Carl Zeiss to announce new 35mm f/1.4 lens on Septtember 1

"Bruce" wrote:
To be officially announced September 1, 2010:

The new manual focus Carl Zeiss 35mm f/1.4, which will be made by
Cosina of Japan, will initially be available in ZE and ZF2 versions
for Canon EF and Nikon F mount respectively.

Both versions have built-in CPUs. The Nikon version offers
compatibility with matrix metering and supplies some EXIF data.

The one bad thing about Cosina is that since they're a small operation and
make a zillion different lenses, the one you want usually isn't in stock and
won't be back in stock any time soon. I lucked out in that a used ZE 21/2.8
showed up at one of the stores I frequent, but wouldn't have gotten one
otherwise, since I hesitated when it first came out. (I really lucked out:
the demo version of the 21/2.8 that the store had, had a focusing ring that
was way too loose. It wasn't sloppy mechanically, but if you gave it a spin,
it would keep on turning: flipping amazing mechanical workmanship, but
needed more damping. And it was pricey. The one I got has a much more usable
focusing ring, is superb optically, and, being used, was somewhat cheaper.)

Grumble. As a Canonista*, I don't see the point of a Cosina 35/1.4. The
Canon 35/1.4 is one of the best lenses around (it's as sharp at f/4.0 as the
Canon 35/2.0 is at f/8), but it's expensive and heavy. The Cosina 35/2.0 is
lighter**, cheaper, and pretty much as good as the Canon from f/2.8 on. (The
Canon edges out the Cosina at f/2.0 in light falloff and contrast, but the
Cosina is usably sharp at f/2.0.)

Which is to say, if I finally get around to deciding to get the 35/2.0, it
probably won't be available, thanks to Cosina making lenses I don't want. As
usual.

*: Life is different for Nikonistas: The Cosina 35/2.0 womps all over the
Nikon 35/1.4 at f/2.0 and f/2.8.
**: Only slightly: 510 gm vs. 570 gm.

You probably know these sites, but in case someone doesn't...
http://diglloyd.com/zf/index.html (For fee, but covers more of the Zeiss
lenses than anyone else.)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
[]
*: Life is different for Nikonistas: The Cosina 35/2.0 womps all over
the Nikon 35/1.4 at f/2.0 and f/2.8.
**: Only slightly: 510 gm vs. 570 gm.
[]
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

... although Nikon DX users also have the choice of the excellent compact
and lightweight Nikon 35mm f/1.8, at only 210g, not too costly, and with
the AF motor built in:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15/

Can't see the Zeiss lens having much appeal in that market.

Cheers,
David

On 31/08/2010 12:45 p.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote:
To be officially announced September 1, 2010:

The new manual focus Carl Zeiss 35mm f/1.4, which will be made by
Cosina of Japan, will initially be available in ZE and ZF2 versions
for Canon EF and Nikon F mount respectively.

Both versions have built-in CPUs. The Nikon version offers
compatibility with matrix metering and supplies some EXIF data.

The one bad thing about Cosina is that since they're a small operation and
make a zillion different lenses, the one you want usually isn't in stock and
won't be back in stock any time soon. I lucked out in that a used ZE 21/2.8
showed up at one of the stores I frequent, but wouldn't have gotten one
otherwise, since I hesitated when it first came out. (I really lucked out:
the demo version of the 21/2.8 that the store had, had a focusing ring that
was way too loose. It wasn't sloppy mechanically, but if you gave it a spin,
it would keep on turning: flipping amazing mechanical workmanship, but
needed more damping. And it was pricey. The one I got has a much more usable
focusing ring, is superb optically, and, being used, was somewhat cheaper.)

Grumble. As a Canonista*, I don't see the point of a Cosina 35/1.4. The
Canon 35/1.4 is one of the best lenses around (it's as sharp at f/4.0 as the
Canon 35/2.0 is at f/8), but it's expensive and heavy. The Cosina 35/2.0 is
lighter**, cheaper, and pretty much as good as the Canon from f/2.8 on. (The
Canon edges out the Cosina at f/2.0 in light falloff and contrast, but the
Cosina is usably sharp at f/2.0.)

Which is to say, if I finally get around to deciding to get the 35/2.0, it
probably won't be available, thanks to Cosina making lenses I don't want. As
usual.

*: Life is different for Nikonistas: The Cosina 35/2.0 womps all over the
Nikon 35/1.4 at f/2.0 and f/2.8.
**: Only slightly: 510 gm vs. 570 gm.

You probably know these sites, but in case someone doesn't...
http://diglloyd.com/zf/index.html (For fee, but covers more of the Zeiss
lenses than anyone else.)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2

All very nice, but "sharpness" in normal/wide lenses is one thing (and
you're unlikely to need sharpness corner to corner at maximum aperture
with these focal lengths in any practical situation)
Bokeh is another...
The Zeiss ZF 50mm 1.4 hasn't got nice bokeh. Will the 35 be better?
Excuse "Ken Rockwell" cite - he can be a bit of a ****** - but he nailed
this:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...ison/bokeh.htm
Comparisons I've seen with the ZF 85 1.4 show that "Digilloyd's"
assessment that it has "very pleasant" OOF blur is also wrong, even with
the obsolete Nikkor 85 f1.4. (OTOH, the severe SA with that old lens
perhaps adds to the "character")
"Sharp" and "great" aren't synonymous, except for brick wall shooters.

"David J Taylor" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
[]
*: Life is different for Nikonistas: The Cosina 35/2.0 womps all over the
Nikon 35/1.4 at f/2.0 and f/2.8.
**: Only slightly: 510 gm vs. 570 gm.
[]
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

.. although Nikon DX users ...

You can stop right there. It really makes no sense to use Zeiss FF lenses on
a cropped camera. (IMHO, it makes no sense to use a cropped camera at all,
but that's me[g].)

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 31/08/2010 8:31 p.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:
"David J wrote:
"David J. wrote in message
...
[]
*: Life is different for Nikonistas: The Cosina 35/2.0 womps all over the
Nikon 35/1.4 at f/2.0 and f/2.8.
**: Only slightly: 510 gm vs. 570 gm.
[]
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

.. although Nikon DX users ...

You can stop right there. It really makes no sense to use Zeiss FF lenses on
a cropped camera. (IMHO, it makes no sense to use a cropped camera at all,
but that's me[g].)

It doesn't make much sense (costerformance) to use Zeiss ZF lenses on
/any/ camera.
But since when does it need to make sense?
Your 5DII /is/ a cropped camera. When they make an image sensor larger
than the square root of the number of elementary particles in the
universe (~10E80 IIRC), then the non-cropped sensor will exist. Until
then, /everything/ is a compromise.

You can stop right there. It really makes no sense to use Zeiss FF
lenses on
a cropped camera. (IMHO, it makes no sense to use a cropped camera at
all, but that's me[g].)

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Yes, what suits you doesn't necessarily suit me. I place high value of
compact and lightweight, and I don't do very large prints (usually A4
maximum [297 x 210mm], and I very rarely print in any case). For me, DX
is the perfect compromise between size, weight, cost and high-ISO.

Cheers,
David

"Me" wrote in message
...
On 31/08/2010 12:45 p.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote:
To be officially announced September 1, 2010:

The new manual focus Carl Zeiss 35mm f/1.4, which will be made by
Cosina of Japan, will initially be available in ZE and ZF2 versions
for Canon EF and Nikon F mount respectively.

Both versions have built-in CPUs. The Nikon version offers
compatibility with matrix metering and supplies some EXIF data.

The one bad thing about Cosina is that since they're a small operation
and
make a zillion different lenses, the one you want usually isn't in stock
and
won't be back in stock any time soon. I lucked out in that a used ZE
21/2.8
showed up at one of the stores I frequent, but wouldn't have gotten one
otherwise, since I hesitated when it first came out. (I really lucked
out:
the demo version of the 21/2.8 that the store had, had a focusing ring
that
was way too loose. It wasn't sloppy mechanically, but if you gave it a
spin,
it would keep on turning: flipping amazing mechanical workmanship, but
needed more damping. And it was pricey. The one I got has a much more
usable
focusing ring, is superb optically, and, being used, was somewhat
cheaper.)

Grumble. As a Canonista*, I don't see the point of a Cosina 35/1.4. The
Canon 35/1.4 is one of the best lenses around (it's as sharp at f/4.0 as
the
Canon 35/2.0 is at f/8), but it's expensive and heavy. The Cosina 35/2.0
is
lighter**, cheaper, and pretty much as good as the Canon from f/2.8 on.
(The
Canon edges out the Cosina at f/2.0 in light falloff and contrast, but
the
Cosina is usably sharp at f/2.0.)

Which is to say, if I finally get around to deciding to get the 35/2.0,
it
probably won't be available, thanks to Cosina making lenses I don't want.
As
usual.

*: Life is different for Nikonistas: The Cosina 35/2.0 womps all over the
Nikon 35/1.4 at f/2.0 and f/2.8.
**: Only slightly: 510 gm vs. 570 gm.

You probably know these sites, but in case someone doesn't...
http://diglloyd.com/zf/index.html (For fee, but covers more of the Zeiss
lenses than anyone else.)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2

All very nice, but "sharpness" in normal/wide lenses is one thing (and
you're unlikely to need sharpness corner to corner at maximum aperture
with these focal lengths in any practical situation)

Really. But it's nice to have sharp corners by f/5.6. I find it a real
irritation that the Canon 35/2.0 really needs to be stopped down to f/8.

Bokeh is another...
The Zeiss ZF 50mm 1.4 hasn't got nice bokeh. Will the 35 be better?

Yes. It has quite reasonable bokeh. (According to the Digilloyd site
samples.) Of the Canon and Nikon 35/1.4s and the Zeiss, only the Nikon has
problematic bokeh, and then only at f/1.4 and (much less so) at f/2.0.

IMHO, the Zeiss 50/1.4 is seriously pointless. It's the same Planar design
that all the other 50/1.4 lenses are. (Although the Canon 50/1.4 has pretty
nice bokeh; go figure.) And the 85/1.4 is a disappointment.

So far, there are four Cosina "Zeiss" lenses that are
interesting/useful/worth the money: the 21/2.8 is the star of the Zeiss
lineup, with the 35/2.0 a close second (for my needs). The 50 and 100mm
macros are sharp as all get out, but only focus to 1:2 (huh?). The 50/2.0
macro womps all over the Canon 50mm macro lens. Digilloyd finds the 50/2.0
to be a killer 50mm lens. Which doesn't do me much good, since I don't like
50mm.

"Sharp" and "great" aren't synonymous, except for brick wall shooters.

And landscape shooters. Although we do need the bokeh to be at least
reasonable for the occasional tacky flower shot.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Me" wrote in message
...
On 31/08/2010 8:31 p.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:
"David J wrote:
"David J. wrote in message
...
[]
*: Life is different for Nikonistas: The Cosina 35/2.0 womps all over
the
Nikon 35/1.4 at f/2.0 and f/2.8.
**: Only slightly: 510 gm vs. 570 gm.
[]
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

.. although Nikon DX users ...

You can stop right there. It really makes no sense to use Zeiss FF lenses
on
a cropped camera. (IMHO, it makes no sense to use a cropped camera at
all,
but that's me[g].)

It doesn't make much sense (costerformance) to use Zeiss ZF lenses on
/any/ camera.
But since when does it need to make sense?

But the 35/2.0 is as good as any of the quality 35mm lenses, and is much
cheaper. So it very much is cost effective.

The 21/2.8 is pricey, but it's better than anything else that focal length.
So cost effective is for the buyer to decide.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
You can stop right there. It really makes no sense to use Zeiss FF lenses
on
a cropped camera. (IMHO, it makes no sense to use a cropped camera at
all, but that's me[g].)

Yes, what suits you doesn't necessarily suit me. I place high value of
compact and lightweight, and I don't do very large prints (usually A4
maximum [297 x 210mm], and I very rarely print in any case). For me, DX
is the perfect compromise between size, weight, cost and high-ISO.

Sheesh. You have absolutely no sense of humor.

But really. What the hell are you doing in this thread at all? You're
comments are irrelevant to the topic here.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 31/08/2010 9:11 p.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 31/08/2010 12:45 p.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote:
To be officially announced September 1, 2010:

The new manual focus Carl Zeiss 35mm f/1.4, which will be made by
Cosina of Japan, will initially be available in ZE and ZF2 versions
for Canon EF and Nikon F mount respectively.

Both versions have built-in CPUs. The Nikon version offers
compatibility with matrix metering and supplies some EXIF data.

The one bad thing about Cosina is that since they're a small operation
and
make a zillion different lenses, the one you want usually isn't in stock
and
won't be back in stock any time soon. I lucked out in that a used ZE
21/2.8
showed up at one of the stores I frequent, but wouldn't have gotten one
otherwise, since I hesitated when it first came out. (I really lucked
out:
the demo version of the 21/2.8 that the store had, had a focusing ring
that
was way too loose. It wasn't sloppy mechanically, but if you gave it a
spin,
it would keep on turning: flipping amazing mechanical workmanship, but
needed more damping. And it was pricey. The one I got has a much more
usable
focusing ring, is superb optically, and, being used, was somewhat
cheaper.)

Grumble. As a Canonista*, I don't see the point of a Cosina 35/1.4. The
Canon 35/1.4 is one of the best lenses around (it's as sharp at f/4.0 as
the
Canon 35/2.0 is at f/8), but it's expensive and heavy. The Cosina 35/2.0
is
lighter**, cheaper, and pretty much as good as the Canon from f/2.8 on.
(The
Canon edges out the Cosina at f/2.0 in light falloff and contrast, but
the
Cosina is usably sharp at f/2.0.)

Which is to say, if I finally get around to deciding to get the 35/2.0,
it
probably won't be available, thanks to Cosina making lenses I don't want.
As
usual.

*: Life is different for Nikonistas: The Cosina 35/2.0 womps all over the
Nikon 35/1.4 at f/2.0 and f/2.8.
**: Only slightly: 510 gm vs. 570 gm.

You probably know these sites, but in case someone doesn't...
http://diglloyd.com/zf/index.html (For fee, but covers more of the Zeiss
lenses than anyone else.)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2

All very nice, but "sharpness" in normal/wide lenses is one thing (and
you're unlikely to need sharpness corner to corner at maximum aperture
with these focal lengths in any practical situation)

Really. But it's nice to have sharp corners by f/5.6. I find it a real
irritation that the Canon 35/2.0 really needs to be stopped down to f/8.

Bokeh is another...
The Zeiss ZF 50mm 1.4 hasn't got nice bokeh. Will the 35 be better?

Yes. It has quite reasonable bokeh. (According to the Digilloyd site
samples.) Of the Canon and Nikon 35/1.4s and the Zeiss, only the Nikon has
problematic bokeh, and then only at f/1.4 and (much less so) at f/2.0.

IMHO, the Zeiss 50/1.4 is seriously pointless. It's the same Planar design
that all the other 50/1.4 lenses are. (Although the Canon 50/1.4 has pretty
nice bokeh; go figure.) And the 85/1.4 is a disappointment.

So far, there are four Cosina "Zeiss" lenses that are
interesting/useful/worth the money: the 21/2.8 is the star of the Zeiss
lineup, with the 35/2.0 a close second (for my needs). The 50 and 100mm
macros are sharp as all get out, but only focus to 1:2 (huh?). The 50/2.0
macro womps all over the Canon 50mm macro lens. Digilloyd finds the 50/2.0
to be a killer 50mm lens. Which doesn't do me much good, since I don't like
50mm.

"Sharp" and "great" aren't synonymous, except for brick wall shooters.

And landscape shooters.
Except that landscape shooters stop the lens down, so all that money for
the extra stop(s) of lens speed just got flushed down the toilet, plus
the problem of flare with fast lenses. I'm absolutely certain that the
best landscape lenses would probably be high quality but simple wide
primes or limited range zooms with a maximum aperture of f4 or even
less. They don't get made because the perception would be that they're
too cheap, unfortunately because quality perception has been based
around lens aperture.
Although we do need the bokeh to be at least
reasonable for the occasional tacky flower shot.

IMO the concept of shallow DOF and good bokeh has been completely
stuffed by low resolution viewing. If it looks okay a web resolution at
f1.4, it might look like a blurry mess as a 15x10" print. I don't think
you can really "tell" how a shallow DOF 5000x3000 image looks on a print
by zooming in on a 1920x1200 screen, when you only see a fraction of the
composition. We need large 300dpi screens (about the same as the dpi on
some higher end dslr lcds).