Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2.8 Rollei vs C/Y
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Asterinex,

Those pictures are very,very good.

Smile


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:

ok.. I sold the Flek because of the visible weaker corners compared to the Distagon/Color-Skoparex.. adaptation of QBM for Canon is very easy.. you will even get adapters which you can make to a semi-permanant mount. I agree that the Vario-Sonnar 3.4/35-70 will outperform all those mentioned 35mm primes, it's know for this. But which Samyang and Sigma you are talking about? I'm not familar with those superlenses..


As I implied, Flektogon's are a very mixed bag! Rollei > Canon is doable, but infinity focus with available adaptors is not. I shimmed a few adaptors down before coming to the conclusion that it was better to replace the mount . . .

The current (manual focus) Samyang 35/1.4 gives peak centre frame resolution of 3941 lw/ph at f4; best case Zone C (full frame corner) is at f5.6 - 3430. For comparison, the brand spanking new Distagon 35/2 (which, as we know, knocks into a cocked hat any of the old-school Distagons) peaks at 3933 centre frame (f4) and 3417 in the corners at f5.6.

At f2.8, the modern 35/2 delivers resolution of 3521/2934, whereas the Samyang gives 3877/3040. The Samyang has 1.6% barrel distortion; the Zeiss has 1.8%. The Samyang is a genuinely fine lens: better than Zeiss' best in most metrics, although it doesn't have the Zeiss colour and OOF transition.

The Sigma, though - well, that's a new ball game. At f2.8 it's even sharper than the Samyang - giving 3240 lw/ph resolution in Zone C. The Sigma's corners resolve as well at f1.4 as the best Zeiss 35mm does at f2.8. And distortion is just 1%.

So, yes, those two modern-day greats - both very well screwed together - are 'superlenses' by comparison with old-school 35mm primes. Who knows - maybe one day we'll be looking back on the Samyang and Sigma and wishing we had it so good . . .


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
hinnerker wrote:

I did have 5 or 6 copies of the Distagon 2.8/35mm... they are sharp, but nothing special... so did sell the lenses (Flek and Distagons) after compairing them against Leica Elmarit 2.8/35mm E55 Version.

Cheers
Henry


Interesting indeed. You have a lot of experience. I could buy an Elmarit 35mm 2.8. It is a R Leica lens. It comes to twice the price of a Flek or a Rollei Distagon. Should I go for it?
I don't want to buy a Flek as it is really expensive for a bet .
My hesitation was between SMC and Distagon, but now Elmarit though the price. It is for my A7.


Henry is dead right: the Distagon 35s are nothing special. The last of the Leica 35s is better, but in my experience not better in the core metrics than the Samyang or Sigma which - perversely - really are state of the art. Although nothing paints sky quite like a Leica . . .


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
16:9 wrote:
memetph wrote:
hinnerker wrote:

I did have 5 or 6 copies of the Distagon 2.8/35mm... they are sharp, but nothing special... so did sell the lenses (Flek and Distagons) after compairing them against Leica Elmarit 2.8/35mm E55 Version.

Cheers
Henry


Interesting indeed. You have a lot of experience. I could buy an Elmarit 35mm 2.8. It is a R Leica lens. It comes to twice the price of a Flek or a Rollei Distagon. Should I go for it?
I don't want to buy a Flek as it is really expensive for a bet .
My hesitation was between SMC and Distagon, but now Elmarit though the price. It is for my A7.


Henry is dead right: the Distagon 35s are nothing special. The last of the Leica 35s is better, but in my experience not better in the core metrics than the Samyang or Sigma which - perversely - really are state of the art. Although nothing paints sky quite like a Leica . . .


That's right.The blue colour of the sky or the reds is what majority of Leica lenses render superbly.

This was stated by someone who prefers Zeiss Embarassed


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
anscochrome wrote:
The 35mm F 2.8 Distagon C/Y is so horrendously poor, I used it to shoot several published book covers:









Well,I can't see this horrendous poorness in your pictures Very Happy ,so maybe the 35f2.8 Dist C/Y is not that bad. Question

My personal ranking (on the A7,NEX5n/7,Canon 5D2) is as follows:

1.Distagon 35/2.8 C/Y
2.Distagon 35/2.8 HFT for Rollei (Singapore made)
3.Distagon 35/2.8 (West Germany Made)

BTW:I came across a lemon Distagon 35/2.8 C/Y once
Twisted Evil,but my remaining two copies are very good.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I hear you!

I've shot with and/or tested (I think) about everything in this ballpark. As someone who loves Zeiss' rendition, I'm still not sure they make a 35mm lens I'd like to own. Whereas the last of the Leicas was pretty desirable. If I come across another at the right price, I'd be tempted to snag it as second-fiddle to the Sigma ART.

Which feels odd to say . . .

The published pix look fine, but (really) they could have been shot with any 35mm. I'm learning more about the photographer than the lens here . . .


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
16:9 wrote:
Tedat wrote:

ok.. I sold the Flek because of the visible weaker corners compared to the Distagon/Color-Skoparex.. adaptation of QBM for Canon is very easy.. you will even get adapters which you can make to a semi-permanant mount. I agree that the Vario-Sonnar 3.4/35-70 will outperform all those mentioned 35mm primes, it's know for this. But which Samyang and Sigma you are talking about? I'm not familar with those superlenses..


As I implied, Flektogon's are a very mixed bag! Rollei > Canon is doable, but infinity focus with available adaptors is not. I shimmed a few adaptors down before coming to the conclusion that it was better to replace the mount . . .

The current (manual focus) Samyang 35/1.4 gives peak centre frame resolution of 3941 lw/ph at f4; best case Zone C (full frame corner) is at f5.6 - 3430. For comparison, the brand spanking new Distagon 35/2 (which, as we know, knocks into a cocked hat any of the old-school Distagons) peaks at 3933 centre frame (f4) and 3417 in the corners at f5.6.

At f2.8, the modern 35/2 delivers resolution of 3521/2934, whereas the Samyang gives 3877/3040. The Samyang has 1.6% barrel distortion; the Zeiss has 1.8%. The Samyang is a genuinely fine lens: better than Zeiss' best in most metrics, although it doesn't have the Zeiss colour and OOF transition.

The Sigma, though - well, that's a new ball game. At f2.8 it's even sharper than the Samyang - giving 3240 lw/ph resolution in Zone C. The Sigma's corners resolve as well at f1.4 as the best Zeiss 35mm does at f2.8. And distortion is just 1%.

So, yes, those two modern-day greats - both very well screwed together - are 'superlenses' by comparison with old-school 35mm primes. Who knows - maybe one day we'll be looking back on the Samyang and Sigma and wishing we had it so good . . .


Meaningless numbers. How the lens renders is far more important, the character it imparts to the image.

Most people can't discern distortion in an image unless it is severe, most people don't notice the corner sharpness, but almost everyone notices the character of the image.

I bet my old Meyer Primagon 4.5/35 makes nicer pictures with nicer character in some situations than any of these modern lenses or the plasticity and bokeh of my Canon FL 2.5/35 at large apertures produces more pleasing images sometimes.

Numbers, shnumbers, real world results are what matters.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm all for character. Less so the character that derives from a broken lens. Unless I specifically want that 'broken lens' look - which sometimes I do! Just not all the time.

It's horses for courses.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Who said anything about broken lenses? That's a straw man argument.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
New lenses are better does not implies the old ones are boken.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't want to get drawn into testy territory.

But there are two issues that shouldn't be conflated . . . for technically precise work, a technically precise lens is needed. There are fundamental metrics of competence: 'better' is unambiguous. The (manual focus) Samyang and the new-fangled Sigma are more accurate tools with which to depict reality.

However, for expressive work - and when we're prepared to work around the weaknesses, and play to the strengths, of inferior designs for specific effect - then the world of funky, slightly 'broken' lenses is a toolbox of delights.

Certainly, I'm not saying that you can't take great pictures with duff lenses. Duff lenses can be charming.

Ultimately, not all new lenses are plastic and 'soulless'. Equally, not all old lenses are technically poor. But if begin drawing a straight line, and follow it, the endpoint for 35mm primes is currently the Samyang and Sigma.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
16:9 wrote:
I don't want to get drawn into testy territory.

But there are two issues that shouldn't be conflated . . . for technically precise work, a technically precise lens is needed. There are fundamental metrics of competence: 'better' is unambiguous. The (manual focus) Samyang and the new-fangled Sigma are more accurate tools with which to depict reality.

However, for expressive work - and when we're prepared to work around the weaknesses, and play to the strengths, of inferior designs for specific effect - then the world of funky, slightly 'broken' lenses is a toolbox of delights.

Certainly, I'm not saying that you can't take great pictures with duff lenses. Duff lenses can be charming.

Ultimately, not all new lenses are plastic and 'soulless'. Equally, not all old lenses are technically poor. But if begin drawing a straight line, and follow it, the endpoint for 35mm primes is currently the Samyang and Sigma.


I think you've come to the wrong forum Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1

This isn't a pixelpeeper forum here.. you may get drooling from photozone testcharts.. most of us not even care about those numbers. Wink
It's a forum mostly for people who have fun with legacy lenses and still get results which others won't even get with modern 10 times more expensive equipment. I only read "testing" and "higher resolution" or "duff lenses" and "inferior designs for specific effect"... c'mon we're not even talking about a Trioplan or adapted projection lens vs. a modern high-tech lens.


16:9 wrote:
But if begin drawing a straight line, and follow it, the endpoint for 35mm primes is currently the Samyang and Sigma.


xxxx lw/ph are absolut meanlingless for me.. it's not everything what a good lens is all about and it's not a giantic difference. I'm not the biggest fan of Ken Rockwell, but at one point he is completly right:

Warning 1: Image sharpness depends more on you than your lens.
Warning 2: Lens sharpness doesn't mean much to good photographers.

I wouldn't say I'm that good photographer.. but it seems I'm good enough that I don't have to care about. The Samyang and Sigma are super sharp lenses and nobody denies this, but I never had the feeling I need any more sharpness/resolution than I can get from a simple 2.8/35mm Distagon on my A7. I'm not shootig any testcharts or crop the hell out of a picture, I use it in real life.. for fun and not for "technically precise work" which needs a technically more precise lens. The Flek was different.. especially on fullframe the corners was much softer.. too soft for my taste. But ok.. could have been just my copy.. or maybe I have the best Distagon of this world. Who knows?


btw.. the Samyang (and also the mentioned Sigma) shouldn't be compared with this tiny Distagon.. it's 660g and 77mm filtersize vs. 240g and 55mm.. and it's at least twice expensive. The 1.4/35 Distagon would be a better comparison and while this one still may be inferior in terms of resolution and distorsion (again.. enough for me) it has a much better feel to me. Build quality and haptics are on a different level.. that' when we start drooling.. Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Y'all are welcome to your own double standards - heck knows I've got mine! However, the conversation began - and proceeded wholly - along the line of “Which is better?” Soft Flektogons were sold; Elmarits were purchased; Distagons were compared on the basis of their technical and 'aesthetic' qualities.

You'll have to forgive a noob a breach of forum etiquette, but I don't know the date of your unspoken chronological cut-off point for coolness - is it 1979? It's not in the AUP.

The Samyang is so old school, only its incept date and national origin could be held against it: really, what's not to like? It's even cheap.

Good photography is never well served by brand loyalty or (in this case, inverted) snobbery. I love my M39, M42, Rollei, C/Y, pinhole and Navitron lenses just as much as my shiny new Nikon or Canon glass - different, like my kids. You choose an appropriate tool for each job.

Funnily enough, I do have time for Ken (and obsessives in general), but on both points (and others) he's got his knickers in a twist. Image sharpness only depends more on you than your lens if the photographer is the weak link. If you know how to get the best from a lens - multiplied by your camera's ability to do the same - the lens can easily become the weakest link in the chain. When that happens, lens sharpness can make the difference between getting paid or not - lens sharpness sometimes does matter to clients.

If we're talking about the feel-good factor, I get that when I can rely on my equipment not to let me down under pressure. When not under pressure, I also get it from off-piste systems like shoebox cameras or my 'phone - even the haptic pleasure of well-oiled helical. If I feel good, I take better pictures. So sue me.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I won't sue you.. why should I? It's just still a forum for MF lenses lovers which enjoy shooting with them, very few of us are Pro and earn money with their photos.. they don't need the winner of the overall sharpness contest. It doesn't mean they only use soft lenses.. Wink

When Ian said "I think you've come to the wrong forum" and I agreed about, it doesn't means you're not welcome.. it's just for telling you that the personal preferences from most members here may are a bit different than elsewhere. Numbers from tests aren't important as long the results speak for theirselfes.

I never said the Samyang (or Sigma) is a bad lens, in fact it is the sharpest 1.4/35 at the moment and incredible cheap for a new lens with this abilities. Bokeh is smooth and CA practically absent.. but it comes with a price not everybody is willing to pay for: build quality/haptics and size/weight.. vignetting is pretty bad too. Some might like this lens, some not for those reasons. And like I said before.. I don't feel the need for more sharpness (corner to corner) than a cheaper and much smaller 2.8/35 Distagon (maybe also a good Flek copy) can deliver.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Schlepping about the streets with a small, cheap, funky lens is a blast - especially when it's older than you and adapted surprisingly well to digital life.

But when it comes to these “A vs B” threads, there is a hierarchy of desirability to which one either subscribes - or doesn't. If fun is the priority, all Distagons from that era have the Zeiss signature and are well made. One possible answer is: “Don't fret: snag any healthy specimen - they shoot very similarly”.

On the other hand a valid alternative answer is: “Optically, A > B > C but Samyang > A and Sigma > Samyang.” Which requires a bit of objective substantiation: numbers, etc.

The lenses that get me the most excited are those combining one-upmanship, ridiculously low cost and absurdly good performance. Like the £19 Rokkor CE 80/5.6 that just landed on my desk.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You overpaid a bit on that Rokkor, mine was 4ukp last month. Wink

I've reworked it and mounted it into a shutter for use on 6x9.

When it comes to numbers and stats, they really don't matter a jot, a lens is either sharp enough for the user's tastes or it isn't and that's the bottom line.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
You overpaid a bit on that Rokkor, mine was 4ukp last month. Wink

I've reworked it and mounted it into a shutter for use on 6x9.

When it comes to numbers and stats, they really don't matter a jot, a lens is either sharp enough for the user's tastes or it isn't and that's the bottom line.


Good catch. But when it comes to numbers, it really doesn't matter . . . a lens is either affordable or it isn't. That's the bottom line . . .
The Ultra Micro Nikkor 125/2.8 is affordable if you need it.

How does your CE Rokkor compare to your other 6x9 lenses - or is that a daft question?! I wanted to test for myself whether the CE is really any better than the E version.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The CE Rokkor is about the same as my Componon-S 5.6/80 on 6x9, but i have only made a few shots with it so can't say all that much. It's a different design to the E version, it's a 6/4 orthometar.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Enlarger lenses have often had a hard life: sample variation is problematic . . . this particular Rokkor CE looks at first blush to be a useful notch up from either of the Componon-S 100/5.6, slotting in nicely below the 105/4 Apo Rodagon.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
As a collector, I will prefer the Angulon 2.8/35 over the Distagon or Elmarit. Wink

I made a quick test with the Angulon on my A7. Very disappointing performance.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
As a collector, I will prefer the Angulon 2.8/35 over the Distagon or Elmarit. Wink

I made a quick test with the Angulon on my A7. Very disappointing performance.

From the comments I see in the internet, the corner performance is bad compare to other 35mm at the same period(probably due to field curve?). However, its has some quality that I can't find on any other lens I tried.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2024 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A complete review of the Rollei distagon 35mm f/2.8 is available here: https://otherphotosite.wordpress.com/2024/08/28/rollei-35mm-f28-qbm/


PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2024 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
photosite wrote:
A complete review of the Rollei distagon 35mm f/2.8 is available here: https://otherphotosite.wordpress.com/2024/08/28/rollei-35mm-f28-qbm/


I will not comment on findings but this needs to be corrected. Lens is 6 elements design.



PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2024 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
the Rollei version depicted in the reference cited above looks quite like my Alpa-mount version. Pignons ordered samples frrom Singapore but did not accept its quality and never marketed them.

I presume the difference to the Zeiss Obercochen version scared them away. I also bought a copy of the discarded Tele Tessar prototype, however, adapters alpa toNikon-Z, or Leica-L are not common hnce i have to use my old metabones-Alpa-MFT adapter as intermediate risking solid vignetting so I have not bothered.

p.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3