the $100-$200 difference between the 2.0 and 2.8 C--considering the Nex does not have IBIS. The Contax only has adapter focusing (wonder how smooth that feels) with no distance scale and dof markings.

It's a tough call here between the ZM 35 2.0 and 2.8 C. I chose the C 1st because I don't shoot handheld that often. But if I was more into that sort of thing, the 2.0 all the way.

headofdestiny Veteran Member • Posts: 9,226
Re: More please?

Alupang wrote:

headofdestiny wrote:

Another thing to consider is that, due to angle light rays interacting with a digital sensor, EV differences aren't usually linear when you get faster than f2.8 or so. ie, you may only get something like a .5 or .7 EV advantage with the f2 version over the f2.8. Of course, it just depends on the lens, so you'd need to test it out. If you're ok with Summicron 35 pre-asph performance, the Contax G 35 is another option (they're very similar in design and mtf.)

For handheld low light candid shooting, even a half a stop is easily worth the $100-$200 difference between the 2.0 and 2.8 C--considering the Nex does not have IBIS. The Contax only has adapter focusing (wonder how smooth that feels) with no distance scale and dof markings.

It's a tough call here between the ZM 35 2.0 and 2.8 C. I chose the C 1st because I don't shoot handheld that often. But if I was more into that sort of thing, the 2.0 all the way.

You might consider the Nokton 35/1.4 for candid, lowlight shooting. It isn't a great architecture/technical lens, but it is good for people shooting. Of course, the Nokton 35/1.2 is even better, if you can deal with the size. I'm not sure that the 1 stop difference between the two Biogons is worth owning both.

As long as you leave the Contax G 35 always attached to the adapter, you can mark distance scales onto the focus ring, after doing your own measuring. The focusing isn't super smooth, but it is usable.

I'm considering selling either my Contax G 35/2 or Nokton 35/1.4, because they aren't seeing a lot of use after I got the C-Biogon 35/2.8. Rather than carrying 2 35mm lenses around, I find myself just switching to my 50/1.5 if the light goes down.

Alupang
OP Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
Re: More please?

headofdestiny wrote:

I'm not sure that the 1 stop difference between the two Biogons is worth owning both.

Yes and I don't usually need a fast lens at all. I'll see how it goes once it get it in my hands soon enough. I may just flip it back on ebay for a small profit...or just leave it in the box and watch it appreciate in value. I sure as heck ain't selling my little C.

I find myself just switching to my 50/1.5 if the light goes down.

You own the Zeiss ZM 50/1.5? Nice. I'm considering buying one of those but they are so spendy even used. But 35=52.5mm is already past my upper bound of focal length needs so no. I need to cool it a bit--this Nex purchase has me reeling with possibilities and quite honestly, I'm "fine" with my ZM 25mm and 35mm C. I finding I really like the 37.5mm effective focal lengh. In film days, I used a Rollie LED with a 40mm (for fishing pics mostly) )and always thought it was a hair too long (and my 35mm was a hair too wide) for the perfect distortion-free "guy with a fish+environment behind him" fishing pics.

ZoranC Veteran Member • Posts: 5,569
Re: More please?

Alupang wrote:

ZoranC wrote:

Makes sense. But how are you going to find exact extent shift radiates out without shooting a surface that is light in colorl?

By looking at the real world shot you took uncropped.

You own the lens. Why not take find it out yourself?

Mike Fewster Veteran Member • Posts: 6,646
Re: Zeiss 2.8/35mm C + 2.8/25mm ZM Shots

Alupang wrote:

The M 8.2 is 1.33 crop though...that's significantly better than Nex 1.5 crop. But the camera has issues...and like I said I might buy one only if I could get a brand new one for under $2000. I'm assuming Leica ironed out M8's realibility issues with the M8.2?...didn't the M8 have shutter problems too? I read about M8 users sending their cameras in for repairs...

But I agree... skip it all and wait patiently for the M9 to come down to earth. Perhaps Canon or Nikon will pull their heads out and deliver something that blows everything away...who knows.

Until then, I'm really enjoying the Nex-3 and Zeiss glass. I will sell my 16mm on eBay reducing the cost of the Nex body to about $320...cheap fun.

Both the M* and M9 sure have "issues". I have a well heeled friend who has both these cameras. He gave up on the M8, got the M9 and then lost ot for several weeks back to Leica to have the sensor replaced. Mind you, some of the shots he got first looked great. But I'd have to agree that I don't think the electronics are up to the lenses.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

 Mike Fewster's gear list:Mike Fewster's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony Alpha a7R II
Alupang
OP Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
Re: More please?

ZoranC wrote:

You own the lens. Why not take find it out yourself?

That was my original point if you recall. That is, that I am unable to see color shift in any of my real world shots. All I see is a tack sharp high contrast image from center to edge at every aperture.

But I think I know the answer anyway...I've found a shot taken of a farm fence in blinding white snow/winter with the ZM25. The extreme lower left corner does show slight color shift but not nearly as bad as I've seen with other

Alupang
OP Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
ZM Biogon C 2.8/35

ZoranC Veteran Member • Posts: 5,569
Re: More please?

Alupang wrote:

ZoranC wrote:

You own the lens. Why not take find it out yourself?

That was my original point if you recall. That is, that I am unable to see color shift in any of my real world shots.

Interesting. What's your guess why is that, because your copy doesn't behave like ones from other owners do, because shots you take are taken in conditions that minimize it's visibility, or some other reason?

But I think I know the answer anyway...I've found a shot taken of a farm fence in blinding white snow/winter with the ZM25. The extreme lower left corner does show slight color shift but not nearly as bad as I've seen with other

How is this: Yes, you are right, ZM 25/2.8 doesn't have color shift, all owners that have reported it need to check in with you so you can tell them they don't know their lens.

Only extreme corner slight shift in blinding snow, huh? My shot was taken in shade, surface is obviously far from white, and it is obvious it is neither slight nor only extreme corner. But what do I know.

jtan_pdr Regular Member • Posts: 322
Re: Zeiss 2.8/35mm C + 2.8/25mm ZM Shots

nice shots!

Alupang
OP Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
Re: More please?

ZoranC wrote:

Interesting. What's your guess why is that, because your copy doesn't behave like ones from other owners do, because shots you take are taken in conditions that minimize it's visibility, or some other reason?

All my shots minimize "its" visibility because because I cannot find "it" in any of my shots. I posted a shot with a light sky with no color shift...but I was told the sky was overexposed. OK fine, here are 2 shots with the sky correctly exposed. Do you see color shife here? Look that the upper right corners in both shots. If my Zeiss ZM 25mm has corner color shift issues, don't you think it would show in those clouds?

Only extreme corner slight shift in blinding snow, huh? My shot was taken in shade, surface is obviously far from white, and it is obvious it is neither slight nor only extreme corner. But what do I know.

Where did I say "only"?? And why won't you post your uncropped real world shot?

Alupang
OP Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
Re: Zeiss 2.8/35mm C + 2.8/25mm ZM Shots

jtan_pdr wrote:

nice shots!

Thanks!

Alupang
OP Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
Re: ZM Biogon C 2.8/35

Hand held @ 1/13 sec. Looking down at the flip screen + Nex resting against body + 2 sec self timer=very steady. I love this camera--reminds me so much of my little Rollie 35, especially with the tiny Zeiss Biogon 35 C. Great results in a ultra small package!

Alupang
OP Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,884
Re: ZM Biogon C 2.8/35

Beach church..for Japanese tourist weddings.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads