kram
Well-known
There is a gap in the market for the 28mm f/1.4.
Of course there's the new 28 Summilux from Leica, yet there's also surely room for faster Zeiss ZM series wides.
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
Sony should make an A7 with a Leica M mount.
There I've said it.
There I've said it.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Wait for the 2.8
Wait for the 2.8
Before I bought my Distagon I did a lot of comparison on line research, and the Distagon is a very old reverse tele design that was a big deal in the early '50's with Hasselblad.
Getting used to the concept takes a little experience with the reverse tele design. Depth of field, not focus shift, has to be learned. The old rule of focusing 1/3 in 2/3 out is just a starter, but even at a distance where one would normally be in the infinity range, that depth of field booger bear is still in play.
Bokeh is exceptional to the point that it approaches 3D when depth of field is mastered. The lens focuses very close, close enough to be a poor man's macro.
I have not used the 1.4, and own a 2.8 version which I am hoping Zeiss will build in the ZM configuration. If, and when, it becomes available I will definitely want one.
It is not for beginners, but for someone who has a good eye and is willing to put the time in to learn it's quirks.
I started by shooting 20 or 30 shots at 2.8, then 4, then 5.6 and so on so I could anticipate for the results.
I love the design, my only complaint about the reverse tele is that when shooting buildings, they seem to lay back, although curvature distortion is very slim. In my head I know it's a 35, but I shoot as if it's a 28.
I shot this one this morning, the colors look like Ektachrome and in warmer light Kodachrome. I can live with that!
Distagon 2.8 35mm, with Canon 5D:
Wait for the 2.8
Before I bought my Distagon I did a lot of comparison on line research, and the Distagon is a very old reverse tele design that was a big deal in the early '50's with Hasselblad.
Getting used to the concept takes a little experience with the reverse tele design. Depth of field, not focus shift, has to be learned. The old rule of focusing 1/3 in 2/3 out is just a starter, but even at a distance where one would normally be in the infinity range, that depth of field booger bear is still in play.
Bokeh is exceptional to the point that it approaches 3D when depth of field is mastered. The lens focuses very close, close enough to be a poor man's macro.
I have not used the 1.4, and own a 2.8 version which I am hoping Zeiss will build in the ZM configuration. If, and when, it becomes available I will definitely want one.
It is not for beginners, but for someone who has a good eye and is willing to put the time in to learn it's quirks.
I started by shooting 20 or 30 shots at 2.8, then 4, then 5.6 and so on so I could anticipate for the results.
I love the design, my only complaint about the reverse tele is that when shooting buildings, they seem to lay back, although curvature distortion is very slim. In my head I know it's a 35, but I shoot as if it's a 28.
I shot this one this morning, the colors look like Ektachrome and in warmer light Kodachrome. I can live with that!
Distagon 2.8 35mm, with Canon 5D: