DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Zeiss G 45 vs. G 35 etc

I have read all the complaints about the 35/2G lens, but having used it extensively for over two years, I have to say that these comments are mostly wrong and that they are repeated primarily by those who have never even used it. The major objections raised are that it is soft at the periphery when wide open and that its bokeh is somewhat unpleasant. To which I would answer: if you can find a better 35/2, I would like to see it. Even the vaunted Leica 35/2M asph, though possibly sharper edge to edge, has a nasty bokeh wide open.

For those who like the 35mm focal length for general shooting and reportage, as I do, do not be put off by negative comments about the 35/2G. It is a wonderful lens.
 
Couldn't agree more with Robert. Don't know where the complaints about the 35/2 come from. I've heard some say that the lens on the T3 is better than the 35/2. I don't think so. I never did any 'scientic' comparison of the two, mind you, so it might be due to my handling these cameras, but I seem to get better results with the 35/2, in terms of colour, contrast and resolution. Still, I keep my T3 with me all the time.
 
Hi,

besides good experiences from first hand and bad complaints from second and third hands there is a scientific test available at www.photodo.com --> products. I do not have the 35/2, but for all lenses I ever had the test results on photodo match my experiences

good night Juraj salak
 
> [Dear Robert: May I ask a simple questions on flash technique on a G1 35/2. The scene is my family posing on a ship dock with background-sunny day with other ships at bay. My family sitting 'under the shade'-fore- ground. Desire result: Clear family picture,yet proper ly exposed & clear background as well. Technique: How would you use flash? 1)Fillsflash with +2/3 exposure compensation?,or Manual? Please care to share your thoughts. Thanks.] >
 
Wilson,

This certainly sounds like a good situation for fill-flash. The technique described in the G2 owner's manual is INCORRECT and should be ignored.

The correct method with the G2 is to set the camera on manual exposure and meter for the ambient light. Then turn on the flash and adjust exposure compensation in the negative direction, usually one or two stops as you see fit. Then compose and shoot. There has been some discussion as to whether this technique will work for the TLA 140 flash, but the latest information that I have seen suggests that it will.
 
After a lot of agonizing I picked up the 35/2 Planar, because it's my favorite focal length. I think much of the bad rap it gets is absurd. I would say that it has a different style of rendering things than the 45 does, but frankly, all the stories about "horrible bokeh" had me scared to pick it up. I think it's nonsense. It's a fabulous lens, described by an Italian guy on a site called "Fotonadir.org" (if I recall correctly) as more Leica-like than the others in the G-series. Let me just say that I like what it does. Others may disagree, and it may be a matter of preference, but if 35 mm's the focal length for you, go with it.
 
> The 35mm lens is razor sharp. Great for small group shots, and gonzo style shooting. Good focusing traits on the G2 and the F-2 works out well for a variety of situations. Great lens.

michael.
 
Dino,

If you like the 35mm focal length I believe you'll be very happy with the Planar. A seldom-mentioned benefit is that it makes for a very compact package, as it's quite a small lens.

I use mine as my "standard" lens on the G.

--Rick
 
Completely, Rick. Plus the 35mm length for me is just perfect: it's got what a 45 has but with that slight lensy kind of wide-angle edge. No matter how I try, the 45, unless I'm doing a very close portrait, just gives me a square box view that makes it very hard for me to frame creatively. I suppose if I were a better photographer I'd overcome this...
 
I had the G1/35mm Planar for a year, before I bought the 45mm and 90mm Sonnar. As a lens on it's own merits, the 35mm is a fabulous lens, and wide open, was giving me better contrast and color fidelity than my Canon Eos 50mm 1.4 at f2, with higher resolution.

No, it's not as good as the 45mm planar, but I have yet to find a lens that is. If shooting with a 35mm focal length is your thing, it's a great lens. I don't use mine much, except for group portraits and some landscape stuff, but the photos ARE great, it exhibits very little flare, distortion seems to be minimal, and sharpness and contrast at all apertures as great.

I think most of the bad rap the lens took, was due to the fact that when it came out, people hoped (and maybe expected) it to be the "Leica killer" that the 28mm, 45mm, and even the 90mm were, especially due to the fact that the 35mm lens came out later than the others, and the length is so popular among rangefinder shooters.

When it turned out being "only" a remarkable lens, I think people were dissapointed, because they really wanted this lens to destroy the Leica Summicron at 1/4 the cost, the way the other lenses in the G system do.

BUT, if this SAME LENS was offered in a Leica system, as a "Non-asph Summicron" for budget shooters, at a bargain price of, say, 700 dollars, MANY Leica users would be ECSTATIC to have this lens in their bag.

It's a great lens. Don't believe the stories. If you like the focal length, buy it. For the prices they can be found at used (200-250 dollars), it's the best bargain for a 35mm lens on the market.
 
Back
Top