Menu
What's new
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!

Fun With Sony Cameras

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barry Haines

Barry Haines

Active member
Vivek said:
Barry, Any idea on the true FL after the add on? Is it more like 40mm?
Click to expand...

Hi Vivek (+ anybody that maybe still interested in the 35mm Distagon saga), I had a bit of free time today so I took 3 snaps for you (sorry no works of art here) on a sturdy CF tripod so you could get some idea of the FL's / AoV's of these 2 different 35mm Distagon lenses.
You can download the Raws and SOOC jpgs here https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gybirtt96jf1kqm/AACo-ONtJoH-wj55AADZltFja?dl=0 (I shall leave them up for a week before removing them from dropbox).

1. ZM 35mm Distagon without the Opto Sigma add on....Raw and jpeg.
2. ZM 35mm Distagon with the Opto Sigma add on....Raw and jpeg.
3. Sony 35mm Distagon....Raw and jpeg.
Once downloaded either flick through the jpeg's with an image browser or place one image on top of another in layers, switching off one layer at a time will help you appreciate the differences between the AoV of these 3 images....The first thing you notice is that the Sony images are warmer than the ZM images.

My conclusion is that the Sony is definitely wider by a bit comparing it against the ZM images...If I had to guess I would say that the Sony is probably around about a 32mm FL lens, that's all assuming that the ZM 35mm Distagon is a true 35mm FL lens to start with.
If my memory serves me correct, my old 35mm F1.2 Voigtlander Nockton looked pretty similar in terms of AoV to my 16-35mm (obviously at the 35mm end that is) But the Sony 35mm Distagon was wider than both those two lenses by about the same margin as what the Sony is to the ZM...That was my logic that the ZM is a true 35mm FL lens (3 lenses against 1 if you will :) ).
The Zeiss ZM is hardly affected by the OS glass, just as I suspected and just as Craig said above me...the difference is pretty insignificant to my eyes but you can just about see one, it's nowhere near as much as a 40mm FL lens so I would say there's no reason for concern, I personally would still consider it a 35mm FL lens for what it's worth.

I hope that helps...Cheers Barry

__________________________

Nightlife along the Birmingham canal...Handheld A7RII + 55mm FE iso320




​

 
Last edited:
Barry Haines

Barry Haines

Active member
Just a very quick rough handheld test done over several minutes...The Zeiss ZM 35mm Distagon Vs. Sony FE 35mm Distagon both taken at F1.4
(I should have nailed the focus a bit better but as I say it was taken handheld and pretty close up...Anyway I hope it gives you some idea of the two background renderings of these 2 Distagon lenses)
Click on Enlarge for Full size SOOC jpegs on Flickr
Personally I prefer the colours of the Zeiss ZM it has more 3D colour pop to my eyes and a bit more structure in the background.




​





​

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top