Anybody talking about the ZM 35mm Distagon f/1.4?

18554940356_2e6a59b182_c.jpg
[/url]Japan 2015 Roll #11 Yakatori row by Tokyo Station tracks. by T&T and Mr B Abrahamsson, on Flickr[/IMG]

came back from Japan a couple of weeks ago. I brought a Leica MP and the Zeiss ZM Distagon 35mm f1.4 to use as my primary lens. I wanted to "feel" it out as to size and hauling around. It is not a small lens by any means, but it is surprisingly comfortable on the camera. Even after many hours walking and using subways etc - it still did not feel too heavy or bulky.
As or performance - as good as it gets! Wide open it is quite exceptional, nice flat plane of focus, very even across the image area. no distortion - nothing really to complain about. I have tried it out against the Summilux 35f1.4 FLE - and if there is a difference, I can't spot it! No focus shift That I noticed either.
Picture is from "Yakatori Row" - a stretch of restaurants under the rail tracks leading to Tokyo Station. Probably at f2 or f2.8. Tri X in Td 201 developer.
 
Does anyone understand this quote from B&H? Seems like arbitrary jargon:

"Additionally, the 35mm focal length has the added benefit of subjecting the frame to minimal distortion or compression, so that proportions and elements within the image are more accurately depicted."
 
Who has experience with this lens on mirrorless systems like the a7ii? Would it perform better on a m9 or 240 due to the microlenses on the sensors?
 
Rob-F said:
Does anyone understand this quote from B&H? Seems like arbitrary jargon:

"Additionally, the 35mm focal length has the added benefit of subjecting the frame to minimal distortion or compression, so that proportions and elements within the image are more accurately depicted."
Click to expand...

Well, compared to a telephoto (which causes compression) or a wide angle (which causes distortion) the 35/50mm focal lengths are rather neutral in those regards.
 
eric4 said:
Who has experience with this lens on mirrorless systems like the a7ii? Would it perform better on a m9 or 240 due to the microlenses on the sensors?
Click to expand...

Here is a comparison

Yes, it performs way better on Leica sensors as far as the corners go until f8 or f11. But for documentary-style use, it might not be a huge problem in practice.
 
michaelwj said:
Agreed. Plus 49 mm filters? Who even has these. I'd have preferred they kept it a bit smaller and sacrificed something else performance wise, but thats just me.
It seems this is the new direction for Zeiss. All out performance, with huge size and cost (quite a departure from the original ZM lineup which are all reasonably priced).

Michael
Click to expand...

Pentax...or Olympus. I have tons of these.

Shoot with the Nokton 50/1.5 and this 35/1.4 and you will be working with the same filters. :)
 
eric4 said:
Who has experience with this lens on mirrorless systems like the a7ii? Would it perform better on a m9 or 240 due to the microlenses on the sensors?
Click to expand...

I published two aperture series with the 1.4/35mm Distagon ZM and the Sony A7ll on my Homepage.

http://www.matthiassommer.ch/distagon35mm.html

On the notation from the Apertures 1.4, 2.8, 5.6, 11, there are links with a full resolution JPG. The Homepage is in german.
This lense is corner sharp at Aperture 5.6 and above.

On Leica Bodies it should be sharper by lower apertures.
 
eric4 said:
Who has experience with this lens on mirrorless systems like the a7ii? Would it perform better on a m9 or 240 due to the microlenses on the sensors?
Click to expand...

As said, no, not close, though it can make some nice shots in central frame.

However, with 400USD Kolari sensor mod on A7 or A7r, the lens will be very close to M240.
 
What does the view through the viewfinder look like on the M2? I'd like to know how much finder blockage we are dealing with, specifically on the M2. Thank you in advance.


ChrisLivsey said:
17839182386_98bd8c8601_c.jpg

Sand dune
Not taken it off an M2 body since I got it, love it.

ADOX CHSII 100 Harvey's 777 11mins
Click to expand...
 
jkjod said:
What does the view through the viewfinder look like on the M2? I'd like to know how much finder blockage we are dealing with, specifically on the M2. Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

What other lenses have you for your M2, I can then offer a comparison which may be more useful than an description?
As a kick off though it is a bit more intrusive than the 28mm f2 Summicron and a bit less than the 21mm f2.8 Elmarit ASPH, all without hoods. It is longer and 'chunkier" than either.
Perhaps a better comparison is if you use the frame selector: It does just intrude on the 50mm frame but is nowhere near the 90mm. I had to really look as, and I know this is personal, I never notice intrusions. I rarely place important subject matter bottom RHS and if I do need to see it I must just move the camera, I am not aware of it.
 
ChrisLivsey said:
What other lenses have you for your M2, I can then offer a comparison which may be more useful than an description?
As a kick off though it is a bit more intrusive than the 28mm f2 Summicron and a bit less than the 21mm f2.8 Elmarit ASPH, all without hoods. It is longer and 'chunkier" than either.
Perhaps a better comparison is if you use the frame selector: It does just intrude on the 50mm frame but is nowhere near the 90mm. I had to really look as, and I know this is personal, I never notice intrusions. I rarely place important subject matter bottom RHS and if I do need to see it I must just move the camera, I am not aware of it.
Click to expand...

Perfect explanation thanks! I'll check it out with the frame line selector as you suggested. At the moment the only other lens I own is the ZM 21/2.8. Thanks for the reply.
 
I purchased this lens a few months ago from B&H, and I have to say I really like it. Caveat: I like the Zeiss 'look' and I own a couple other Zeiss ZM lenses, so I've seen them as a quality alternative to Leica glass at a couple focal lengths.

That being said, I'm not a big fan of the overall 'barrel shape' of the lens body. Yes, the Distagon a lot smaller than your typical modern SLR lens, but it definitely is bigger than the Zeiss 35/2 and it makes the Zeiss C-Biogon 35/2.8 seem tiny by comparison.

I also think the price is a bit high. It's one of the priciest ZM-mount lenses at $2300 USD. But by comparison the Leica Summilux-M 35/1.4 is $4800 USD, so maybe my complaint is moot. :)

Here's a shot with my M 240, using the Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 shot at around F2.8 if I remember correctly. No post-processing.

20148756306_1f5c28e582_z.jpg
 
Here's another one that's probably a better representation of the bokeh and wide-open characteristics. I think this one was shot around F2.

19696105534_13c049480f_z.jpg
 
Here’s a few more pics taken with a ZM Distagon 35/1.4. All on film at F/1.4 except for the third pic which I think was taken at F/2, scanned with a Coolscan 5000, and minimally post-processed (minor curve adjustment only, no sharpness added). Wide open, this lens is incredibly free of coma and very sharp.









 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top