The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Now we're talking. Announced FE mounts

I’m pretty surprised at the lack of interest here in the newly announced and newly designed for FF digital sensors – The 35mm F1.4 Zeiss Distagon in ZM mount
I'd say the ZM is likely (but not certain) to suffer the same problem as most other wide-angles designed for rangefinders - smearing on the edges on the a7 (and other full-frame sensors). I had a bag full of Leica wides, which I had hoped to use with the a7R, but most were deeply disappointing (except the WATE). Sold them all.
 

Barry Haines

Active member
I would say the CV35/1.2 vII was designed with digital in mind, so much so that it actually focuses closer the RF focusing system can go so that to be able focus accurately closeup you need a digital camera with an LCD/EVF. Yes it is low contrast wide open but stop it down a bit and it really begins to shine with very good micro-detail and contrast
A nice thought but I would say not optically.
The CV35/f1.2 Mk1 predated the Leica M8 (First digital M mount camera) by a number of years if I remember correctly.
The Mk2 came later only because Voigtlander claimed that the Mk1 was to costly to manufacture.
The optical design number of elements and grouping are the same formula for both the Mk1 and Mk2 with the exception of improved glass.
https://www.cameraquest.com/voigt3512.htm
I don't disagree that the Mk2 focuses closer at 0.5m but that is exactly what the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder film camera focused down to.
 

Barry Haines

Active member
I'd say the ZM is likely (but not certain) to suffer the same problem as most other wide-angles designed for rangefinders - smearing on the edges on the a7 (and other full-frame sensors). I had a bag full of Leica wides, which I had hoped to use with the a7R, but most were deeply disappointing (except the WATE). Sold them all.
As I said earlier Mike this is a whole new design ZM lens that has been designed with digital sensors in mind and not film only.
So B&H says "Optimized for Digital Sensors"... Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon T* ZM Lens for M-Mount (Black)
It maybe OK only on a Leica M and absolutely useless on a A7R we will have to wait and see just how compatible it is...I was caught out with a 25mm and 35mm ZM Biogon/s - I really don't want a repeat episode...Cheers Barry
 

turtle

New member
I'm sure the new ZM will be a cracker and my previous comment was not intended to rain on anyone's parade, but to suggest a possible explanation for the lack of discussion on this lens. Its kinda caught between the CV 35 f1.2 II and the Leica 35mm FLE. It may turn out to be the best of the bunch in some respects, but people already have options.

I would say the relatively lacklustre reception of the 35 and 50mm Loxia lenses has the same explanation: we have 35mm and 55mm FE lenses already and both are strong performers. Had Zeiss released 18, 21 and 25mm Loxias, it would have been very different!

I too will be interested to see how the new ZM performs on the Sony FE cameras.
 

tn1krr

New member
I would say the relatively lacklustre reception of the 35 and 50mm Loxia lenses has the same explanation: we have 35mm and 55mm FE lenses already and both are strong performers. Had Zeiss released 18, 21 and 25mm Loxias, it would have been very different!
The Loxia focal lengths are even more surprising now that the FE 35/1.4 was announced too. We have three 35 mm primes from companies supposedly working close together but no prime below 28 mm (I'm not counting the 28 + converters as such, they may be ok, but I'm a A7R using pixel peeper) or 85/135 even on horizon for 2015. I love true manual focus Zeisses and had the Makro Planar 50 before my FE 55/1.8 but since I now have both FE 55/1.8 and FE 35/2.8 I'm not interested in 1st Loxias at all. If one of them was <= 24 mm I already would have preordered.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
The Loxia focal lengths are even more surprising now that the FE 35/1.4 was announced too. We have three 35 mm primes from companies supposedly working close together but no prime below 28 mm (I'm not counting the 28 + converters as such, they may be ok, but I'm a A7R using pixel peeper) or 85/135 even on horizon for 2015. I love true manual focus Zeisses and had the Makro Planar 50 before my FE 55/1.8 but since I now have both FE 55/1.8 and FE 35/2.8 I'm not interested in 1st Loxias at all. If one of them was <= 24 mm I already would have preordered.
I'm in the fence between the 35/1.4 and the Loxia 35/2 myself. What I do know is that my 35/2.8 is about to be gone. I just never loved it although I think it's competent.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
And you actually list that as a con? :facesmack: Please tell me how many shots _in real life_ one can take with single Nikon's DSLR battery and what is weight and cost of that battery. Then tell me how many Sony A7R batteries does it take in real life to take same number of shots and what is combined weight and cost of them. (never mind that those "10 seconds" to do battery swap mean missed shots for some of us)
Everyone would like the little A7 battery to last longer. Maybe a better one will come along.

However, in the meantime all it takes is a bit of anticipation to choose when to swap it out. If one waits until it is depleted while shooting something important, then they deserve to miss those shots ;)

In fact, they are lucky they didn't have to work in the film era where you had to swap film canisters every 36 exposures:rolleyes:

- Marc
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Back in the day I had an old Kodak 110 and a Vivitar 35mm cameras that my parents got me and my sister for Christmas... Never knew it would lead to this borderline expensive hobby.
 

dandrewk

New member
Apparently the Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 is larger than the 16-35 f/4. I do not believe Sony is on the right track.

Photos here Hands-On: Sony 16-35 and QX1, Zeiss Loxia Lenses and More - Admiring Light

Check FM forums for size description by Jman aka admiring light.
Given how we don't have the actual specs from the production version Sony 35 f/1.4, and only have photographs and a small handful of observer impressions, isn't it a bit premature to assume Sony is on the right/wrong track?

As it stands though, the Sony 16-35 is 2 ounces lighter and 1/2 inch shorter than the Canon 35mm f/1.4.
 

sven

New member
Given how we don't have the actual specs from the production version Sony 35 f/1.4, and only have photographs and a small handful of observer impressions, isn't it a bit premature to assume Sony is on the right/wrong track?

As it stands though, the Sony 16-35 is 2 ounces lighter and 1/2 inch shorter than the Canon 35mm f/1.4.
I am not sure about the source of your info but the Sony 16-35 is a bit longer but same width as the Canon 35 1.4 L. This is from Canon USA and BHphoto (sony does not list this lens). If the Sony 35mm is larger than 16-35 then it should be larger than both Canon and Nikon counterparts. This negates the mirrorless advantage in size. Also consider ergonomics, mounting a huge heavy lens on a small camera....well let's hope I am wrong.
 

turtle

New member
Sony may be smarter than we are giving them credit.

When they launched the A7 and A7R, they expected the A7 to heavily outsell the A7R, as most people dont need 36 MP, but the sales figures were the opposite: the A7R heavily outsold the A7.

The A7R is the cheapest way to get your hands on 36 MP and you can put lots of old lenses on it. Is everyone really buying the A7R because they want a small camera or because they want 36MP, lots of lens options and a low price? If the latter, then some large lenses that realise that resolution is quite sensible. Its not what I want, but I wonder if they have realised how 'megapixel and resolution' obsessed the market actually is.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Mostly bought it to replace my Nikon D800e so squarely it was a 36mpx decision plus focus peaking, live view than size. But the A7r was my answer for sure. I actually sold the A7 and looking back at it having the A77II to replace it was a good decision. But I use the A77II for very specific speed reasons both AF and fast shooting. I dedicated a Sigma 18-35 1.8 to it and use my 85 and 135 A mounts for it as well. The A7r is actually harder to buy lenses for in a way. I'm looking for more look and functionality, speed is not a issue. I have the Canon 17 TSE that I love but after that I'm still in limbo. I have A Sigma 35 Art 1.4 that I'm going to sell and either get the 16-35 or new Zeiss 35f2. I'm leaning towards the zoom but I still want the 24TSE to add to things. On the 50 front not sure what the hell I want. The 55 1.8 is awesome but it has no real look to it, so I may get the new Zeiss 50mm. My big issue right now is money with a grandson coming in a few weeks than putting on a wedding for my daughter it's just a little hard to spend money on gear. These are 2 lifetime events that I may not be around for later down the road. So I'm thinking the 16-35 solves a few issues and covers a range for me. I actually preordered the 16-35 now just need to sell the 35 and raise some more cash.

Honestly anything under the 85 weight and size are really not the biggest issue except the Sigma 35 its a truck. But it's the 85 and mostly the 135 as good as they are they are big.
 
Top