August 21, 2014, 08:10:14 AM

Author Topic: 35L vs Zeiss 35 f 2  (Read 4183 times)

LFG530

  • Guest
35L vs Zeiss 35 f 2
« on: May 22, 2011, 10:30:06 AM »
(That might be a frequent question on the forum and if it's the case... sorry.)

I presently have too much money to support not buying anything form much more time now. I want a 35 prime and it comes down to these two.

I know the autofocus would come in handy if I had it but I plan on changing the focusing screen on my future 5d so that would help. Do you guys think the image quality and the "zeiss feeling, 3d, colors, whatever" is really worth it (samples of both lens (unprocessed) would be welcome)? I'd also save a little money with the zeiss and might buy the 24L in the long term...

I do plan on shooting weddings in the future, because otherwise I'd go for the zeiss with no hesitation since I mainly do photography as art for myself (or sports, but I won't use wide primes for that).

canon rumors FORUM

35L vs Zeiss 35 f 2
« on: May 22, 2011, 10:30:06 AM »

Flake

  • Guest
Re: 35L vs Zeiss 35 f 2
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2011, 11:42:23 AM »
My future 5D ?  Does that mean the MkI II or the future MkIII ?  If it's the MkIII you're not likely to get the option to change the focus screen!

So what camera do you currently have, and why do you need the fast prime lens?

The question comes across as a bit of gear headed money burning a hole!

Given that print professionals cannot tell the difference between a G9 and a Hasselblad with a phase one back, who do you think is ever going to notice?  In fact providing you're not using the fast apertures, and testing around f/5.6 no one would be able to pick out one lens from another in a blind test !

You want to use this lens for weddings, I'm not sure a 35mm is the best focal length for that, but you don't indicate which other lenses you own, f/2 is not particularly fast, the canon is an f/1.4, lack of autfocus will mean you will miss far more candid moments than you capture, and that's about the only reason you'd want a fast prime.  More formal shots should be made with flash / strobe lighting which you can control, and even outside it helps.  You should perhaps be considering the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 L and a 70 - 200mm f/2.8 L plus some decent lighting.

Even if you use speedlites a set of three plus remote trigger light stands and modifiers will cost as much as a decent lens, but it'll make much more of a difference if you learn how to use it properly!  Photographers like Annie Liebovitch are known for the quality of their lighting technique, and not the quality of the lenses they use!

(That & the fact she's nearly bankrupted herself!)

LFG530

  • Guest
Re: 35L vs Zeiss 35 f 2
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2011, 04:26:05 PM »
(I will get a 24-70 and have a 70-200 and I know how to shoot events so that's not the point :P) I know what I want and why I need it, the question is really focused on the comparaison on these two (and a 35 gets awesome wedding shots (well balanced between wide and normal) just look at the article on CR on the wedding photographers). And yes It would be a mark III and I hope you're wrong :) (otherwise it's always possible with Katzeye). And btw lightning is an artistic decision and I respect people who shoot whit a lot of strobes, but I like having the simplest setup possible and focus on other stuff.

My priority when buying a lens is really the image quality I'll get and I do notice the difference so these "print professionals" can go to hell.

Oh and I will shoot wide open half the time (with the 1.4 more like 25% of the time).
« Last Edit: May 22, 2011, 04:28:40 PM by LFG530 »

CR Backup Admin

  • Administrator
  • 1D Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
    • View Profile
Re: 35L vs Zeiss 35 f 2
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2011, 05:24:20 PM »
There is little question that at F2, the Zeiss is technically a better lens than the 35mm L, which is already excellent.
 
  http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/zeiss-ze-35mm-f2-for-canon

So the remaining questions are 1. Do you need f/1.4, and 2.  Can you autofocus accurately using a viewfinder in low light.  Pretty much all of the alternative focus screens darken the image, and low light becomes even more of a issue, so you will have difficulty in low light with manual focus.   

I'm not good at manual focus even with my 1D MK III, so I do better with autofocus, but will use manual focus when I see a big advantage.  for me, this means tripod, live view and rear LCD or tethered monitor.

If you are in the USA, you can rent it, and then apply the rental fee toward the purchase price.

te4o

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
    • View Profile
Re: 35L vs Zeiss 35 f 2
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2011, 06:42:59 PM »
LFG,
after a 4 months web-comparisons I ordered the new Zeiss 35/1.4:
the f2 is still the more favoured lens by the current owners (like any new edition, people initially like the old one more), but the 1.4 is faster, is much better at 2 than the old one, gives you good portraiture features with its forward bent curvature of field (groups) and not that merciless face sharpness of the other Zeiss line up.
Size is in issue, I don't have it yet, but users are different.
A focusing screen is of GREAT help, I really hope the next 5D will have that easy option. The 7D which doesn't have interchangeable screens seems to be really AF & FPS-oriented, rarely one thinks of using MF there...

Look here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/987333/0
and here for some samples:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/315 - and some of the previous&following pages give you a description.
Cheers
5D3 (04/12), Carl Zeiss ZE 21, 35/1.4, 50MP, 100MP
Canon 135/2, Sigma 85/1.4
SONY RX100

LFG530

  • Guest
Re: 35L vs Zeiss 35 f 2
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2011, 07:16:54 PM »
LFG,
after a 4 months web-comparisons I ordered the new Zeiss 35/1.4:
the f2 is still the more favoured lens by the current owners (like any new edition, people initially like the old one more), but the 1.4 is faster, is much better at 2 than the old one, gives you good portraiture features with its forward bent curvature of field (groups) and not that merciless face sharpness of the other Zeiss line up.
Size is in issue, I don't have it yet, but users are different.
A focusing screen is of GREAT help, I really hope the next 5D will have that easy option. The 7D which doesn't have interchangeable screens seems to be really AF & FPS-oriented, rarely one thinks of using MF there...

Look here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/987333/0
and here for some samples:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/315 - and some of the previous&following pages give you a description.
Cheers


Yep, seems like a great lens too (changing the subject: I LOVE the rendition of the 35 rollei shown in the fm forum 0_0 )

I can't justify to cough up that kind of money if it won't be of great help for professional use (I know I'll use this prime mainly on a tripod or for street photography) since it doesn't have autofocus and is a prime, oh and yes the size and weight are factors that makes me lean towards the f2 to stay unnoticed on the streets (the red ring or fat lenses drag attention).

(I'f only I had the money for a m9 and a 35 summilux :'(. )
« Last Edit: May 22, 2011, 09:06:10 PM by LFG530 »

infilm

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Canon 7D gripped - 5D2 gripped - 16-35 f2.8l - 24-70 f2.8l - 70-200 f.2.8 IS l - 35 f1.4l - 50 f1.2l - 85 f1.2 l - 135 f2 l - 300 f4 l Tokina 10-17 Fisheye - 580EX II - And not much drive space left on my computer...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 35L vs Zeiss 35 f 2
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2011, 03:29:41 PM »