Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f1.4 or Tevidon 35mm f1.9

[Attila]

Tevidon is better I think sharper, better CA control and better contrast too.

[rbelyell]

wow! thats saying a lot. when i was shooting slr's the distagon was my most longed for lens. i thought i had not seen any better IQ from any lens. back then i thought the 35distagon, the 75 biotar and the 120 biometar and i'd never need another lens!
tony

[Attila]

[ManualFocus-G]

Not on full frame though

[ForenSeil]

All Tevidons I've seen are very good indeed. How's corner performance on NEX?

Comparision is a slightly unfair as Disagon is a retrofocus design with FF coverage - Biogon 35/2 would be slightly less unfair

[Attila]

Come on who care full frame, edges, subject at center or 4/3 not at edges, I compare what I see on my pictures, everything else from my perspective not important

[Orio]

I will NEVER change my mind on the Distagon 1.4/35 even if you show me pictures made by God himself

[ManualFocus-G]

No bias there then!

[iangreenhalgh1]

Edge performance is important for many shots, especially architecture, landscapes and anything at infinity.

Also, the Tevidon is c-mount so no good for 35mm film. Unless I could find one cheap, wouldn't interest me as I could only use it on my NEX.

[Attila]

[Orio]

Tomorrow I'm taking mine (Distagon) to a photo shooting with a model.
If there is need of wide angle I will use it (although I rarely shoot portraits outside the 50-135 range )

[rbelyell]

orio it was a lot of your work with the distagon that led me to my opinion on it. your results with it are simply outstanding.
tony

[Orio]

[TSherman]

Tevidon newbie question - does it cover 1.5x sensors?

[Attila]

[berraneck]

attila...
1) it is no secret that lenses for larger format usually have worse resolution&IQ on smaller sensors. 6x7 medium format lenses such those for Mamiya7 system have resolution ~120 lpmm and are considered ultra-sharp, while on 24x36 sensor they would be maybe better average - f.e. Zeiss claims 400lpmm for their 25/2.8 biogon.
2) you are comparing ultrafast wide angle lens with normal lens. I can make same comparison using 5DmkII and what a surprise, Distagon will win - because Tevidon would vignette and won´t focus past macro distance
3) the worst thing, you are confusing newbies which don´t see the difference. many of us on the forum understand what you mean, but forum is also for newbies in mflenses, right?

[fermy]

Well, lenses for 35mm photography in general are the pinnacle of lens design. As a rule they are better corrected and surpass c-mounts and cine lenses for resolution. Perhaps only lately small sensor lenses appeared that are even sharper, e.g. native m4/3 primes, but those are complicated designs (9 elements in 8 groups with special glass for a mere 45/1.8 ) and they use tricks such as software correction for geometric distortion to achieve high resolution.

Therefore, I have serious doubts that Tevidon is sharper than Distagon, but if it is so, it's nothing short of amazing.

[Attila]

I saw 35mm f1.9 Tevidon is sharper wide open than Distagon at F2 and more impressed by Tevidon stopped down too. Certainly this is my impression only and even if may not true , good enough to hat off before Jena workers. According to Klaus this lens was selected by Nasa to a mission .. an eastern lens... say something.

[berraneck]

[wuxiekeji]

I'd also recommend checking out the Samyang (=Rokinon, etc.) 35/1.4. It's a holy god of an amazing lens for the price. Comes close to or even beats the Zeiss in many aspects, and is a fraction of the cost of the Zeiss 35. My only complaint is that the housing is plastic so I have to be careful carrying it around on hikes and whatnot. But the images are superb, or at least my copy of it is. Comes in a very affordable video version too (=declicked aperture + cine focus gears) if you like doing video.