October 20, 2014, 05:48:06 AM

Author Topic: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2  (Read 13778 times)

Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2012, 07:48:10 AM »
nice. I'm considering going for more Zeiss glass. It is not that nikon/canon glass isn't good, but Zeiss is in another league completely and I feel I'm getting my money's worth in optics instead of a ton of electronics and secondary crap from nikon/canon that just adds cost and things to break.

It depends a lot on the individual glass. Not all of them are so great, and even less actually are worth spending 2-3 times as much as for the competitors. It's really more a matter of having an exclusive lens than of a real optical need. It makes more sense to Canon users though than to Nikon's.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2012, 07:48:10 AM »

lonebear

  • Guest
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2012, 09:24:53 AM »
Quote
It depends a lot on the individual glass. Not all of them are so great, and even less actually are worth spending 2-3 times as much as for the competitors. It's really more a matter of having an exclusive lens than of a real optical need.

True, but 100F2 & 25F2 are really outstanding. IMO, 100F2 is the poor man's EF 200F2.

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4519
    • View Profile
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2012, 06:16:13 PM »
nice. I'm considering going for more Zeiss glass. It is not that nikon/canon glass isn't good, but Zeiss is in another league completely and I feel I'm getting my money's worth in optics instead of a ton of electronics and secondary crap from nikon/canon that just adds cost and things to break.

It depends a lot on the individual glass. Not all of them are so great, and even less actually are worth spending 2-3 times as much as for the competitors. It's really more a matter of having an exclusive lens than of a real optical need. It makes more sense to Canon users though than to Nikon's.

why does it make more sense to canon than nikon? canon has some outstanding glass
APS-H Fanboy

Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2012, 02:15:37 AM »
Quote
It depends a lot on the individual glass. Not all of them are so great, and even less actually are worth spending 2-3 times as much as for the competitors. It's really more a matter of having an exclusive lens than of a real optical need.

True, but 100F2 & 25F2 are really outstanding. IMO, 100F2 is the poor man's EF 200F2.

Ha! I really love the Zeiss 100mm f/2, but at a price point of 1600€ it's hard to find reasons to buy it. Canon 100mm f/2 and 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro are great lenses and you can buy both while still sparing 300€ over the Zeiss, not to mention the AF.
The same is true for non-Canon users. Consider that the Zeiss is only a 1:2 macro, so more a portrait lens than a true macro. Within this scope, 85 or 100mm makes a little difference, and the Nikon and Sigma alternatives in this range are quite good, AF-equipped and extremely cheaper.




why does it make more sense to canon than nikon? canon has some outstanding glass

Canon is unbeatable in the 100+mm range, below that, even L-lenses lose to the competition. Moreover, if you want at least focus confirmation on Canon you have to buy Zeiss, while on Nikon you can have it also with the much cheaper Samyang and Voigtländer lenses, just to mention a couple.

drjlo

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 641
    • View Profile
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2012, 05:47:59 PM »

Canon is unbeatable in the 100+mm range, below that, even L-lenses lose to the competition.

Hmm, let's not forget the 85 f/1.2L II, TS-E-17, T-SE-24 II.  No other company, Zeiss or not, has anything that touches these gems.   

Axilrod

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1375
    • View Profile
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2012, 07:40:54 PM »
Don't get me wrong folks, I love my Canon lenses but I shoot video 90% of the time and Zeiss glass is just plain better for video.  Now if I was shooting stills mainly I'd be hard pressed to give up the AF of my Canon lenses.  They both have their strong suits, but for my personal situation Zeiss is the better choice, and I'd recommend them over Canon glass for anyone that shoots video primarily.
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

jaduffy007

  • Guest
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2012, 08:13:13 PM »

Canon is unbeatable in the 100+mm range, below that, even L-lenses lose to the competition.

Hmm, let's not forget the 85 f/1.2L II, TS-E-17, T-SE-24 II.  No other company, Zeiss or not, has anything that touches these gems.

Well, I get you point, but the Zeiss 100 f2 is a higher performing IQ lens than the 85 f1.2 assuming we start at f2  :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2012, 08:13:13 PM »

jaduffy007

  • Guest
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2012, 08:17:01 PM »
I saw this review in dpreview and have been looking for a zeiss lens for video, hence my interest:

For the growing number of photographers and videographers using DSLR’s for movie making, the Distagon T* 2/35 ZE is one of four prime lenses making a core set, joining the Distagon T* 2/28 ZE, Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE and Planar T* 1.4/85 ZE. These lenses are well suited for HD video applications due not only to their exceptional image quality, but for the smooth focus and long focus rotations.

They absolutely are, after a year of shooting with L glass I used some Zeiss glass on the last shoot I did and I don't think I can go back to Canon for video now.  I got the 21, 50, and 100 but am going to pick up the 25 f/2, 35 f/2, and 85 1.4 once I sell my Canon glass. 

The throw on the focus ring is amazing and smooth as butter.  With the Canon glass, like the 135 f/2 for example, at larger apertures if you barely move the focus ring it will throw the subject out of focus, but the Zeiss gives you more room.  And they breathe a lot less which is always a plus.  Aside from that, the are built like bricks, the optics are just beautiful, and the color rendition is very accurate (required much less CC than Canon glass and the colors match better from lens to lens).

I hear you.  Zeiss build quality and MF quality is in another league.  Oh that IQ thing too. :)  The Zeiss 25 f2 is next up for me.

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4519
    • View Profile
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2012, 08:17:16 PM »

Canon is unbeatable in the 100+mm range, below that, even L-lenses lose to the competition.

Hmm, let's not forget the 85 f/1.2L II, TS-E-17, T-SE-24 II.  No other company, Zeiss or not, has anything that touches these gems.

Well, I get you point, but the Zeiss 100 f2 is a higher performing IQ lens than the 85 f1.2 assuming we start at f2  :)

I think it might have faster AF too! :P
APS-H Fanboy

lonebear

  • Guest
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2012, 11:24:25 PM »
TS-E 24 II is another gem, though MF too. I would like to pair TS-E 24 II and CZ 100f2 ZE with the coming 24-70 II, and use 70-200 IS II to cover longer ranger. This combination should be the supreme set for my need. Saving towards them.

drjlo

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 641
    • View Profile
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #40 on: June 14, 2012, 01:31:33 AM »

Canon is unbeatable in the 100+mm range, below that, even L-lenses lose to the competition.

Hmm, let's not forget the 85 f/1.2L II, TS-E-17, T-SE-24 II.  No other company, Zeiss or not, has anything that touches these gems.

Well, I get you point, but the Zeiss 100 f2 is a higher performing IQ lens than the 85 f1.2 assuming we start at f2  :)

Hah,  I can't remember the last time I went narrower than f/1.8 with 85L and mostly use it f/1.2 to f/1.8, so I can confidently say 85L wins over 100 f/2 in that range  ;D

Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #41 on: June 14, 2012, 04:41:31 AM »

Canon is unbeatable in the 100+mm range, below that, even L-lenses lose to the competition.

Hmm, let's not forget the 85 f/1.2L II, TS-E-17, T-SE-24 II.  No other company, Zeiss or not, has anything that touches these gems.

I cannot speak about the TS-E lenses because I never happened to use them.
Yes, the 85L is a great lens, BUT: Sigma's 85mm performs quite similarly, with high center performance and weaker edges on FF. As a protrait lens, this is only half a problem.
So again, as for the Zeiss, it's hard for me to find reasons to spend more than double as much for the Canon.

RGomezPhotos

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
    • Ricardo Gomez Photography
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2012, 05:59:39 AM »
You really can't compare the Zeiss and Canon L glass.  They really have two different personalities.  I'm a fashion photographer and Zeiss is the only way to go in my opinion.  But for weddings, I really like the look of Canon L glass.  Zeiss is like a super-model.  The Canon L glass is like the beautiful girl-next-door.  The Canon L is more forgiving than the Zeiss and will make more people look good.  But when you have a spectacular person in front of the Zeiss, nothing can touch it.
EOS 5D MKII & 50D, Zeiss 50mm f1.4
www.ricardogomezphotography.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2012, 05:59:39 AM »

Michael_pfh

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2012, 09:22:00 AM »
Just got mine. Takes very decent pics. :)
1DX | 14 2.8L II | 16-35 2.8L II | 24 1.4L II | 24-70 2.8L II | ZE 35 2.0 | ZE 50 2.0 | 85 1.2L II | 100 2.8L IS | 135 2.0L | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 200 F2.0L IS | 300 2.8L IS II | 400 2.8L IS II | 500 4.0L IS

Danielle

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2012, 03:50:32 PM »
Found this thread again.

I did end up purchasing the distagon 2/35, I adore it. I'm so glad I didn't get swayed in the direction of the 35L. Personally speaking here, the optics are stellar. Yes I've used L glass before, this to my work and my way of shooting is superb. The subtle aesthetic difference between this and the best canons are different and I personally made the best choice for myself. Good price too considering I didn't buy a grey.

Now I'm in a pickle, the 2/100 macro is definitely expensive and I'm hooked. Lol. Nobody has to tell me the macro is superb. ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2012, 03:50:32 PM »