distagon 35 1.4 c/y or distagon 35 2 zs?

[bghomofaber]

Hallo folks,

when i have sold some audio gear I plan to get a nice 35mm for my c/y 139 and 159 cameras.

I use mostly the c/y vario sonnar 35-70 3.4 but I like only low speed film for clarity, colors and sharpness.

I shot only architectural details, nature, some macro (with other gear) a few humans but substantially humans are shot just for family purposes, time of fancy models is gone ..

I wodner which of the two lensses will be betetr considering my needs:

1) sharpness

2) lack of distortion

3) flare control

4) speed

My scenario is:

a) I take the zs (best in terms of flare control I read), spend possibly less, use a contax body for full light with a 50 iso, use the other with a 400 iso film for semi critical conditions, in shadowy places even if during the day. The f 2 will have an advantage over the 3.4 vario sonnar, but I still do not like 400 ISO grain much. In the future I will buy a decent used full frame digital forgetting grain and the need for the 1.4 speed


b) I take the 35 c/y 1.4 and go on with less say a 50 iso and a 100 iso body.

But the great question is:

is the 35 c/y really inferirior to the ZS? I want peace of mind as I conceive my tols as the best in any field, even if I let my fantasy run in many shots, degrading and altering many images (not all though) significanlty tot he point I could use my praktica easily for that shots.

When making documentary pics I want a perfectly airy, natural sensation of not having a lens betwen me and the image I get.

[biggles3]

I have no experience of the ZS but I do use the Zeiss 35 1.4, 35 2.8 and 35 2.8 PC-Shift lenses on Contax/Yashica bodies, Fuji X-series CSCs, m4/3 cameras and my full frame Canon.

All three lenses are incredibly sharp, evenly illuminated and pretty much distortion-free with optimum performance from f4-f11 but all are still very acceptable wide-open. Flare is not much of an issue with any of these lenses with the famed T* coating doing an excellent job.

For architectural work, the only lens to consider is the PC-Shift as you have the opportunity to control perspective, an invaluable tool for architectural and product photography. Obviously, if you need speed and the ability to create a shallow depth of field, the f1.4 is the natural choice. It is a heavy piece of glass but delivers images that really pop - I've even used mine for portraiture using 4/3 and m4/3 cameras where the shallow depth of field at f1.4 is a bonus (you can really isolate the eyes of the sitter), as the lens becomes in effect a 70mm f1.4.

The f2.8 Distagon is an overlooked lens but has a lovely soft bokeh, is very sharp and provides very even illumination edge-to-edge - and it offers excellent value for money. Interestingly, if you don't need the speed of the f1.4, there is another lens that is the equal of the Zeiss 35 and that is the astonishing Yashica ML 35 2.8 - one of the sharpest lenses out there and more than a match for Zeiss. Under the most extreme lighting conditions, the ML coating is not quite as effective as the T* but generally, flare is handled pretty well by the Yashica ML lens.

In summary, you won't be disappointed with the 35 1.4 in C/Y mount. I would opt for the earlier AE mount version as I prefer its more neutral colour rendering but if you prefer a warmer cast, and if you want to get the most out of your 159MM, then the later MM version will appeal. Both versions are excellent lenses. But think about the alternatives too...

[blotafton]

I would take a C/Y 35mm 2.8. No need for the speed personally. Really want that lens actually