Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2

[Albi86]

I tried a 35mm f2 zeiss recently at a digital expo. I have to get one now after putting the files into lightroom to have a decent look. I don't do video but the out of focus areas are so silky smooth, even on my 1.6x crop 7D. I don't 'need' af all the time, so it would be perfect. And as mentioned above, the focus ring is amazing to use. However its the optic I care about more.

Wish the f1.4 version wasn't massively more expensive!

Silky smooth?
Except for the Makro Planar, Zeiss lenses are known to have very nervous bokeh. Zeiss users claim it to be one distinctive trait of their lenses to have a bokeh "with some personality". You can see it quite clearly in the photos posted by itsnotmeyouknow.
There are plenty of reasons to want a Zeiss lens, but smooth bokeh leaves me quite puzzled.
By the way the Planar 50mm f/1.4 is about 725$/600€.

 

[Danielle]

Well ok, now that there's some photo's up, yes I can see it. I think that's pretty nice though in general. I personally would not classify it as nervous bokeh, to me that bokeh is quite beautiful.

The bokeh is only one reason I think I want one, now that I've looked its also cheaper than the 35mm L canon so that's another plus. I don't know, different people, different things. That bokeh to me is nice. Plus the shots I took were also pretty razor sharp too, another even more critical area to me.

 

[Albi86]

Well ok, now that there's some photo's up, yes I can see it. I think that's pretty nice though in general. I personally would not classify it as nervous bokeh, to me that bokeh is quite beautiful.

The bokeh is only one reason I think I want one, now that I've looked its also cheaper than the 35mm L canon so that's another plus. I don't know, different people, different things. That bokeh to me is nice. Plus the shots I took were also pretty razor sharp too, another even more critical area to me.

The Samyang 35mm f/1.4 is another extremely good and cheap alternative
Bokeh is of course a matter of taste. Being nervous doesn't mean being bad
But I prefer the more buttery one from the 50 and 100mm makro planar

 

[peederj]

INMYK is my favorite poster here. :-*

 

[wickidwombat]

I have been trying to decide between the zeiss 1.4 and the canon 1.4L i think this thread confirmed I will go for the canon L that nervous bokeh will probably get on my nerves a bit

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

I have been trying to decide between the zeiss 1.4 and the canon 1.4L i think this thread confirmed I will go for the canon L that nervous bokeh will probably get on my nerves a bit

Will it make you nervous? (sorry the play on words was too tempting). I'm not too bothered about the bokeh personally as I don't get the obsession with shooting wide open. It's like constantly driving a ferrari at top speed - it won't perform at it's best or make the nicest of noises. Bokeh is really for telephoto lenses in my view, as using side angles for portraits is rarely flattering and using narrow depth of field is rarely useful in wide angle shooting. YMMV of course, but that's my view. I only shot at f/2 because someone asked me. In normal use the aperture rarely gets wider than f/5.6. It always makes me cringe inside when someone proudly says on a forum's gallery: "all shot wide open" as if it's a badge of honour.

The 35 f/2 CZ is a lovely lens with a great feel and weight. I'd rather have it than the 35L. (And bokeh is overrated and overrused). I'd rather see a sharp subject using the lens's strengths, of which it has many. It spends much of its time on my 5D3 (much like any new toy) and stays generally between f/8 and f/11. Diffraction? At these apertures you'd have to be pixel peeping. Pixel peeping is the curse of the digital age and should be avoided. One doesn't look at the Mona Lisa at brush stroke level, why should a photo be any different.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

INMYK is my favorite poster here. :-*

Why, thank you. Not sure what I've done to receive that honour, but thanks anyway

 

[wickidwombat]

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=847.0

I dunno but the bokeh on these samples is much more pleasing to me, added bonus of AF on the L

even though wide open the zeiss looks sharper in these comparisons
http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-35mm-f-1.4-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

not to mention they are such awesome looking lenses with epic build quality.

since i have the 16-35 f2.8L II i am chasing the fast 35 specifically for low light shooting where i'll be chasing wide open to grab max available light, 35 f1.4 on one body and siggy 85 f1.4 on the other
so bokeh is very important for my desired uses for the fast 35.

if shooting stopped down i'll probably stay with the 16-35 for the flexability of focal range

 

[westr70]

I dunno but the even though wide open the zeiss looks sharper in these comparisons
http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-35mm-f-1.4-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

Looking back towards where I had come from, I liked the line of the path and the two trees:

You call those things trees? ;D Your little valley is wonderful. What a great place to hike.

Thanks Wickidwombat for the link to the Zeiss lens. That is appreciated and will be helpful for decisions.

 

[psolberg]

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.

 

[Albi86]

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.

 

[lonebear]

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]

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

 

[Albi86]

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]

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]

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.

 

[jaduffy007]

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

 

[jaduffy007]

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 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!

 

[lonebear]

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.