CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Zeiss 35mm f1.4 vs 28mm f2

deshojo

Well-Known Member
I would be greatful for any opinions from board members who have personal experience of either of these lenses, particularly those who have used both, as I am considering adding one (or maybe both) to my quiver.

I already have the 21mm f2.8, 25mm f2.8 and 28-85mm f3.3-4, so would I gain significant benefit from one of these, and if so, in what area? I'm quite happy with the images produced by the vario-sonnar, but a bit more speed would be useful.

I am therefore particularly interested in the wide open performance. Having looked at the mtf charts the 35mm looks to be not that good wide open, but mtf charts don't always reflect real world performance. Flare control, distortion, and general 'useability' are important too.

Is there any difference between the AE and MM 35mm (did the older AE version also use an aspherical element?). All comments welcome.
 

wang

Well-Known Member


I prefer 28 2 to 35 1.4. In terms of colour contrast and resolution 28 2 is better.

Today I went to a flower show in Hong Kong. Before I go, I tested several C-Y lenses including 21 2.8, 25 2.8, 28 2.8. 28 2 and
35 1.4. 21 2.8 is a class of its own. 28 2 gives higher magnification than the others.

This photo was taken with 28 2 at 2 or 2.8 with Kodak HD200, scanned at 3900 dpi, then pixel count reduced for the web.

Most people over there uses telephotos or normal lenses for the work, perhaps I could be the only one to use wide angles.

Any comments ?
 

deshojo

Well-Known Member
Lovely image Joseph.

I have to say I agree with your findings. I eventually bought both the 28/2 and 35/1.4, and so far I too prefer the 28/2 (though as you say, the 21/2.8 is in a class of its own).

Curiously my preference for the 28/2 was also based on its wide open rendition of flowers at minimum focus! It seems to allow more depth of field than macro for a given subject size, whilst rendering a really gorgeous 'impressionist' looking bokeh.

I'm still undecided between the 28/2 and the 25/2.8 for landscapes though, if anything slightly favouring the 25mm.
 

biggles3

CI-Supporter
Hi Matt,
I have both of these lenses and would usually opt for the 28 f2 - wide open it is far sharper edge-to-edge than the 35mm and as you say, at minimum focus it does allow a better dof than most macro lenses. However, at f2 the 35 is a very serious performer and you can't beat its low light capability. I've never shot at minimum focus with it though... Having just acquired a 15mm, I'm going to see how that works at minimum focus on some flowers too - and then the 16mm, 21 mm, etc etc.
Cheers
 
D

djg

For this kind of stuff the 35-70/3.4 does a great job in the macro setting, which comes in at the 35mm FL.
 

wang

Well-Known Member
Which one to use for landscape is a matter of personal taste.

25 2.8 gives a better feeling of space because it is more wide angled. Its rendition of fine detail is not good at corners but the central part is very sharp. It has significant astigmatism and so it gives the photo a feel of mystery. For landscapes when you wish to emphasize feelings like loneliness, death or strangeness this is the lens.

28 2 has better performance at the corners. it has better macro functions. It give the photo a nicer feel. If you wish to emphasize affection or human subjects this is the lens.

DJ, see if you agrees with me. I think 35-70 do not have fixed focal length at the macro mode. This lens starts its macro at 35mm, as you focus closer in the macro mode, the lens becomes more tele.

I am not sure if you people like to try this trick on the 25 but I find it improves the performance at the corners without affecting the illuminance much at least in the practical sense.

 
D

djg

Joseph,

I'm not sure - I do know I need to get really close, but the performance is really nice.
 

wang

Well-Known Member
For the lens 35-70, I find the lens is breathtakingly good at 35mm f5.6, in fact this lens is superior to other primes likes 35 2.8 or 35 1.4. At small apertures, I would use 35-70 for its 35 instead of the primes.

I would think unless you have the 35mm PC distagon, 35-70 is the lens of choice for 35.
 

pkipnis

Well-Known Member
[Pkipnis] If any one is interested, I have a 25/2.8, a 85/1.4, a 180/2.8 and a 70-210/3.5 for sale on eBay. All are factory packed demo quality with protective filter included. I will be selling off my G2 with the 45/2.0, 28/2.8 and TLA flash units soon. If anyone wants more information or to make a deal email me.
 

snikolaev

Well-Known Member
Joseph, you inspired me to try this lens at the closest distance. My African Grey parrot (her name is Glasha, and since she is really grey, B&W imho works better here) was very interested by this new toy.

 

wang

Well-Known Member
Although I have not tried my wide angles on my father's Africa Grey, parrots are known to attack the lens.

On two occasions, the parrots attacked my lenses when I focused too near, once at my 85 1.4 and another time on my 100 2.8.
 

snikolaev

Well-Known Member
Hm... Looks like the truth is somewhere in between those two pictures (truth is always in the middle actually). My picture looks dull, but on computer screen only. It's supposed to be much better when printed on glossy paper or something like that, don't you think? Here we have very well known dinamic range problem, but it's out of the topic. Thanks!
 
Top