Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2

[drjlo]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Michael_pfh]

Just got mine. Takes very decent pics.

 

[Deleted member 42026]

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.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

DXO rates it a lot higher than the Canon 35mm L. Even though the Canon has higher resolution, lower distortion, and about the same viginetting. The 35mml does have more CA, but that is because its f/1.4.
Somehow, DXO seems to give CA a huge weight, unless you are looking at Nikon lenses with super high CA's and then it doesn't seem to count at all.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/342/(lens2)/797/(brand1)/Zeiss/(camera1)/483/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/483

 

[drjlo]

DXO rates it a lot higher than the Canon 35mm L. Even though the Canon has higher resolution, lower distortion, and about the same viginetting. The 35mml does have more CA, but that is because its f/1.4.
Somehow, DXO seems to give CA a huge weight, unless you are looking at Nikon lenses with super high CA's and then it doesn't seem to count at all.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/342/(lens2)/797/(brand1)/Zeiss/(camera1)/483/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/483

That is an odd conclusion by DXO even if you go by their own numbers. When I had Canon 35L, Canon 35 f/2, and Zeiss ZE 35 f/2, I personally thought the 35L gave the best IQ, not even considering its autofocus capability.

 

[AprilForever]

DXO is way lame...