What I love Zeiss is their color rendering , unique. While it may not be the sharpest, in my view, sharp enough with mesmerizing color, no post or photoshop needed.
I love this lens' colour and contrast for landscapes at f8. More than sharp enough for that use. I bought mine 2nd hand for NZ$750 (about £375) and that seems a fair price.
I have the Loxia 35 and also the Apo Lanthar 35 and 50. In many situations I prefer the Loxia 35 That has nothing to do with 'vintage' which is just a pigeon hole used by folk who only see sharpness in a lens. The Loxia 35 is more than sharp enough outwith portrait apertures and has a colour, contrast and subtlety which the Apo Lanthers can't match although they can do really well but with a lot more processing than the Loxia. The Loxia advantage is also there with the 21 25 and 85 which I have. It is a pity that reviewers only deal with the safe measurables and are unable or unwilling to give a considered assessment of characteristics which many photographers consider much more important than sharpness with the result that lenses like the Loxia 35 do not get any kind of balanced assessment.
I'm guessing you shoot JPEG? I'm not sure how you would see a color difference shooting in raw. Based on this test and the CV test, I'd likely go with the 35mm APO for landscape and astrophotography. I'll eventually pick up a Loxia 35 mm to try with portraiture. It's a shame Zeiss gave up designing lenses for photographers.
I do not have the Zeiss Loxia 35mm 2.0, but I have the Zeiss Loxia Distagon 21mm 2.8 and the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical, in my experience the Voigtländer do not need more work in software than the Loxia ! The 21mm Loxia performs better than the Loxia 35mm in reviews/test.
@cameraprepper7938 Loxia 21 was a new design, whereas the Loxia 35mm was an older design based on the Biogon. A more fair comparison would be the Voigtländer 21mm F/1.4. It's said to outperform the Loxia. However, much like the Loxia it's coma performance isn't great unless you stop it down and use a tracker. I think I also prefer the haptics of the Voigtländer better. Just wish they would weather seal their lenses.
I have this lens and find it fantastic to use in every way. There is way more to this lens than the lens charts suggest. They can be had for a fraction of the list price on the used market.
The thing with this lens is that it should be bought as the pack of the five focal lengths. All the different lens have the same height and placement of the rings so they can be changed quickly on a gimbal without readjusting everything. A big time saver for videographers
This is why these lenses sell for 1/3 of the price used. In terms of technical performance they are average, but in real use they throw really good looking pictures.
Word is the 35 and 50mm are based on older rangefinder designs, whereas the 21, 25 and 85mm are new optical designs, so I'd expect the latter to handily outperform the former, despite the 21's and 25's more challenging parameters. *Well, new at the time, these Loxias have been out for a while now and optical development seems to have entered a bit of an arms race.
Hi Christopher, many thanks for testing this lens with your standards. It helps me to compare it to the strength and limits of your other tested lenses on your camera sensors. I bought one 2015 on an exhibition after testing any other top notch 35mm lens available incl. the ZM 35mm F1.4. Since some years a trend to more resolution had begun, no matter what it takes. After some weeks I sent compliments to Zeiss, because they were brave against this trend. The Loxia 35, 50, 85 represent the highest standard possible without any aspherical element. In mho it matters for pictures of humans and nature. This lens is 3 in 1. I make use of the amount of sharpness for portraits between F2.0-3.5, technical objects from F3.5 and landscapes from F5.6. If you like have a look on Verybiglobo photo. Check out the pictures on his ZM 35 1.4 comparison review. My comment was on October 2. 2015. I will test the GM some day which might be the best lens available today. But I'm reserved if it will win in all aspects. Best regards: Juergen
Honestly, to my eyes this lens looks incredibly beautiful! Luckily for us we have many options for Sony E-Mount, but I really hope to see the Zeiss Loxia lineup for L/Z/RF mounts as well! ❤️
I love this lens, not only because of the beautiful sunstars. The color and 3d pop ist typical Zeiss and against other 35mm lenses I mostly prefer the loxia image. Also I love the compact size, the aperture ring and manual focus ... pure photography. I don't care about what a 200% zoomed in picture looks like ;) but that's just me. Technically you might be right.
100% agreed. I despise reviews based on purely technical aspects that leave out the more relevant qualities and the results a lens produces. This jewel delivers charming rendering images and plenty of sharpness.
@@joetrent4753 they can be adapted. Also, think the point he was trying to make is that there is no good reason for this to cost as much as it does, especially when making a lens like this on mirrorless (without AF) should be even easier, hell, you could just have a similar optical design to a DSLR lens and space the optical elements forward.
@@RossMitchellsProfile But, regardless of price, still totally different lenses and the Zeiss is native without the need for an expensive adapter with electronic contacts. Manual focus on an af lens is a very poor experience compared to a proper manual lens. People who buy the Zeiss want a manual lens.
People who own this lens can of course get great images with it, good photographers can get great images with just about any equipment. The fact remains a vintage lens will work just as well. Or... if you need weather sealing there are options like the tamron 35mm f/1.8 that can be picked up for a small fraction the price these days.
I bought the Voigtländer 35mm f2 Apo-Lanthar, this lens is much sharper as the Loxia, has no ca's and supplies very nice colors. The Voigtländer is a great lens for the A7R3 and A7R4, and with the A7C a fantastic light combo.
I also have the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical, it performs at least as good in optical image quality as the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM, when I got the Voigtländer, then the EXIF data said it was a Zeiss Loxia 35mm 2.0 until I updated the software.
It's not just "Zeiss" but the venerable "Biogon" tag that you're buying, which makes the price "Bio-shocking". The Biogon originals do fetch a bit of a premium on the vintage lens market, and of course you've often got decades worth of wear and tear, cleaning marks, possible fungus, and damaged coatings, making finding one in good nick a real challenge. Plus you get no EXIF data. It's pretty clear they're aiming for people who want that "Biogon look" and genuine name, figure they're already paying a premium to find a good one, and a few bucks more for a modernized one is worth extra.
It seems to me Zeiss lenses perform uniquely well when it comes to color rendition and contrast. Would their strength be there? You never talk about color rendition, maybe it's not important enough, idk. Well, I'd like to leave a suggestion for a different video, then. Get some primes with the same (or near identical) focal length and make a shooting session focused on color rendition.
I have the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical and can highly recommend it, I have studied many reviews of both the Voigtländer and the 35mm Loxia, the Voigtländer outperforms the Loxia, funy thing is that when I got the Voigtlåander, then the EXIF told it wa a Loxia 35mm 2.0
The 35 and 50mm loxias were old designs Zeiss rushed out in the early days of the FE mount. The 21 (and 85?) were new designs that came out much later, and were a huge improvement.
it's difficult to understand that Zeiss doesn't bring out a renewed designed 35mm and 50mm. if this one was on par with the 25 + 85 I would definitely buy one.
@@hansernst5998 yeah I would definitely be keen on them too, but it seems like zeiss has left the con/pro-sumer space. Voigtlander seems to have taken up where they left off...
Having the 50mm Loxia I do have to say at full price I have not found it to be worth the money but as a used lens you can find some “nice” deals on it. Love it’s character but don’t think I would ever buy them full price. I’ve also heard the 35 isn’t the best of the series so it would be nice to see you do them all. Fantastic video as always!
The Loxia line can be found at a discount quite often now, especially the 35 and 50, at around $600 or even less with used. At this price I think these lenses are worth looking at for those who enjoy manual focusing lenses :) Haven't tried this 35 but have owned the 50, and I really liked it!
Maybe they're selling this as a "old Biogon optics style" in a modern luxury package? Like the Leica Thambar 90 f/2.2, though not as extreme (and good luck getting close), or the Voigtlander 35 1.2, which sells it's optical defects as features (like the extreme flaring wide open) In any case, it does give Voigtlander even more credit for their APO and other modern manual lenses
The Voigtländer 35/1,2 Nokton SE is expensive and has rather a lot of optical defects, however compared to the Argus it is small, compared to the Bigma it is small, compared to most anything else equally fast it is small. It can be very soft but can also have sunstars and quite good sharpness across most of the frame stopped down. As for this lens, it is literally an older design, just like the 50mm and unlike the rest of the Loxiae.
@@ВсеволодИгоревичАврутский Elias did say in the original comment "if you WANT a lens that's *not sharp* ..." then old vintage lenses are definitely more affordable and give the same (bad) performance as this Zeiss.
You could spend less and go for a Voigtlander 35mm f2 APO Lanthar with electronic contacts and 5-axis IBIS support and that lens IS sharp. Also these clinical tests don’t really show how a lens performs in real world situations. My Voigtlander 40mm lens would perform badly in these tests but is a stunning lens when taking normal photos. Please also bear in mind there are many reasons people like modern manual lenses. It’s very lazy to just assume people want a cheap, unsharp vintage vibe.
It's an old film lens that's been redesigned to work with Sony's sensor stack. So you're right in a sense, but this is plug and play and it's rendering is unique. It also has the smoothest manual focus available and renders superbly for movies without being too hard & flat like a modern, hyper corrected internally focusing lens with plastic elements. Going vintage results in various adapters and possibility of requiring servicing which can be wonderful but not everyone wants that.
Whilst I can’t justify the price myself, I will say that the value of the Loxia lenses truly comes into focus when you see them as a set. I would love to see an updated version of these that could rival the Summicrons and addresses all of the issues that everyone agrees upon. Character is one thing, but with these being the only native e-mount manual focus prime set, I think a precedence of “perfect” optics needed to be set before these came to light
The Zeiss Loxia 35mm 2.0 are an older Lens design now made by Cosina, The newer designed Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical also made by Cosina are much better performing, in fact the Voigtländer are as good as the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM ! When I got the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical, then the EXIF data told that is was a Zeiss Loxia 35mm 2.0 ! 😊 I can highly recommend the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical, I will also recommend the Sony Zeiss Sonnar 35mm 2.8 ZA which is so small and light, that you always can find space for it !
I have a Nikon AF-D NIKKOR 35mm f/2 lens from 1995, a lens that’s older than I am. I love the sort of classic, vintage feel I get from the images I take with it. I think that it performs very similarly to this Zeiss lens, if not slightly better. But the best part? It can be found for about a fifth of the price. I know that Nikon’s systems aren’t interchangeable, so I’ll make my point: go for vintage lenses if you like this kind of image quality, no matter what brand you’ve bought into, the lenses are cheaper and sometimes they’re better than the super expensive lenses like this Zeiss lens.
i’ve always wanted you to review this because i’ve caught it from time to time for $350 - $400 price range used but thank goodness i waited 😅 that would’ve been a waste
This review is not representative on the 35mm true qualities. I own it, and despite having technically the superior 35mm (Sony GM 1.4 35mm) I tend to gravitate back to my beloved Loxia 35mm.
Unfortunately, I find the maker's opinon often biased and the content is badly reserached. The pricing information is wrong. It can be had brand new for €850, which still is expensive but it is no longer 1300 bucks or pounds. The lens was introduced around 2015, which is old by now. Lens development has picked up speed. It was also forgotten to mention that the Loxia lens series shares the same lens size between all the lenses, which in theory should help swapping lenses during shooting videos. One of the other viewers stated, when this lens was introduced, no other lens of this kind was around. Therefore the lens was justified to be in existence and the price was the price back then. The sharpness test (or your lab tests) is too clinical and therfore the test does not show true performance across many lenses by the way. The flaring shown here is acceptable. (except the sunstars). However, there are lenses out there that perform better and far worse. Your opinion to sell the lens right away is bit hideous. Have a look at Proferssor Hines's review on this lens and this what you can do with this lens.
I'm sorry, but the Loxia 35mm f/2 is a disaster. Try the Voigtländer 35mm f/2 APO Lanther for a truly excellent lens for less money. For autofocus, there's the Sigma 35mm f/2 for half the price.
i have the 50 mm loxia and it is super sharp and nice to use but the sealant gasket broke and i let it repair by zeiss and it broke again. just normal (not even heavy) use. also have a batis 18mm. bought those lenses because i thought zeiss is very good but now the autofocus motor of the batis is just going bad. ill buy vintage lenses but the newer zeiss products i wont by anymore. i am very dissapointed with the brand at the moment
As usual, my taste in lenses is the exact opposite of Christopher. Particularly bokeh. So when he says the bokeh is bad or the flare is terrible, or there is some ghosting wide open, i know I'll probably love the lens.
It's funny that I stumbled across one on ebay today, wondering whether this would be a good 35mm option - and here you are giving a clear and concise answer that I didn't find elsewhere on TH-cam. Thanks! I'm quite astounded what Zeiss offers for such ridiculously high prices.
I must admit I bought a Loxia 21mm and was surprised to find that it was actually not quite as sharp as my Sony 24-105 f4 when they were both at f4. Given it was also almost impossible to get on and off the camera due to everything rotating, I returned it. About the only thing I liked about it were the sunstars. If you want a premium manual 35mm, I'd get the Voigtlander 35mm APO f2. It's an infintely better lens...
That was not a nice comment to make: "Sell the lens immediately because you have been cheated". You are wrong, so wrong. This is a fantastic lens in practical use and I feel happy to have this lens and would pay this price again if I had to.
I wonder why Zeiss lenses are so expensive, is it because they are produced in Germany? Or are we mostly just paying for the brand? I've watched most videos from Chritopher, and I noticed that Zeiss lenses tend to be pretty disappointing and/or overpriced.
I own this lens and use it for both street and landscape. Generally I use it in the middle apertures where it’s sharpness is great in real life situations. In street it is great for zone focusing . I also like the contrast and colour rendition. I have to agree with you that the weather seal does make taking it off and on a camera body problematic.
Loxia 35mm is the worst of the loxia family, and 50mm is good only stopped down...I knew that before I bought Loxia 21mm and 85mm for my landscape shooting. I can tell that I am very satisfied with images. They are very good against bright light, very nice sunstars, contrast, sharpness, small filter thread and slim form factor. I also bought grip sticker for both lenses, so I have no problem when I am mounting or unmounting lens. In my opinion still best primes for landscapes with unique character. But when it comes to 35mm, the 35mm GM is way to go, not loxia.
When I reviewed this lens, I had the same conclusions. It is 'ok' wide open, and pretty nice stopped down for landscape work, but I found image quality to be largely identical to the Canon FD 35mm f/2 from 1985, which is pretty pathetic for a Zeiss optic costing what it does. When this was released, Voigtlander hadn't released anything like this yet, but with the 35 APO Lanthar around now, there is literally zero reason to ever buy the Loxia 35mm. The 50mm is also an old design, but the other Loxias...especially the 21mm and 85mm, are sensational.
You want a spherical design and like the bokeh rendering of the Biogon then only a biogon will do. It was designed for film cameras and to be cinematic and not too hard. The 21&85 are really magical in terms of sharpness but provide a different look and tonal response in the image - it's horses for courses.
@@user-sg6xv2kb8s maybe so, but again, I found it's quality and look to be extremely similar to the FD 35/2, which can be had easily for 1/5 the price.
@@JordanCS13 a freshly serviced 35/2 FD is a wonderful thing. Here they run around $300 mint and used, the Loxia can be had for not a whole lot more. If you want a newly manufactuered lens that will plug & play with your Sony sensor stack; almost impossibly smooth focusing, Zeiss coatings/glass and of course no adapter tubes then they are a good option. Thr Loxia line are all colour matched. That old Canon glass has great sparkle and cinematic colour/rendering also. Aren't we lucky to have so many options, personally I'm glad Zeiss made these.
I don't know why this is kept on the market. In the US & Canada, this is the same price as the Sony 35mm GM, which, except for a bit of pincushion distortion, outperforms it in every way, while offering much better performance/features. And there's a wealth of options at lower prices as well.
Yea I think the optical formula for this one (and the 50mm) was lifted straight from the older rangefinder version, not stellar like it's other Loxia siblings.
I doubt it. The 35/2 Biogon is an excellent lens, as are most rangefinder lenses, with a protruding rear element. Rangefinder lenses are not designed to a compromise as the focus plane is much further back.
The Zeiss Biogon 35mm F2 ZM (Leica M Mount) is the much better, sharper Lens into contrast. Good Review, Chris :-) As it could being read onto the net, "Sony Zeiss" Lenses aren't originally Zeiss-designed Lenses, by its purest meaning. The worst Lens of this is the Sony Zeiss 16-70 F4 Zoom.
I don't think it would perform better adapted considering the sensor is a lot thicker. I also found the Distagon 35mm F/1.4 to perform better at F/2 as far as the spherical highlights go. Even the Biogon F/2.8 has better rendering in my eyes. The F/2 has rather distracting busy rendering. I know it's subjective taste. But if I placed two comparison photos side by side I'm sure you would agree.
Yes, different thickness of different Sensors via OLPF is a thing, especially Sony does have a usually thick Sensor Stack via OPLF, and no microlenses like Leica especially at the side. I've seen pictures from all 3, hence Zeiss ZM 35/2.8, 35/2 and 35/1.4....Bokeh is always being a matter of personal taste. I do not own one or all of this trio, but i'd own a CLE soon, and as for the cost issue, i might go with Voigtländer (Cosina, which is also the producer of all Zeiss ZM lenses) and going for the Nokton 40/1.4 MC, because i can't afford a M6/M7...and i do really like the small Leica(Minolta) CL format, which is about the same like Fujifilm X100 series, from which i own the original one into black as LE. The Leica CL was a joint venture from Leica & Minolta, starting from 1973-76 circa, and all bodies have been produced by Minolta, since the M5 back into time was a flop, both from design & price, and then the CL was so much cheaper, smaller...and for many...good enough. So the CL was eating sales away from Leica. Minolta went on route alone, without Leicas blessing, and created, showed the Minolta CLE @Photokina 1980, it came into sale into 1981. I am fine with the 40mm focal length, my 2nd most used one, after 35mm....i say Konica. 🙂@@princeharbinger
@marcp.1752 @marcp.1752 There is a sensor modification you can have done to reduce the thickness of the sensor so the lenses perform better. I suppose you could also use cobolt-image presets if you wanted the Leica colors. I've heard good things about that CV lens. Another lens that you may like is the Minolta M- ROKKOR 40mm F/2, which has Leica optics in it. It cost far less than the version with the Leica name engraved in the nameplate ring. As for CV lenses, I'm interested in the 21mm F/1.4. I'm not a big fan of dealing with the Loxias 21mms field curvature. I feel at the price point it should have been made to be flat field and focus exactly on the infinity hard stop. I'd also be interested in the Lanthar APO line. You could get a Leica M 240 body or if you wanted the cheapest Leica camera with a fixed lens checkout the X1. The Fujifilm cameras I have been considering. It's a shame that the CV APS-C lenses don't perform so well. So I won't be purchasing any of them when I decide to purchase a Fuji camera. Thanks for sharing your knowledge on the history. The joint venture history was interesting, and now Sony owns Minolta and some of the original workers. I even heard that Leica is using the Sony A7RV sensor on the M11.
First things 1st, yes there are for some Voigtländer lenses special filter stack glasses, one can put into front. But as a Minolta (MD II, III) series shooter since 1991 (and 1989 with Contax & Yashica) i can tell you - please don't spread silly rumors, the MD Rokkor 45mm F2 doesn't have any kind of "Leica" glass inside, and is even worse (edges) than a simple Contax Tessar 45mm F2.8...and the Tessar (albeit not with that T* MC) came out into 1903..so it's basically a very old lens design by Zeiss. FYI, Leica Zeiss was often going head-to-head during the decades, and when Zeiss released the Contax I into 1932 - it was better than any avialable Leica rangefinder back then, same goes for the lenses, and various other lenses afterwards, compared to their Leica equivalents. The Contax G 45mm F2 isn't a Leica Lens, neither a "Leica" design, but it's being overhyped nowadays...and Zeiss is my #1 always, because it's being here & there better than Leica, and into contrast, affordable..depending which lens & setup...for Leica, one does always have to shell out 4-digit numbers in cash, i am not richy rich...no offense...@@princeharbinger
No surprise that Sony almost discontinued their “Zeiss” branded lenses, they are overpriced for the performance and they had not very good quality control. I’ve had a Zeiss 35mm f2.8, yes it is sharp and has nice colours, but it has the disappointing vignetting and just ok bokeh. It costs too much for what it is.
Zeiss branded lenses or Zeiss lenses? There are many different types such as the Sony Zeiss lenses, Batis lenses and whatg not. Sony themselves had QC issures. And further, every lens manufactuerer has lemons.
@@oliverlison I mean Sony Zeiss (24-70f4, 35f2.8, 55f1.8 etc). The lenses are quite old right now and there is no new lenses in the lineup, that’s why I said they’re almost discontinued.
I swear Zeiss has been like this forever. I thought they were all about character and imperfection at a premium. idk why people put them in the same basket as Leica.
For mirrorless lenses: "The exceptional ZEISS lenses for mirrorless system cameras are used in conjunction current high-resolution sensors for images without any compromises - delivering outstanding performance, reliability and low weight." For SLR/DSLR lenses: "Fixed focal lengths with highly precise, manual focus for high-resolution SLR cameras." Straight from their own website. They're put in the same basket as Leica (even though Leica's lenses aren't perfect either) because they're focusing on the same mentality. And let's not forget the Milvus and Otus lenses, at least around the time they came out, especially considering they were in the same price range as Leica's Summilux lenses.
i used to own this lens and bought it 2nd hand without doing my research. no words can describe how shocked i was at the terrible coma performance, and the sun stars were actually more of a nuisance to me. luckily i now own the 50mm loxia and it is much better
When you want to have an awsome Zeiss lens buy better the vintage one, the Distagon from west or The Flektogon from east they're awesome considered their current price and compared to thisone🤣 ( I payed for an m42 Fleki aprox 60€... distegon is more expensive though... )
Jesus! What happened there? You can buy the Sigma 35m f/1.4 for half the money, one stop brighter, much beter image quality and autofocus. What were thay thinking?
@@tselykovskiy I get a distinct impression that it would be benefitial for you to read up on what symptoms of a decentered lens are before engaging any further in this conversation.
A decentered lens is a lens that has had one of its element shifted off center. You might get sharpness in one corner and not the other (different sharpness patterns) but not in all four corners simultaneously.
Wow - what a terrible performance. Obviously Zeiss are recycling their old 80's designs (maybe with a few tweaks to coating or glass) - but this is like putting lipstick on a pig. My 35mm f/2 Mir-24M from the 80's could hold a candle to this, particularly wide open, those corners are impressively bad.
![[UNCUT]"ทนายตั้ม" แฉยับ! ความลับสวรรค์ ใครคือ "บิ๊กเทวดา" ของบอสพอล l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l 15 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ru9fpSaUwdA/mqdefault.jpg)
What I love Zeiss is their color rendering , unique. While it may not be the sharpest, in my view, sharp enough with mesmerizing color, no post or photoshop needed.
Indeed 😊
Agreed. I also have the Sony 35mm f/1.4, GM, whilst excellent, it doesn't have the rendering of this Zeiss Loxia has.
I love this lens' colour and contrast for landscapes at f8. More than sharp enough for that use. I bought mine 2nd hand for NZ$750 (about £375) and that seems a fair price.
I have the Loxia 35 and also the Apo Lanthar 35 and 50. In many situations I prefer the Loxia 35 That has nothing to do with 'vintage' which is just a pigeon hole used by folk who only see sharpness in a lens. The Loxia 35 is more than sharp enough outwith portrait apertures and has a colour, contrast and subtlety which the Apo Lanthers can't match although they can do really well but with a lot more processing than the Loxia. The Loxia advantage is also there with the 21 25 and 85 which I have. It is a pity that reviewers only deal with the safe measurables and are unable or unwilling to give a considered assessment of characteristics which many photographers consider much more important than sharpness with the result that lenses like the Loxia 35 do not get any kind of balanced assessment.
I'm guessing you shoot JPEG? I'm not sure how you would see a color difference shooting in raw. Based on this test and the CV test, I'd likely go with the 35mm APO for landscape and astrophotography. I'll eventually pick up a Loxia 35 mm to try with portraiture. It's a shame Zeiss gave up designing lenses for photographers.
I do not have the Zeiss Loxia 35mm 2.0, but I have the Zeiss Loxia Distagon 21mm 2.8 and the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical, in my experience the Voigtländer do not need more work in software than the Loxia ! The 21mm Loxia performs better than the Loxia 35mm in reviews/test.
@cameraprepper7938 Loxia 21 was a new design, whereas the Loxia 35mm was an older design based on the Biogon. A more fair comparison would be the Voigtländer 21mm F/1.4. It's said to outperform the Loxia. However, much like the Loxia it's coma performance isn't great unless you stop it down and use a tracker. I think I also prefer the haptics of the Voigtländer better. Just wish they would weather seal their lenses.
My sentiments exactly. Thank you.
I have this lens and find it fantastic to use in every way. There is way more to this lens than the lens charts suggest. They can be had for a fraction of the list price on the used market.
And I have no trouble paying the full price for its performance.
The thing with this lens is that it should be bought as the pack of the five focal lengths. All the different lens have the same height and placement of the rings so they can be changed quickly on a gimbal without readjusting everything. A big time saver for videographers
I don’t know what planet you guys are on but these Loxia lenses are nothing but phenomenal iq is insane and very rich color and cinematic
My sentiments exactly. I have tried many, the Sony GM 35mm f1.4, among them. I keep gravitating back to this little jewel.
This is why these lenses sell for 1/3 of the price used. In terms of technical performance they are average, but in real use they throw really good looking pictures.
Word is the 35 and 50mm are based on older rangefinder designs, whereas the 21, 25 and 85mm are new optical designs, so I'd expect the latter to handily outperform the former, despite the 21's and 25's more challenging parameters.
*Well, new at the time, these Loxias have been out for a while now and optical development seems to have entered a bit of an arms race.
You are right, the 21, 25 and 85 outperforms the 35 and 50mm
Hi Christopher, many thanks for testing this lens with your standards. It helps me to compare it to the strength and limits of your other tested lenses on your camera sensors. I bought one 2015 on an exhibition after testing any other top notch 35mm lens available incl. the ZM 35mm F1.4. Since some years a trend to more resolution had begun, no matter what it takes. After some weeks I sent compliments to Zeiss, because they were brave against this trend. The Loxia 35, 50, 85 represent the highest standard possible without any aspherical element. In mho it matters for pictures of humans and nature. This lens is 3 in 1. I make use of the amount of sharpness for portraits between F2.0-3.5, technical objects from F3.5 and landscapes from F5.6. If you like have a look on Verybiglobo photo. Check out the pictures on his ZM 35 1.4 comparison review. My comment was on October 2. 2015. I will test the GM some day which might be the best lens available today. But I'm reserved if it will win in all aspects. Best regards: Juergen
Honestly, to my eyes this lens looks incredibly beautiful!
Luckily for us we have many options for Sony E-Mount, but I really hope to see the Zeiss Loxia lineup for L/Z/RF mounts as well! ❤️
I love this lens, not only because of the beautiful sunstars. The color and 3d pop ist typical Zeiss and against other 35mm lenses I mostly prefer the loxia image. Also I love the compact size, the aperture ring and manual focus ... pure photography. I don't care about what a 200% zoomed in picture looks like ;) but that's just me. Technically you might be right.
100% agreed. I despise reviews based on purely technical aspects that leave out the more relevant qualities and the results a lens produces. This jewel delivers charming rendering images and plenty of sharpness.
It performs equally to Canon EF 35mm F2 which has AF, IS, made for DSLRs(it is easier to design wide angle lenses for mirrorless cameras) and cheaper.
A Canon lens is not a Sony lens.
@@joetrent4753 they can be adapted. Also, think the point he was trying to make is that there is no good reason for this to cost as much as it does, especially when making a lens like this on mirrorless (without AF) should be even easier, hell, you could just have a similar optical design to a DSLR lens and space the optical elements forward.
@@RossMitchellsProfile But, regardless of price, still totally different lenses and the Zeiss is native without the need for an expensive adapter with electronic contacts. Manual focus on an af lens is a very poor experience compared to a proper manual lens. People who buy the Zeiss want a manual lens.
Wow, never seen Coma just turn into enormous sun stars like that.
People who own this lens can of course get great images with it, good photographers can get great images with just about any equipment.
The fact remains a vintage lens will work just as well. Or... if you need weather sealing there are options like the tamron 35mm f/1.8 that can be picked up for a small fraction the price these days.
I bought the Voigtländer 35mm f2 Apo-Lanthar, this lens is much sharper as the Loxia, has no ca's and supplies very nice colors. The Voigtländer is a great lens for the A7R3 and A7R4, and with the A7C a fantastic light combo.
I also have the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical, it performs at least as good in optical image quality as the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM, when I got the Voigtländer, then the EXIF data said it was a Zeiss Loxia 35mm 2.0 until I updated the software.
It's not just "Zeiss" but the venerable "Biogon" tag that you're buying, which makes the price "Bio-shocking". The Biogon originals do fetch a bit of a premium on the vintage lens market, and of course you've often got decades worth of wear and tear, cleaning marks, possible fungus, and damaged coatings, making finding one in good nick a real challenge. Plus you get no EXIF data. It's pretty clear they're aiming for people who want that "Biogon look" and genuine name, figure they're already paying a premium to find a good one, and a few bucks more for a modernized one is worth extra.
It seems to me Zeiss lenses perform uniquely well when it comes to color rendition and contrast. Would their strength be there? You never talk about color rendition, maybe it's not important enough, idk. Well, I'd like to leave a suggestion for a different video, then. Get some primes with the same (or near identical) focal length and make a shooting session focused on color rendition.
I have Loxia 50 2/f, Planar. I hope you get one for testing. I bet it's far better.
I bought the Loxia 21 when it first came out and it's still one of my favourites! I am not sure if the Loxia 35 lives up to it though.
I have the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical and can highly recommend it, I have studied many reviews of both the Voigtländer and the 35mm Loxia, the Voigtländer outperforms the Loxia, funy thing is that when I got the Voigtlåander, then the EXIF told it wa a Loxia 35mm 2.0
The 35 and 50mm loxias were old designs Zeiss rushed out in the early days of the FE mount. The 21 (and 85?) were new designs that came out much later, and were a huge improvement.
it's difficult to understand that Zeiss doesn't bring out a renewed designed 35mm and 50mm. if this one was on par with the 25 + 85 I would definitely buy one.
@@hansernst5998 yeah I would definitely be keen on them too, but it seems like zeiss has left the con/pro-sumer space. Voigtlander seems to have taken up where they left off...
Having the 50mm Loxia I do have to say at full price I have not found it to be worth the money but as a used lens you can find some “nice” deals on it. Love it’s character but don’t think I would ever buy them full price. I’ve also heard the 35 isn’t the best of the series so it would be nice to see you do them all.
Fantastic video as always!
The Loxia line can be found at a discount quite often now, especially the 35 and 50, at around $600 or even less with used. At this price I think these lenses are worth looking at for those who enjoy manual focusing lenses :) Haven't tried this 35 but have owned the 50, and I really liked it!
The 35mm and 50mm Loxia have the weakest performance of the bunch, the best performing are the 21mm 2.8, followed by he 25mm 2.4 and the 85mm 2.4
would be lovely to have the loxia 21mm on here..
I have the 21mm and can recommend it !
I have it and it is an outstanding lens by any criteria.
Maybe they're selling this as a "old Biogon optics style" in a modern luxury package?
Like the Leica Thambar 90 f/2.2, though not as extreme (and good luck getting close), or the Voigtlander 35 1.2, which sells it's optical defects as features (like the extreme flaring wide open)
In any case, it does give Voigtlander even more credit for their APO and other modern manual lenses
The Voigtländer 35/1,2 Nokton SE is expensive and has rather a lot of optical defects, however compared to the Argus it is small, compared to the Bigma it is small, compared to most anything else equally fast it is small. It can be very soft but can also have sunstars and quite good sharpness across most of the frame stopped down.
As for this lens, it is literally an older design, just like the 50mm and unlike the rest of the Loxiae.
if you want a lens that's not sharp for the sake of the aesthetic, just go vintage. there's no need to spend so much for this.
@@ВсеволодИгоревичАврутский it's a worse idea to throw away $1300 on something like this
@@ВсеволодИгоревичАврутский ну дешевле Гелиоса-44 или Индустара-61 Вы всё равно ничего не найдёте, так что не такая уж она и bad.
@@ВсеволодИгоревичАврутский Elias did say in the original comment "if you WANT a lens that's *not sharp* ..." then old vintage lenses are definitely more affordable and give the same (bad) performance as this Zeiss.
You could spend less and go for a Voigtlander 35mm f2 APO Lanthar with electronic contacts and 5-axis IBIS support and that lens IS sharp. Also these clinical tests don’t really show how a lens performs in real world situations. My Voigtlander 40mm lens would perform badly in these tests but is a stunning lens when taking normal photos. Please also bear in mind there are many reasons people like modern manual lenses. It’s very lazy to just assume people want a cheap, unsharp vintage vibe.
It's an old film lens that's been redesigned to work with Sony's sensor stack. So you're right in a sense, but this is plug and play and it's rendering is unique. It also has the smoothest manual focus available and renders superbly for movies without being too hard & flat like a modern, hyper corrected internally focusing lens with plastic elements. Going vintage results in various adapters and possibility of requiring servicing which can be wonderful but not everyone wants that.
Did you switch back to an A7rii?
Whilst I can’t justify the price myself, I will say that the value of the Loxia lenses truly comes into focus when you see them as a set. I would love to see an updated version of these that could rival the Summicrons and addresses all of the issues that everyone agrees upon. Character is one thing, but with these being the only native e-mount manual focus prime set, I think a precedence of “perfect” optics needed to be set before these came to light
Would love to see you review the Voightlander 35mm f/1.2 III
The loxias at second hand prices are the best deals out there. After these I don’t think I need to every buy lenses for my Sony
You'd be f🤬ing livid the first time you revised an image and saw how bad those corners were at that price.
The Zeiss Loxia 35mm 2.0 are an older Lens design now made by Cosina, The newer designed Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical also made by Cosina are much better performing, in fact the Voigtländer are as good as the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM ! When I got the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical, then the EXIF data told that is was a Zeiss Loxia 35mm 2.0 ! 😊 I can highly recommend the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical, I will also recommend the Sony Zeiss Sonnar 35mm 2.8 ZA which is so small and light, that you always can find space for it !
I have a Nikon AF-D NIKKOR 35mm f/2 lens from 1995, a lens that’s older than I am. I love the sort of classic, vintage feel I get from the images I take with it. I think that it performs very similarly to this Zeiss lens, if not slightly better. But the best part? It can be found for about a fifth of the price. I know that Nikon’s systems aren’t interchangeable, so I’ll make my point: go for vintage lenses if you like this kind of image quality, no matter what brand you’ve bought into, the lenses are cheaper and sometimes they’re better than the super expensive lenses like this Zeiss lens.
i’ve always wanted you to review this because i’ve caught it from time to time for $350 - $400 price range used but thank goodness i waited 😅 that would’ve been a waste
I have 50 since 2016. Got it with a7RII and really like it. I wanted to add 35mm, and I thankfully found this review.
This review is not representative on the 35mm true qualities. I own it, and despite having technically the superior 35mm (Sony GM 1.4 35mm) I tend to gravitate back to my beloved Loxia 35mm.
It would be interesting to compare this with the Viltrox/7Artisans 35/2.
You recommend the Sony 35 1.8 instead?
Unfortunately, I find the maker's opinon often biased and the content is badly reserached.
The pricing information is wrong. It can be had brand new for €850, which still is expensive but it is no longer 1300 bucks or pounds.
The lens was introduced around 2015, which is old by now. Lens development has picked up speed.
It was also forgotten to mention that the Loxia lens series shares the same lens size between all the lenses, which in theory should help swapping lenses during shooting videos.
One of the other viewers stated, when this lens was introduced, no other lens of this kind was around. Therefore the lens was justified to be in existence and the price was the price back then.
The sharpness test (or your lab tests) is too clinical and therfore the test does not show true performance across many lenses by the way.
The flaring shown here is acceptable. (except the sunstars). However, there are lenses out there that perform better and far worse.
Your opinion to sell the lens right away is bit hideous. Have a look at Proferssor Hines's review on this lens and this what you can do with this lens.
I just had a look at his channel, if this is the guy you mean. Wow, some wonderful images there th-cam.com/users/professorhineschoice
I'm sorry, but the Loxia 35mm f/2 is a disaster. Try the Voigtländer 35mm f/2 APO Lanther for a truly excellent lens for less money. For autofocus, there's the Sigma 35mm f/2 for half the price.
i have the 50 mm loxia and it is super sharp and nice to use but the sealant gasket broke and i let it repair by zeiss and it broke again. just normal (not even heavy) use. also have a batis 18mm. bought those lenses because i thought zeiss is very good but now the autofocus motor of the batis is just going bad. ill buy vintage lenses but the newer zeiss products i wont by anymore. i am very dissapointed with the brand at the moment
you sure you got a good copy?
As usual, my taste in lenses is the exact opposite of Christopher. Particularly bokeh. So when he says the bokeh is bad or the flare is terrible, or there is some ghosting wide open, i know I'll probably love the lens.
I feel similarly, he doesn’t judge the lens on its own merits
Holy smokes edges are so soft for any stop … especially at this price … are you sure it is a zeiss lens . Thanks for the review .
i strongly suggest you test the dslr version zeiss distagon 35mm f2 , a waybetter perfomer
It's funny that I stumbled across one on ebay today, wondering whether this would be a good 35mm option - and here you are giving a clear and concise answer that I didn't find elsewhere on TH-cam. Thanks!
I'm quite astounded what Zeiss offers for such ridiculously high prices.
I must admit I bought a Loxia 21mm and was surprised to find that it was actually not quite as sharp as my Sony 24-105 f4 when they were both at f4. Given it was also almost impossible to get on and off the camera due to everything rotating, I returned it. About the only thing I liked about it were the sunstars. If you want a premium manual 35mm, I'd get the Voigtlander 35mm APO f2. It's an infintely better lens...
That was not a nice comment to make: "Sell the lens immediately because you have been cheated". You are wrong, so wrong. This is a fantastic lens in practical use and I feel happy to have this lens and would pay this price again if I had to.
I wonder why Zeiss lenses are so expensive, is it because they are produced in Germany? Or are we mostly just paying for the brand?
I've watched most videos from Chritopher, and I noticed that Zeiss lenses tend to be pretty disappointing and/or overpriced.
I own this lens and use it for both street and landscape. Generally I use it in the middle apertures where it’s sharpness is great in real life situations. In street it is great for zone focusing . I also like the contrast and colour rendition. I have to agree with you that the weather seal does make taking it off and on a camera body problematic.
Is it at least produced in Europe (so the high salaries could explain the price)?
No, these Zeiss lenses are made in Japan by Cosina, which has been making Zeiss-branded lenses for more than 40 years.
Can you do the 50/f2 Loxia?
Good lens , especially use Loxia for shooting light trail
Loxia 35mm is the worst of the loxia family, and 50mm is good only stopped down...I knew that before I bought Loxia 21mm and 85mm for my landscape shooting. I can tell that I am very satisfied with images. They are very good against bright light, very nice sunstars, contrast, sharpness, small filter thread and slim form factor. I also bought grip sticker for both lenses, so I have no problem when I am mounting or unmounting lens. In my opinion still best primes for landscapes with unique character. But when it comes to 35mm, the 35mm GM is way to go, not loxia.
The Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical performs at least as good as the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM
When I reviewed this lens, I had the same conclusions. It is 'ok' wide open, and pretty nice stopped down for landscape work, but I found image quality to be largely identical to the Canon FD 35mm f/2 from 1985, which is pretty pathetic for a Zeiss optic costing what it does. When this was released, Voigtlander hadn't released anything like this yet, but with the 35 APO Lanthar around now, there is literally zero reason to ever buy the Loxia 35mm. The 50mm is also an old design, but the other Loxias...especially the 21mm and 85mm, are sensational.
You want a spherical design and like the bokeh rendering of the Biogon then only a biogon will do. It was designed for film cameras and to be cinematic and not too hard. The 21&85 are really magical in terms of sharpness but provide a different look and tonal response in the image - it's horses for courses.
@@user-sg6xv2kb8s maybe so, but again, I found it's quality and look to be extremely similar to the FD 35/2, which can be had easily for 1/5 the price.
@@JordanCS13 a freshly serviced 35/2 FD is a wonderful thing. Here they run around $300 mint and used, the Loxia can be had for not a whole lot more. If you want a newly manufactuered lens that will plug & play with your Sony sensor stack; almost impossibly smooth focusing, Zeiss coatings/glass and of course no adapter tubes then they are a good option. Thr Loxia line are all colour matched. That old Canon glass has great sparkle and cinematic colour/rendering also. Aren't we lucky to have so many options, personally I'm glad Zeiss made these.
I don't know why this is kept on the market. In the US & Canada, this is the same price as the Sony 35mm GM, which, except for a bit of pincushion distortion, outperforms it in every way, while offering much better performance/features. And there's a wealth of options at lower prices as well.
I've always thought Zeiss were solid but overpriced. While they were top of the line a few years ago, now other manufactures have bested Zeiss lenses!
Yea I think the optical formula for this one (and the 50mm) was lifted straight from the older rangefinder version, not stellar like it's other Loxia siblings.
I doubt it. The 35/2 Biogon is an excellent lens, as are most rangefinder lenses, with a protruding rear element. Rangefinder lenses are not designed to a compromise as the focus plane is much further back.
@@DavidG-u2k It is based on the same design as the ZM version
I think if you treat this lens like a very expensive (used they are more affordable) F2.8 lens you will be pleased with it.
The Zeiss Biogon 35mm F2 ZM (Leica M Mount) is the much better, sharper Lens into contrast. Good Review, Chris :-) As it could being read onto the net, "Sony Zeiss" Lenses aren't originally Zeiss-designed Lenses, by its purest meaning. The worst Lens of this is the Sony Zeiss 16-70 F4 Zoom.
I don't think it would perform better adapted considering the sensor is a lot thicker. I also found the Distagon 35mm F/1.4 to perform better at F/2 as far as the spherical highlights go. Even the Biogon F/2.8 has better rendering in my eyes. The F/2 has rather distracting busy rendering. I know it's subjective taste. But if I placed two comparison photos side by side I'm sure you would agree.
Yes, different thickness of different Sensors via OLPF is a thing, especially Sony does have a usually thick Sensor Stack via OPLF, and no microlenses like Leica especially at the side. I've seen pictures from all 3, hence Zeiss ZM 35/2.8, 35/2 and 35/1.4....Bokeh is always being a matter of personal taste. I do not own one or all of this trio, but i'd own a CLE soon, and as for the cost issue, i might go with Voigtländer (Cosina, which is also the producer of all Zeiss ZM lenses) and going for the Nokton 40/1.4 MC, because i can't afford a M6/M7...and i do really like the small Leica(Minolta) CL format, which is about the same like Fujifilm X100 series, from which i own the original one into black as LE.
The Leica CL was a joint venture from Leica & Minolta, starting from 1973-76 circa, and all bodies have been produced by Minolta, since the M5 back into time was a flop, both from design & price, and then the CL was so much cheaper, smaller...and for many...good enough.
So the CL was eating sales away from Leica. Minolta went on route alone, without Leicas blessing, and created, showed the Minolta CLE @Photokina 1980, it came into sale into 1981. I am fine with the 40mm focal length, my 2nd most used one, after 35mm....i say Konica. 🙂@@princeharbinger
@marcp.1752 @marcp.1752 There is a sensor modification you can have done to reduce the thickness of the sensor so the lenses perform better. I suppose you could also use cobolt-image presets if you wanted the Leica colors. I've heard good things about that CV lens. Another lens that you may like is the Minolta M-
ROKKOR 40mm
F/2, which has Leica optics in it. It cost far less than the version with the Leica name engraved in the nameplate ring. As for CV lenses, I'm interested in the 21mm F/1.4. I'm not a big fan of dealing with the Loxias 21mms field curvature. I feel at the price point it should have been made to be flat field and focus exactly on the infinity hard stop. I'd also be interested in the Lanthar APO line. You could get a Leica M 240 body or if you wanted the cheapest Leica camera with a fixed lens checkout the X1. The Fujifilm cameras I have been considering. It's a shame that the CV APS-C lenses don't perform so well. So I won't be purchasing any of them when I decide to purchase a Fuji camera. Thanks for sharing your knowledge on the history.
The joint venture history was interesting, and now Sony owns Minolta and some of the original workers. I even heard that Leica is using the Sony A7RV sensor on the M11.
First things 1st, yes there are for some Voigtländer lenses special filter stack glasses, one can put into front. But as a Minolta (MD II, III) series shooter since 1991 (and 1989 with Contax & Yashica) i can tell you - please don't spread silly rumors, the MD Rokkor 45mm F2 doesn't have any kind of "Leica" glass inside, and is even worse (edges) than a simple Contax Tessar 45mm F2.8...and the Tessar (albeit not with that T* MC) came out into 1903..so it's basically a very old lens design by Zeiss.
FYI, Leica Zeiss was often going head-to-head during the decades, and when Zeiss released the Contax I into 1932 - it was better than any avialable Leica rangefinder back then, same goes for the lenses, and various other lenses afterwards, compared to their Leica equivalents. The Contax G 45mm F2 isn't a Leica Lens, neither a "Leica" design, but it's being overhyped nowadays...and Zeiss is my #1 always, because it's being here & there better than Leica, and into contrast, affordable..depending which lens & setup...for Leica, one does always have to shell out 4-digit numbers in cash, i am not richy rich...no offense...@@princeharbinger
No surprise that Sony almost discontinued their “Zeiss” branded lenses, they are overpriced for the performance and they had not very good quality control.
I’ve had a Zeiss 35mm f2.8, yes it is sharp and has nice colours, but it has the disappointing vignetting and just ok bokeh. It costs too much for what it is.
Zeiss branded lenses or Zeiss lenses? There are many different types such as the Sony Zeiss lenses, Batis lenses and whatg not.
Sony themselves had QC issures. And further, every lens manufactuerer has lemons.
@@oliverlison I mean Sony Zeiss (24-70f4, 35f2.8, 55f1.8 etc). The lenses are quite old right now and there is no new lenses in the lineup, that’s why I said they’re almost discontinued.
YIKES.
Scathing!
Brutal!!! 😂😂😂
Zeiss is the Motorola for lenses. Used to be great, but nowadays they've already been putting their focuses elsewhere.
I swear Zeiss has been like this forever. I thought they were all about character and imperfection at a premium. idk why people put them in the same basket as Leica.
For mirrorless lenses: "The exceptional ZEISS lenses for mirrorless system cameras are used in conjunction current high-resolution sensors for images without any compromises - delivering outstanding performance, reliability and low weight."
For SLR/DSLR lenses: "Fixed focal lengths with highly precise, manual focus for high-resolution SLR cameras."
Straight from their own website. They're put in the same basket as Leica (even though Leica's lenses aren't perfect either) because they're focusing on the same mentality. And let's not forget the Milvus and Otus lenses, at least around the time they came out, especially considering they were in the same price range as Leica's Summilux lenses.
Once again, the Zeiss glass doesn't perform as good as its price implies it would.
i used to own this lens and bought it 2nd hand without doing my research. no words can describe how shocked i was at the terrible coma performance, and the sun stars were actually more of a nuisance to me. luckily i now own the 50mm loxia and it is much better
Strange, I tested this lens and found it to be very nice. Though I did find it to be too expensive to buy a copy.
If you use a 24 megapixel full frame camera, then the Loxia 35mm is very good, but it does not perform so well on higher resolution cameras
More 35mm than 50mm = good
Holy sht that's an expensive lens
oh, god. the sharpness is disappointing. just get the FE 35mm 1.8.
Well...THAT was a first! Unfortunate.
A $1300 lens that takes pretty good images... at f8, haha.
A failure in design, I cannot see any point in getting this lens.
When you want to have an awsome Zeiss lens buy better the vintage one, the Distagon from west or The Flektogon from east they're awesome considered their current price and compared to thisone🤣 ( I payed for an m42 Fleki aprox 60€... distegon is more expensive though... )
I think you're missing the point of this lens. It's not a performer, it's a "look! I'm successful enough to waste my money on this" kinda lens
It’s actually a very nice rendering lens and very unique at that too….don’t hate if you don’t know squat about it or can’t afford it
Ah, nothing like the good ol Zeiss tax. Overpriced, underperforming optics as always. Not surprising.
This poor lens with limited specs and features is certainly made poorer because of the brand pricing.
its not worthed, go for cheap and underrated samyang 35mm f1.4 af lens
at 35mm I rarely use F2 , usually above 4 so...I don't understand their strategy...well overpriced and bad image quality :D
Are you sure you didn't see the price wrongly? Could it be $130 and not $1300?😂
Jesus! What happened there? You can buy the Sigma 35m f/1.4 for half the money, one stop brighter, much beter image quality and autofocus. What were thay thinking?
Looks like the lens is decentered
These aren't symptoms of decentering. It's just a mediocre overpriced lens.
@@AndreasRavnestad Softness in the corner & coma there. If not these are symptoms of decentering, then what?
@@tselykovskiy I get a distinct impression that it would be benefitial for you to read up on what symptoms of a decentered lens are before engaging any further in this conversation.
@@AndreasRavnestad could you shed some light on this?
A decentered lens is a lens that has had one of its element shifted off center. You might get sharpness in one corner and not the other (different sharpness patterns) but not in all four corners simultaneously.
Manual focus 35mm f/0.95 lenses perform better than this. Zeiss has really fallen off
Wow - what a terrible performance. Obviously Zeiss are recycling their old 80's designs (maybe with a few tweaks to coating or glass) - but this is like putting lipstick on a pig. My 35mm f/2 Mir-24M from the 80's could hold a candle to this, particularly wide open, those corners are impressively bad.
Why would anyone buy this? 😧
vopas
Nasty.
First?
There are 100 bucks lenses way better than this one, wtf Zeiss 😄
what a shame.
What a useless lens! 😖
buy rhe sigma contempory.
An AF-lens with somewhat sunstars at f/16, not precisely the same application
What a joke of a lens! Just get a Sigma for infinitely more quality at 1/3 the price
Zeiss is WAY overrated.
No, Leica is WAY too overrated and overprized !
lmao... 1300 USD just because it says "Zeiss" ?
This lens let me think Zeiss used to be a guarantee of quality....
They were when made in Germany for Hasselblad film cameras.