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!
Corlan, missed you mon ami.Interesting dilemma, Rayyan.
One i'd never have.
I'll pick the black one.
Seriously, though i concur with many things said above, here's a couple of personal thoughts on the matter:
- focal length: it really depends on what you're shooting. For most people i'd naturally say "take the 35 or 28 if you'll be mostly shooting landscapes, 50 for portraits". A portrait with the 50:
But we're all well aware that you're a master of the ZF 35 for portraits (including sweet talking your way up close), so... the focal length wouldn't matter much here, for you.
While the 35mm will prove a more flexible FL, 2/50 is still an option for monuments when the extra elbowroom in composition is not needed. Couple examples:
- rendition: IMHO the two lens render somehow differently on the D700. I'd definitely take the 2/50 for a late summer/early fall trip in Alsace and/or Slovenia, for the subtle contrast and richer hues.
- i disagree with Don on the topic of ZF (sorry Don, just MHO) 1.4/50 vs. 2/50. A recurrent discussion on the board, but i'll stand my ground on this one: apart from the extra stop and maybe a tad faster focusing ring in favor of the 1.4, the 2/50 is superior in all ways. Geometry, CA, local contrast, color rendition... and in particular, bokeh.
Plus, bokeh is not only about rear OOF, and very few lenses have a nice "front bokeh". Here's an example:
Discussion on bokeh can be found here, with more examples:
Roger ("glenerrolrd") made a note saying that the transition from in focus to OOF zones were "quick". I guess it's a matter of personal taste, though after the discussion i kinda agree with him (not in a negative way). Bokeh is nice on all the ZF glasses, but the smoothness of the 2/50 is pretty much unmatched by anything out there in the 24-to-70mm range -except for some Middle Format, and maybe a couple of primes from Leica and one Canon, and then it's more a matter of taste.
As a conclusion, both ZF 2/35 and 2/50 are stellar.
In the end, if both are available, it's more of a choice between the obvious wider view of the former, and the slightly more puchy look and better geometry of the latter.
I'm personally used to carrying only the 2/50 as a one lens kit on the Nikon FF, but i know you do that a lot with the 35 with great results.
In the end, the "trip with one lens" exercise will be lotsa fun with either one of these. (insert smile)
P.S. i only posted D700+ZF 2/50 photos here (quickly picked from the existing board gallery for availability reasons), since they're more on point here. As said earlier, you're such a specialist of the 2/35 that you'll find every reference needed in your own stack! (insert another smile)
Oh by the way, depending on when you're travelling, at some point we might not be too far away from each other... maybe our paths will cross, who knows? (insert another smile) (limited to 10 images per post)
.
Zeiss don't make no 28mm ZF.Hmph. So do you have the 28 as well, Corlan?
I would love a "Zeiss Kit" for when I have the time to focus and the like. Beautiful!!
Corlan, Again the images you posted are awesome. beautiful front and back oof.Corlan, missed you mon ami.
The images are magnifique! The presentation super.:bugeyes:
I need time to let it all sink in. Shall comment later.
merci.:salute:
John, thanks for your input. Yes, I too am waiting for the new 24-120mm f/4.When I can get one, I suspect that the ‘one lens kit’ I use with my D700 will be the new 24-120 f4.0 zoom (I currently use the 24-70 f2.8 in this role).
Depending on my destination, I might also take the 16-35 f4.0 zoom - In tight situations I find myself using the 16mm end of this lens much more often than I expected now that it’s so easy to correct converging verticals in Photoshop.
If I want to be unobtrusive and can restrict myself to a fixed focal length I take my M9 with either a 35mm Summarit or a 50mm Nokton.
tjv, appreciate your suggestion/s. Difficult choice..no?The 24-70 is a great lens but it's way too big to be an all the time, carry around lens when travelling. The new 24-120 sounds great in this regard.
As for 35 or 50mm, I'd go the 35mm Zeiss. It's a great lens and when travelling I usually want to photograph wider street scenes, architecture and portraits. It's the best compromise all around, although I prefer shooting mainly with a 50mm day to day when home. Go figure...
Anyone had a taste yet?The new 24-120 sounds great in this regard.
Jorgen, Hi. No pal not this one!!Then there's this one:
The brand new 35mm f/1.4, ZF.2 as well as ZE. Don't know when it will be available though. Price around $2,000.
Anyone had a taste yet?
Rayyan: Take care of yourselves!!!!!! If it doesn't kill you, it just makes you stronger. Somebody used to yell that at me when i was 18. I thought it was a little over the top, so, take care.Thanks to all the folks that resdponded to my request.
I have been with my d700 and zf 50mm planar for the past 2.5 weeks on the road.
it has taken a fall in the mountains, but seems to be holding fine. Ayesha has starined her ligaments over the Eiger and I have shot my kneee and elbow having lost my way in bernese Oberland somewhere trekking a steep downhill in rain, fog and granite!
I had to leave the M8 in Zurich due to weight constraints.
My netbook packed up the first day. Having to do with cf cards.
Regards.