New Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM

Nice lens but at $2290 I'll be muddling through with my 35/2 ZM for now....

http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=5459

Lots of pictures, details and specs about the Zeiss Distagon T* 1,4/35 ZM lens.

Radically different in design than the old SLR lens. The MTF curve and distortion curves look better than the SLR lens also.

I swear on my Nikon Df that I thought some time ago at a wide angle lens with a concave first surface.

I’m just wondering a little why they design a retrofocus 35mm lens for the m-mount. There is plenty of space as the Biogon lenses show.

chrisaisenbrey said:

I’m just wondering a little why they design a retrofocus 35mm lens for the m-mount. There is plenty of space as the Biogon lenses show.

Click to expand...

Retrofocus designs work better on digital cameras.

The only thing I don't care for is the 49mm filter thread. Ugh. Would've much rather preferred a 46mm. Oh well.

Hmmm, for that price the CV Nokton Classic looks all the more appealing. And the size too.
It's not as huge as the Canon L, Sigma, or RokiBowYang 35/1.4 retrofocus lenses, but still a lot bigger than the CV and not exactly 'Barnack' style anymore (but what is these days?)

Definitely weird with the concave front and rear elements, but those Zeiss guys must know what they're doing.

They do love bringing out the Retrofocus Distagons a lot these days, the 55/1.4 Otus is also Retro, compared to most 'normals' which are more in the planar/heliar/tessar styles.

Dr Croubie said:

Hmmm, for that price the CV Nokton Classic looks all the more appealing.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, not for me. My 35/2 Zeiss Biogon (corrected I said Distagon by mistake earlier) ZM is the best 35mm lens I've ever shot. Love it's character. Tried a few VC lenses in this length a few years ago and while sharp and capable they lacked character to me and were just nothing special. I felt the same about the 35/2 Planar for my Contax G2 and sold that off so it's not some hatred of VC lenses. I have the 75/2.5 VC and really like that one for example. Now I know that's a very subjective opinion but that's that. I'll shoot a 10-15 rolls of B&W with a lens over a year or so and unless something really special comes from it I'll sell it off and move on. Cannot describe what it is I like in character of a lens but I know it when I see it. Nuts I know but it's fun. One day I'll settle down on a set of lenses but too much good times experimenting and shooting in the mean time...

As mentioned at this price point I'll never own this lens but would sure like to. That said my early and ugly 35/1.4 Nikkor-N I got from KEH at a nice price now mounted on my F2 is another great lens so maybe I'll live with that for a fast 35 even though it's not a a RF lens...

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:

My 35/2 Zeiss Distagon ZM is the best 35mm lens I've ever shot.

Click to expand...

You mean the 35/2 Biogon? Or is there a Distagon I don't know about?
Still, we're comparing a $400 lens to a $1000 lens to a $2300 lens. Everyone has their price point, and you can probably guess where mine's at. Also goes on usage, I'm using my RF a lot more with Delta 3200 indoors, so absolute sharpness isn't as important as speed for me (at this time).
For absolute sharpness I'm shooting my Samyang 35/1.4 on my EOS 3 at f/5.6 with APX25. Sure is heavy though. Horses for courses.

Interestingly, I've also seen that Cosina Voigtlander have also just announced a new 35/1.7 Ultron. Guess what? Same concave front element. I'm sure the fact that they're made in the same factory (allegedly) has nothing to do with it, they must just both have simultansously and independently discovered that a concave front 35mm RF lens is a good thing...

Speaking of new RF lenses, there's also a new CV 40/2.8 Heliar, it looks so small that there's not even a distance tab, there's barely a focus and aperture ring sticking out of the body. Now that is what good old Ken would say is 'in the spirit of Barnack'. (I'm not selling my 40/1.4 Nokton though).

I held off on any major camera gear purchases the last year. I have a ZM 35/2 which I adore. I do a fair amount of lower light shooting and usually take it and a fast 50 out. I was thinking a ZM 35/1.4 could replace the pair. After finally seeing their offering, I think I'll stick with what I have. The physical size of the 35/2 is great and the I love the very low distortion. It isn't worth the additional speed to upgrade to it.

Those who have considered the ZM 35/2... the next 6 months may be a good time to buy one. The market may get flooded by used ones from people who prefer the speed.

Yes meant Biogon! Oops!

Concave front! So cool, similar to the canon 35mm f2 in FD mount of past. But the size of this lens is so counter to range finder photography. The nokton 35mm 1.4 that I have is tiny compared to this. This is probably because of the retro focus design as stated earlier. I'll be interested in hearing more about the vc with the similar concave front in the future when they are tested.

IIRC the 35mm f/2 M-Hexanon also has a concave front element. I can't easily verify this, the lens and I are on opposite sides of the world at the moment.

The current Summilux 35 has a concave front element, too. The Summarit 35, as well, IIRC.

Oh man. I'm not sure if I have any lenses with concave front elements. I best go check...

It's all good. My 28/3.5 Voigtlander SC Skopar for my Contax IIa has a concave front element. Phew. Thought I was going to have to buy another lens there...