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!

FF 35mm options

S

Simon M.

New member
Hey All,

Based on the recommendations of some members and a review of the images I took from a recent trip (I'll post some once I'm done processing) I'm in the market for a 35mm prime. My immediate reaction was to get my hands on a Zeiss 35/2; but Edward has shown the 35/1.4 G to be a very good performer, the minolta 35/2 also has a stellar reputation, then there is the voigtlander 40/2 that could be considered.

So I'm curious if there are other options. The requirements are that it be ~35mm, F2 or faster, be sharp and contrasty (center at all apertures, corner to corner by F5.6), have smooth out of focus transitions, reasonable close focus, and well controlled field curvature. I'm fine with manually stopping down the lens and manual focus (obviously as I'm considering the Zeiss).

Thanks for all/any feedback and suggestions.
 
Last edited:
J

jcoffin

Guest
Let me put in a vote for the Minolta/Sony 35/1.4. One thing that may not be obvious (especially from the focal length) is that it's really a portrait lens:



It also pairs really nicely with the 85/1.4G (the Minolta, not the newer Zeiss), so pictures taken with the two have extremely similar characters. Here's a comparison shot with the 85/1.4:



Please forgive the mediocre pictures -- I was looking for something with some skin tones *and* fine detail that I'd shot at f/1.4 to give an idea of the lens, not something that was necessarily a great shot otherwise.

(Both taken at ISO 320, f/1.4 -- on an A700, but the look doesn't change dramatically on an A850/900).

I'd note for the record that while the 35/2 Minolta does enjoy a good reputation, it's mostly really good on APS-C -- on full frame, I think the 1.4 does better.
 
Last edited:
T

thePiRaTE!!

New member
As Jim mentioned, with a mount change courtesy of www.leitax.com your options really increase. You can consider anything from older Nikkors 35/1.4 for a few hundred, the Contax Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon and as mentioned the Leica R glass. I used the Contax on an A900 for a year and while I really found it a nice match, I was lured to sell a number of lenses to afford another. Doing a search on Flickr for any of these lenses will bring up a lot of good evidence to support each argument.

K.
 
Jonathon Delacour

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
thePiRaTE!! said:
As Jim mentioned, with a mount change courtesy of www.leitax.com your options really increase. You can consider anything from older Nikkors 35/1.4 for a few hundred, the Contax Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon and as mentioned the Leica R glass. I used the Contax on an A900 for a year and while I really found it a nice match, I was lured to sell a number of lenses to afford another. Doing a search on Flickr for any of these lenses will bring up a lot of good evidence to support each argument.

K.
Click to expand...
The Contax Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon is magic (as is the Summilux-R 35/1.4). I'm using my 35/1.4 Distagon on a Canon 1Ds2 and it's perhaps my favorite lens of all time. I'm sorely tempted to switch to the Sony A900 + Leitax option (which would allow me to use all my Contax C/Y and Leica R lenses) but I'm holding out for more information on the A900 replacement. The 35/1.4 Distagon is priced between the Nikkors and the Summilux-R and represents (IMO) the best value for money.
 
edwardkaraa

edwardkaraa

New member
Simon M. said:
Hey All,

Based on the recommendations of some members and a review of the images I took from a recent trip (I'll post some once I'm done processing) I'm in the market for a 35mm prime. My immediate reaction was to get my hands on a Zeiss 35/2; but Edward has shown the 35/1.4 G to be a very good performer, the minolta 35/2 also has a stellar reputation, then there is the voigtlander 40/2 that could be considered.
Click to expand...
Hi Simon,

I sold my ZS 35/2 a couple of weeks ago. The 35G is that good. It is not without problems though, so don't buy it on my recommendation only :D

Recent shots at f/2 and f/4:

View attachment 42090

View attachment 42091
 
Last edited:
pegelli

pegelli

Well-known member
I'm also becoming more of a prime shooter, wouldn't want to sell my zooms but there's more and more days I just go out with 2 or 3 primes.
I've got mainly old Minoltas (24/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2.8 macro and 200/2.8) and recently added a 2nd hand CZ135/1.8.
In contemplating the 35 mm question I will probably start looking for an old Minolta 35/2.0, but that's because it fits very well with the rest of my line-up, but they're very rare and don't come up for sale often.
So in the meantime I make do with an old Helios 35/2.8 M42 with a chipped adapter, which considering the price I paid for it (~ 10 €) is not bad at all:







Extreme corners are a bit mushy, but that's my only complaint sofar.
 
douglasf13

douglasf13

New member
If you can stretch it to f2.4, the Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4 is another great lens to consider that is very affordable. It has a nice minimum focus distance and is m42 mount.
 
edwardkaraa

edwardkaraa

New member
LoSenior said:
Edward, Could you share with us some of your impressions about the Sony 35G. I'm looking for a 35 and am considering the SA35G or should i wait for the ZA 35.
Thanks, Jerry
Click to expand...
Hi Jerry,

Well, we have no information about an upcoming ZA 35, so I'm afraid there is a chance you may have to wait indefinitely :)

The 35G is a very fine lens, but as I mentioned, it is not without problems.

The most obvious problem is that it is prone to CA in high contrast situations especially backlighting. It also has field curvature that affects zone B, but this is only visible at real infinity, and somewhat medium to large apertures. From f/5.6 it is barely noticeable at infinity and completely gone for distant subjects that are not strictly at infinity, say from 50m down. There is some veiling haze wide open but much less than equivalent lenses. Micro-contrast is visibly lower than the Zeiss 35/2 that I compared it to, but this is not exactly a problem because the resolution is very high indeed.

These were the problems, but now to the qualities.

The 35G has a beautiful drawing style. The micro-contrast is not high as mentioned, which makes it suitable for portraits. The bokeh is very very nice, both in the foreground and background. It is very sharp even wide open as long as the focusing is correct. It even has the sharpest corners of any wide angle I have ever used. For landscapes it has to be stopped down to f/5.6 to f/8 but the results are excellent. I also have noticed a pronounced 3D rendering in many of the photos. Sizewise it is very compact (55mm filter size)and reasonably light (it is much heavier than it looks though, thanks to an all metal construction).

So basically I'm very happy with this lens, because it does it all. It is as good for portraits at close distance and wide apertures, as it is for landscapes stopped down.
 
L

LoSenior

New member
Hi Edward,

Thanks for the detailed information. I find your views and experiences very helpful.
I agree that the ZA35 is in the future and 35G is here now. No real need to wait.

Thanks, Jerry
 
edwardkaraa

edwardkaraa

New member
Hi Jerry,

Thanks for your kind words.

Despite my enthusiasm for this lens, I would still recommend that you try it at a Sony showroom before you committ, as there seem to be a whole lot of people who don't like it, even though I suspect the main reason being the price more than anything else.

There are some good reviews on Dyxum though.

Cheers,
Edward
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top