# Carl Zeiss ZE 35 f/2



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 8, 2012)

This arrived this afternoon just before 1pm UK time: 




new-toy by singingsnapper, on Flickr

From very early playing around it looks supersharp. Need the weather to behave to have a real play and blowing a gale here. More like November than June!


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 8, 2012)

Here's a brief shot - handheld using Live View to focus (of course it's a manual focus lens) and zooming in. Pretty sure I didn't nail it. This was lunch I made for my wife and I - Chargrilled Salmon with Kingprawns, scallops mussels on a bed of salad leaves with a dill dressing:

Canon 5D mk III Carl Zeiss ZE 35mm f/2 distagon at f/10 and 1/20 ISO 1600




salmon-with-salad by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 8, 2012)

The rain finally stopped and grabbed this shot of the front of our car:

Canon 5D mk III Carl Zeiss ZE 35mm f/2 Distagon T* at f/16 and 1/25 ISO 250 converted in Silver efex pro 2




wet-car by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## drjlo (Jun 8, 2012)

f/10 and f/16 shots!? Let's see some f/2 shots with manual focus 8)


----------



## westr70 (Jun 8, 2012)

For some reason, I'm hungry and what time is lunch?


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 8, 2012)

drjlo said:


> f/10 and f/16 shots!? Let's see some f/2 shots with manual focus 8)



I'll try some larger apertures tomorrow


----------



## Arkarch (Jun 8, 2012)

Thank-you for the photos.

I have the Zeiss 21 - absolutely stellar - and thinking about the 35mm down the line.


----------



## westr70 (Jun 9, 2012)

Have you had an opportunity to try any video with it yet? Looks very tempting.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Jun 9, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> This arrived this afternoon just before 1pm UK time:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just got my Zeiss today! But no hood. Good source for a knock-off hood?


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 9, 2012)

MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > This arrived this afternoon just before 1pm UK time:
> ...



Haven't a clue unfortunately. It has a completely circular hood which is made from metal (as is the barrel of the lens). Really solid build quality and I love the feel of the focus grip. Great lens


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 9, 2012)

westr70 said:


> Have you had an opportunity to try any video with it yet? Looks very tempting.



I've actually never used any of my Canon's (5D2, 7D 5D3) for video. I have a professional JVC video camera - not a huge one though, fairly compact CCD one.


----------



## smithy (Jun 9, 2012)

I want that lunch - do you do long distance deliveries?


----------



## westr70 (Jun 9, 2012)

I saw this review in dpreview and have been looking for a zeiss lens for video, hence my interest:

For the growing number of photographers and videographers using DSLR’s for movie making, the Distagon T* 2/35 ZE is one of four prime lenses making a core set, joining the Distagon T* 2/28 ZE, Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE and Planar T* 1.4/85 ZE. These lenses are well suited for HD video applications due not only to their exceptional image quality, but for the smooth focus and long focus rotations.


----------



## Axilrod (Jun 9, 2012)

westr70 said:


> I saw this review in dpreview and have been looking for a zeiss lens for video, hence my interest:
> 
> For the growing number of photographers and videographers using DSLR’s for movie making, the Distagon T* 2/35 ZE is one of four prime lenses making a core set, joining the Distagon T* 2/28 ZE, Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE and Planar T* 1.4/85 ZE. These lenses are well suited for HD video applications due not only to their exceptional image quality, but for the smooth focus and long focus rotations.



They absolutely are, after a year of shooting with L glass I used some Zeiss glass on the last shoot I did and I don't think I can go back to Canon for video now. I got the 21, 50, and 100 but am going to pick up the 25 f/2, 35 f/2, and 85 1.4 once I sell my Canon glass. 

The throw on the focus ring is amazing and smooth as butter. With the Canon glass, like the 135 f/2 for example, at larger apertures if you barely move the focus ring it will throw the subject out of focus, but the Zeiss gives you more room. And they breathe a lot less which is always a plus. Aside from that, the are built like bricks, the optics are just beautiful, and the color rendition is very accurate (required much less CC than Canon glass and the colors match better from lens to lens).


----------



## westr70 (Jun 9, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> westr70 said:
> 
> 
> > They absolutely are, after a year of shooting with L glass I used some Zeiss glass on the last shoot I did and I don't think I can go back to Canon for video now. I got the 21, 50, and 100 but am going to pick up the 25 f/2, 35 f/2, and 85 1.4 once I sell my Canon glass.
> ...


----------



## Danielle (Jun 9, 2012)

I tried a 35mm f2 zeiss recently at a digital expo. I have to get one now after putting the files into lightroom to have a decent look. I don't do video but the out of focus areas are so silky smooth, even on my 1.6x crop 7D. I don't 'need' af all the time, so it would be perfect. And as mentioned above, the focus ring is amazing to use. However its the optic I care about more.

Wish the f1.4 version wasn't massively more expensive!


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jun 9, 2012)

I have the Zeiss 50mm F2.0 Makro Planar and love it, too. Haven't tried video yet...


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 9, 2012)

My 35 f/2 is a used lens from a shop in Scotland called Ffordes. They are not the cheapest around but I have found their quality and service to be excellent. It was complete with everything including the hand signed quality check. There is also a f/1.4 35 but that wasn't available used and was much more expensive. I can only imagine how good it is. This is plenty good enough from my early shooting, and I agree with the feeling about the focus ring, it's very sweet indeed nice feedback from it.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 9, 2012)

The sun is out for a change and so had a play around outside in the back garden while our dog Caesar had a run around (the bonus being that once he'd tired himself a bit I could get him to sit still for a second to use the manual focus on him!

A few daisies still about:

Canon 5D mk III Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2 at f/4 1/640 ISO 100




Daisies-with-Zeiss by singingsnapper, on Flickr

The gale force winds have played havock with our rose bushes here's one of our surviving roses

f/5.6 1/400 ISO 400 (wind still blowing!)




windswept-roses by singingsnapper, on Flickr

Our Palm trees are still standing though:

f/8 1/100 ISO 100




palm-tree-in-wales- by singingsnapper, on Flickr

Caesar taken wide open:

f/2 1/8000 ISO 100




Caesar-at-2 by singingsnapper, on Flickr

and again slightly less wide open

f/2.8 1/6000 ISO 100




Caesar-at-2.8 by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 10, 2012)

Weather turned out much better today so went for a stroll up Mynydd Ddinas, the mountain behind where we live and grabbed a few landscapes with the Zeiss glass:

Looking over the Cwmafan Valley:

canon 5D mk III Carl Zeiss ZE 35mm f/2 at f/8 1/160 ISO 100




The-Cwmafan-Valley by singingsnapper, on Flickr

Looking back towards where I had come from, I liked the line of the path and the two trees:

f/8 1/200 ISO 100




path-above-afan-valley by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 10, 2012)

Danielle said:


> I tried a 35mm f2 zeiss recently at a digital expo. I have to get one now after putting the files into lightroom to have a decent look. I don't do video but the out of focus areas are so silky smooth, even on my 1.6x crop 7D. I don't 'need' af all the time, so it would be perfect. And as mentioned above, the focus ring is amazing to use. However its the optic I care about more.
> 
> Wish the f1.4 version wasn't massively more expensive!



Silky smooth? 
Except for the Makro Planar, Zeiss lenses are known to have very nervous bokeh. Zeiss users claim it to be one distinctive trait of their lenses to have a bokeh "with some personality". You can see it quite clearly in the photos posted by itsnotmeyouknow.
There are plenty of reasons to want a Zeiss lens, but smooth bokeh leaves me quite puzzled. 
By the way the Planar 50mm f/1.4 is about 725$/600€.


----------



## Danielle (Jun 11, 2012)

Well ok, now that there's some photo's up, yes I can see it. I think that's pretty nice though in general. I personally would not classify it as nervous bokeh, to me that bokeh is quite beautiful.

The bokeh is only one reason I think I want one, now that I've looked its also cheaper than the 35mm L canon so that's another plus. I don't know, different people, different things. That bokeh to me is nice. Plus the shots I took were also pretty razor sharp too, another even more critical area to me.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 12, 2012)

Danielle said:


> Well ok, now that there's some photo's up, yes I can see it. I think that's pretty nice though in general. I personally would not classify it as nervous bokeh, to me that bokeh is quite beautiful.
> 
> The bokeh is only one reason I think I want one, now that I've looked its also cheaper than the 35mm L canon so that's another plus. I don't know, different people, different things. That bokeh to me is nice. Plus the shots I took were also pretty razor sharp too, another even more critical area to me.



The Samyang 35mm f/1.4 is another extremely good and cheap alternative 
Bokeh is of course a matter of taste. Being nervous doesn't mean being bad 
But I prefer the more buttery one from the 50 and 100mm makro planar


----------



## peederj (Jun 12, 2012)

INMYK is my favorite poster here. :-*


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 12, 2012)

I have been trying to decide between the zeiss 1.4 and the canon 1.4L i think this thread confirmed I will go for the canon L that nervous bokeh will probably get on my nerves a bit


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 12, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I have been trying to decide between the zeiss 1.4 and the canon 1.4L i think this thread confirmed I will go for the canon L that nervous bokeh will probably get on my nerves a bit



Will it make you nervous? (sorry the play on words was too tempting). I'm not too bothered about the bokeh personally as I don't get the obsession with shooting wide open. It's like constantly driving a ferrari at top speed - it won't perform at it's best or make the nicest of noises. Bokeh is really for telephoto lenses in my view, as using side angles for portraits is rarely flattering and using narrow depth of field is rarely useful in wide angle shooting. YMMV of course, but that's my view. I only shot at f/2 because someone asked me. In normal use the aperture rarely gets wider than f/5.6. It always makes me cringe inside when someone proudly says on a forum's gallery: "all shot wide open" as if it's a badge of honour. 

The 35 f/2 CZ is a lovely lens with a great feel and weight. I'd rather have it than the 35L. (And bokeh is overrated and overrused). I'd rather see a sharp subject using the lens's strengths, of which it has many. It spends much of its time on my 5D3 (much like any new toy) and stays generally between f/8 and f/11. Diffraction? At these apertures you'd have to be pixel peeping. Pixel peeping is the curse of the digital age and should be avoided. One doesn't look at the Mona Lisa at brush stroke level, why should a photo be any different.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 12, 2012)

peederj said:


> INMYK is my favorite poster here. :-*



Why, thank you. Not sure what I've done to receive that honour, but thanks anyway


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 12, 2012)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=847.0

I dunno but the bokeh on these samples is much more pleasing to me, added bonus of AF on the L

even though wide open the zeiss looks sharper in these comparisons
http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-35mm-f-1.4-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

not to mention they are such awesome looking lenses with epic build quality.

since i have the 16-35 f2.8L II i am chasing the fast 35 specifically for low light shooting where i'll be chasing wide open to grab max available light, 35 f1.4 on one body and siggy 85 f1.4 on the other
so bokeh is very important for my desired uses for the fast 35.

if shooting stopped down i'll probably stay with the 16-35 for the flexability of focal range


----------



## westr70 (Jun 12, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I dunno but the even though wide open the zeiss looks sharper in these comparisons
> http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-35mm-f-1.4-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx





itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Looking back towards where I had come from, I liked the line of the path and the two trees:



You call those things trees? ;D Your little valley is wonderful. What a great place to hike. 

Thanks Wickidwombat for the link to the Zeiss lens. That is appreciated and will be helpful for decisions.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 12, 2012)

nice. I'm considering going for more Zeiss glass. It is not that nikon/canon glass isn't good, but Zeiss is in another league completely and I feel I'm getting my money's worth in optics instead of a ton of electronics and secondary crap from nikon/canon that just adds cost and things to break.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 12, 2012)

psolberg said:


> nice. I'm considering going for more Zeiss glass. It is not that nikon/canon glass isn't good, but Zeiss is in another league completely and I feel I'm getting my money's worth in optics instead of a ton of electronics and secondary crap from nikon/canon that just adds cost and things to break.



It depends a lot on the individual glass. Not all of them are so great, and even less actually are worth spending 2-3 times as much as for the competitors. It's really more a matter of having an exclusive lens than of a real optical need. It makes more sense to Canon users though than to Nikon's.


----------



## lonebear (Jun 12, 2012)

> It depends a lot on the individual glass. Not all of them are so great, and even less actually are worth spending 2-3 times as much as for the competitors. It's really more a matter of having an exclusive lens than of a real optical need.



True, but 100F2 & 25F2 are really outstanding. IMO, 100F2 is the poor man's EF 200F2.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 12, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > nice. I'm considering going for more Zeiss glass. It is not that nikon/canon glass isn't good, but Zeiss is in another league completely and I feel I'm getting my money's worth in optics instead of a ton of electronics and secondary crap from nikon/canon that just adds cost and things to break.
> ...



why does it make more sense to canon than nikon? canon has some outstanding glass


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 13, 2012)

lonebear said:


> > It depends a lot on the individual glass. Not all of them are so great, and even less actually are worth spending 2-3 times as much as for the competitors. It's really more a matter of having an exclusive lens than of a real optical need.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but 100F2 & 25F2 are really outstanding. IMO, 100F2 is the poor man's EF 200F2.



Ha! I really love the Zeiss 100mm f/2, but at a price point of 1600€ it's hard to find reasons to buy it. Canon 100mm f/2 and 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro are great lenses and you can buy both while still sparing 300€ over the Zeiss, not to mention the AF. 
The same is true for non-Canon users. Consider that the Zeiss is only a 1:2 macro, so more a portrait lens than a true macro. Within this scope, 85 or 100mm makes a little difference, and the Nikon and Sigma alternatives in this range are quite good, AF-equipped and _extremely_ cheaper. 





wickidwombat said:


> why does it make more sense to canon than nikon? canon has some outstanding glass



Canon is unbeatable in the 100+mm range, below that, even L-lenses lose to the competition. Moreover, if you want at least focus confirmation on Canon you have to buy Zeiss, while on Nikon you can have it also with the much cheaper Samyang and Voigtländer lenses, just to mention a couple.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 13, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Canon is unbeatable in the 100+mm range, below that, even L-lenses lose to the competition.



Hmm, let's not forget the 85 f/1.2L II, TS-E-17, T-SE-24 II. No other company, Zeiss or not, has anything that touches these gems.


----------



## Axilrod (Jun 14, 2012)

Don't get me wrong folks, I love my Canon lenses but I shoot video 90% of the time and Zeiss glass is just plain better for video. Now if I was shooting stills mainly I'd be hard pressed to give up the AF of my Canon lenses. They both have their strong suits, but for my personal situation Zeiss is the better choice, and I'd recommend them over Canon glass for anyone that shoots video primarily.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Jun 14, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is unbeatable in the 100+mm range, below that, even L-lenses lose to the competition.
> ...



Well, I get you point, but the Zeiss 100 f2 is a higher performing IQ lens than the 85 f1.2 assuming we start at f2


----------



## jaduffy007 (Jun 14, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> westr70 said:
> 
> 
> > I saw this review in dpreview and have been looking for a zeiss lens for video, hence my interest:
> ...



I hear you. Zeiss build quality and MF quality is in another league. Oh that IQ thing too.  The Zeiss 25 f2 is next up for me.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 14, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



I think it might have faster AF too!


----------



## lonebear (Jun 14, 2012)

TS-E 24 II is another gem, though MF too. I would like to pair TS-E 24 II and CZ 100f2 ZE with the coming 24-70 II, and use 70-200 IS II to cover longer ranger. This combination should be the supreme set for my need. Saving towards them.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 14, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



Hah, I can't remember the last time I went narrower than f/1.8 with 85L and mostly use it f/1.2 to f/1.8, so I can confidently say 85L wins over 100 f/2 in that range ;D


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 14, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is unbeatable in the 100+mm range, below that, even L-lenses lose to the competition.
> ...



I cannot speak about the TS-E lenses because I never happened to use them.
Yes, the 85L is a great lens, BUT: Sigma's 85mm performs quite similarly, with high center performance and weaker edges on FF. As a protrait lens, this is only half a problem.
So again, as for the Zeiss, it's hard for me to find reasons to spend more than double as much for the Canon.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jun 14, 2012)

You really can't compare the Zeiss and Canon L glass. They really have two different personalities. I'm a fashion photographer and Zeiss is the only way to go in my opinion. But for weddings, I really like the look of Canon L glass. Zeiss is like a super-model. The Canon L glass is like the beautiful girl-next-door. The Canon L is more forgiving than the Zeiss and will make more people look good. But when you have a spectacular person in front of the Zeiss, nothing can touch it.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jul 14, 2012)

Just got mine. Takes very decent pics.


----------



## Danielle (Nov 13, 2012)

Found this thread again.

I did end up purchasing the distagon 2/35, I adore it. I'm so glad I didn't get swayed in the direction of the 35L. Personally speaking here, the optics are stellar. Yes I've used L glass before, this to my work and my way of shooting is superb. The subtle aesthetic difference between this and the best canons are different and I personally made the best choice for myself. Good price too considering I didn't buy a grey.

Now I'm in a pickle, the 2/100 macro is definitely expensive and I'm hooked. Lol. Nobody has to tell me the macro is superb.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 13, 2012)

DXO rates it a lot higher than the Canon 35mm L. Even though the Canon has higher resolution, lower distortion, and about the same viginetting. The 35mml does have more CA, but that is because its f/1.4.
Somehow, DXO seems to give CA a huge weight, unless you are looking at Nikon lenses with super high CA's and then it doesn't seem to count at all.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/342/(lens2)/797/(brand1)/Zeiss/(camera1)/483/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/483


----------



## drjlo (Nov 15, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> DXO rates it a lot higher than the Canon 35mm L. Even though the Canon has higher resolution, lower distortion, and about the same viginetting. The 35mml does have more CA, but that is because its f/1.4.
> Somehow, DXO seems to give CA a huge weight, unless you are looking at Nikon lenses with super high CA's and then it doesn't seem to count at all.
> 
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/342/(lens2)/797/(brand1)/Zeiss/(camera1)/483/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/483



That is an odd conclusion by DXO even if you go by their own numbers. When I had Canon 35L, Canon 35 f/2, and Zeiss ZE 35 f/2, I personally thought the 35L gave the best IQ, not even considering its autofocus capability.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 15, 2012)

DXO is way lame...


----------

