Thank you for such informative comparison. I would like to hear your opinion on 35F2D at what aperture the sharpness is acceptable. I like your review on Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 @2.8 that lens is truly amazing but less so at F2 and almost completely different lens at f1.4
I have been eyeing on the Zeiss Milvus 2/35 for quite a while and I picked one up for a steal last week. I like it very much so far? Maybe you got an exhibit that got somehow misaligned? The CA that is present is not really an issue I hope. I have had lenses that were really bad. The Zeiss Classic Planar 1.4/50 or my Nikon 24-70 2.8. The later one is not sharp compared to any other lens I have owned and is very expensive for what you get. I will try out the Milvus 2/35 and will see if it stays with me.
Nice video. What is the best 35mm f-mount lens that have mechanical aperture ring? Are there anything better than the nikon 35mm lens in this video in term of sharpness, contrast and CA at fastest aperture?
The 35mm f2D is not one of the good lenses in terms of performance. It's an amateur lens with great performance for its size/price. As far as mechanical aperture ring, you won't be able to use it, because you have to set it to f/16 or f/22 for the camera to work (aperture controlled then by your camera's controls). Unless your lens is Ai - these are older lenses with performance not so great for modern digital. The best of them is the Nikon 35mm f/2 AI but not as good as the f2D, because it has some CAs... the big advantage of the f2D is very low CAs, which makes it sharper with better color). Check out for full evaluation tables (4K vid): ua-cam.com/video/2r2TeQ3Pn1k/v-deo.html
@@CameraMystique I currently have a heavy used (alot of scratches and loosing coating, etc) nikon 35mm f2 AI lens and I mostly used on film camera (which is why I need suggestions on lens with mechanical aperture ring). And yes I do notice a bit of CA at corner. If I upgrade from there, is the 35mm f2 afd worth the upgrade or are there any other choices that would improve the contrast and sharpness (perhaps even faster aperture?).
@@peterpete6231 You can see the comparative performance in the tables in the video I sent you. And yes, the 35 f2D is a noticeable improvement over the one you have (especially from f2.8 and up, not at f2), and you will be able to work the aperture ring of the lens with your film camera. You will notice huge difference from f/4, significantly better color and sharpness. The focusing ring throw is not as long as the lens you have now though... it's shorter, because it's primarily an AF lens. And it's not as smooth. Optically is a lot better, but functionally it's something you have to get used to.
Thanks for the info. Are the Voigtlander or the zeiss in 35-40mm range (both f2 and f1,4) worth looking into beside the 35 nikon afd? Do I miss any other f mount lens in 35mm lens that have aperture ring outside of the list or they are already some of the best that I can buy?
You mean Tamron 35 f/1.8 (not 2.8). I have it and was permanently attached to my camera, but after buying the Distagon f/2 Tamron stays in my bag. I agree with you about the Tamron VC, it is not that effective.
I feel better. I have been kvetching about the f/2D or wait and get a distagon. I decided to buy a Nikkor 35 near mint with Hoya HD UV- $215. I still have the 35 distagon on my watch list but it's a little more than 2x the price . I'll be using it on a D200 or D7100 as a 52.5mm though.
@@413TomaccoRoad The distagon has high CAs with high res cameras, so it won't last when you upgrade, and if you go mirrorless, the Nikon is better. The best of the three is the Tamron if you like 35, the Nikon is great (stop down for good corners), cheap, small, light, no CAs.
@@CameraMystique I prefer the 5.6 or 8 and "be there" approach. I never shoot wide open. I have been eyeing the D850 used market- looking to see how much for less than 15k shutter count. $1200 is the general price give or take some. Maybe later in the year or next year.
Do you think the Zeiss distagon 35mm f2 zf classic would be a good match for a Nikon d850, or would a Milvus 35mm f2 be a better option? Some people say that it's the same lens formula with different coatings only, however if that is the case, then why does dxomark state in their graphic reviews that the Milvus is substantially sharper? Someone contacted a zeiss rep and he said its the same, so now I am not sure which one to buy. Any advice would be appreciated. Do you think the Nikon 35 f2d would be a better match for the Nikon d850? Thank you for your very informative videos. Subscribed.
For D850 (my own experience): -- Nikon f2D - sharp only above f/4, but excellent CA control, "classic look" (not too "digital"), cheap and small. -- Distagon 35 - much CAs - fringing -- Tamron 35mm 1.8 -- Excellent all around, stabilization only about 1 stop. -- Milvus 35 f/2 - some CAs, sharper than the Distagon -- Milvus 35 f/1.4 - very little CAs, insane 3D feel, but expensive - also much better consistency for manual focus via viewfinder, and the best bokeh ever. I've shown many images from this lens in my videos. If you can't afford the Milvus 1.4, get the Tamron. Don't get the Tamron used.
@@CameraMystique That zeiss milvus 35mm f1.4 looks very unique, but it comes with a price to match such excepcional lens. I am not to impressed with the images I saw on flickr with the tamrons 35, it seems to me that it doesn't render green very well, giving the impression of a luminiscent plasticky tone. Perhaps it's just my perception or my screen. I don't know. When you suggest the Tamron you are referring to the 1.8 or the 1.4 over the Milvus 1.4?
@@The7dioses The only one I had was the 1.8. No problem with colors. Colors depend more on white balance and color profile. Most lenses affect WB, so you'll have to create WB profiles or adjust accordingly.
@@CameraMystique I checked a bit further on flickr the Tamrons, while not too convinced, I prefer the 1.4 Tamron over the 1.8 but I can't get over the way they render. The images are sharp, very sharp, but they lack overall character. I think I will have to wait and get the Milvus 1.4 otherwise I will wonder "what if Ihad". Thanks for your advise, have a great weekend.
I have bought the 2/35 recently 6 Months ago because it was very cheap (Showroom model). I was nbot able to test it our because of some personal circumstances. It should be resonable good even if it is a very classic design. The review of the lens here shows that it seems to have green colour cast.
Thanks for the video. one remark though,. chromatic aberration does not contradict to a good micro contrast. e.g. most Leica and Zeiss lenses having moderate to heavy chromatic aberration, also provide superior micro contrast, especially in b&w. (that is why micro contrast was/is often called "Zeiss pop" or "Leica Look"). on the other hand, most modern lenses with low chromatic aberration,superior sharpness, etc. (especially zooms) have poor micro contrast.
Nope. Micro-contrast means the capacity to decipher small variations of contrast in a small area. I have the definition and more details in my 3 micro-contrast video series, the only detailed one on UA-cam on the topid (first part ua-cam.com/video/Cy0fq0FHXDM/v-deo.html) Micro-contrast is nothing more than contrast in a small area (vs. "macro-contrast" or "overall contrast"). *When chromatic aberrations smear details, obviously good contrast is lost.* That's also why lenses that smear details can't be good for B&W photography, you have to stop them down. As far as the "pop", that's just good contrast in the in-focus areas, along with good acutance, which provides for sharp and dramatic separation from the out-of-focus areas. Not to be confused with dimensional rendering etc. I have plenty of videos on the topic in this channel.
i have also a short 1 minute video of a direct comparison of two lenses, one Zeiss with medium CAs, one Voigt with low CAs. Watch it and tell me which image you think has better macro and micro-contrast, and which one would convert better in B&W: ua-cam.com/video/L-yLsgeP1JY/v-deo.html This whole nonsense about CAs being good somehow or that older lenses are superior in micro-contrast, is the false philosophy of a non-photographer on YT, he's the only one on planet Earth that supports something like that, and contradicts the experience and practice of the best photography and cinema real practicing professionals and serious lens reviewers. Chromatic aberrations kill micro-contrast, smear images and on top of it are far more problematic in digital than they were on film, and that should be clear by the definition of micro-contrast itself.
I have a d4s, lower mpx count, and i'm looking for a 35mm. I don't shoot often at fast aperture, so i don't like to carry heavy 1.4 glass, a f2 or 2.8 is good enourgh. So, is the difference in sharpness with the Tamron enourgh to justify the price and the weight penalty, even with a 16mpx body?
Only if you shoot wide open. the Tamron is noticeably sharper up to f2.8, and slightly sharper at f4. After that, they're the same. To tell you the truth, it's difficult to see it at f4 with a good sample of the Nikon.
I have a few pre D lenses. My understanding is the pre D's are optically identical to the D versions. Only issue is there’s no in camera distortion correction available for the pre D lenses. Lightroom also might not be able to correct them for distortion. Whereas the D versions are correctable. I think Lightroom just never bothered to offer a distortion correction for the Nikon pre D's.
@@CameraMystique Do the ais versions have the same performance as the the f2 D? Where I live there is a ais for sale but I can't find f2 D. I'll wait if the ais version isn't as good.
I have the Zeiss 35mm F2 but I used it on D300 and it work well for forest photo. Now I have a D700 and I will test the lens on it. The 35mm is a not wide enough and I think the 28mm is better. Many year ago I had an AF 35 to 70mm /2.8D but I had problem indoors with the lens. It was good as a portrait lens. I got the 35mm for use as a normal lens on the D300.
I enjoy your excellent lens reviews. I was surprised by your largely negative opinion of the Zeiss Distagon 35 f2, which has generally received very positive reviews by others, including the Angry Photographer, particularly regarding its sharpness, micro-contrast, and color rendition, with no mention of CA or field curvature issues, as far as I recall. I hope that you will review the new Zeiss apo-lanthar 35mm f2, which is supposed to appear in March 2021. Thanks
*a)* The Zeiss 35 f2 distagon is well known for CAs. Sharpness is good but not the best in category. Color is frequently polluted by those CAs, producing an artificial but not realistic magenta-like saturation in the blues and reds (giving the false impression of fuller colors), and the more pixels your camera has the more they appear, especially in the high contrast areas. You shoot with a modern APO lens and then with that old distagon, and the images from the distagon in the small details are murky, due to the CAs - which also means mediocre micro-contrast up to f/5.6. CAs also trick the optical focusing system on DSLRs, which force you to engage liveview to achieve good focus. It's not a "bad" lens - if you get the focus ok it's very good - as long as you're willing to clean the CAs or you shoot at f/4.5 and the colors are a bit more "brilliant" than other lenses. It's outdated though nowadays. It's a lens made for the film era, and I have not found it to cooperate well with the tight pixel pitch on modern digital cameras. It's quite nice on the D750 and D700 and other cameras with larger pixels where CAs are not themselves of high contrast and are more easily cleaned with less color damage. Old film lenses were never designed to deal with the diffraction that the sensor cover glass causes or with the surface diffraction of the sensor's micro-lenses. We're talking about an era where practical results were tested for certain film emulsions... There are exceptions though, such as the Voigt apo-lanthar series or the Sonnar 135 and some others who happen to be accidentally great. I have a 3-video series on micro-contrast (the only series on UA-cam that defines it and analyzes it in detail) - first part is: ua-cam.com/video/Cy0fq0FHXDM/v-deo.html *b)* "Apo-lanthar" is a name for a series of Voigtlander lenses, most of which are of stellar quality. The two that I have is the old 125 and the old 180, rare items nowadays - the 125 is a stellar lens (not as good as the Zeiss Sonar 135, but the Voigt is one of the best macro lenses ever made, thus quite useful multi-purpose lens). The newer ones they say are even better and smaller, with better bokeh etc., but I have no intention of buying them since whatever I have right now is more than enough for me.
Very interesting video. What puzzles me is how is it possible that the zeiss 35/2 is regarded by some very seasoned camera people as almost the "best" lens ever made, do you see any redeeming qualities of it, does it still have something else going for it in your opinion?
Which "seasoned camera people"? Personally I do not know anyone who says it's the best lens ever made (lol). It was a good manual lens 20 years ago, it's still a good manual lens if you stick with low-res cameras (it's got high CAs in high res sensors). It's difficult to focus in SLRs because of the CAs wide open, it needs color correction in most cases with modern cameras. If you're using a D750 you'll say it's a good lens overall, but nothing spectacular. It also has a really tight throw, which can make accurate focus even more difficult in distances, even in liveview. If you know of any redeeming qualities (other than its small size and good construction), list them here:
With such a tight pixel pitch, CAs will be exaggerated, therefore I'd prefer the Tamron. Though the best 35 in this case is I think is the Canon 35L. So if money is not an issue, I'd go with the Canon 35 - you'll also get better focus and most likely better longevity.
Thank you for such informative comparison. I would like to hear your opinion on 35F2D at what aperture the sharpness is acceptable. I like your review on Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 @2.8 that lens is truly amazing but less so at F2 and almost completely different lens at f1.4
It's a nice compact lens but t be sharp from side to side I'd say f/4. For the Voigt 58, ua-cam.com/video/OIwITttzELI/v-deo.html
Very informative as always! 👍 :-) Thanks a lot! This helps me to make my decision.
Thank you.
I have been eyeing on the Zeiss Milvus 2/35 for quite a while and I picked one up for a steal last week. I like it very much so far? Maybe you got an exhibit that got somehow misaligned?
The CA that is present is not really an issue I hope. I have had lenses that were really bad. The Zeiss Classic Planar 1.4/50 or my Nikon 24-70 2.8. The later one is not sharp compared to any other lens I have owned and is very expensive for what you get. I will try out the Milvus 2/35 and will see if it stays with me.
The Milvus 35 has CAs, quite visible on the D850. I sent it back 3 days after I first got it.
Nice video. What is the best 35mm f-mount lens that have mechanical aperture ring? Are there anything better than the nikon 35mm lens in this video in term of sharpness, contrast and CA at fastest aperture?
The 35mm f2D is not one of the good lenses in terms of performance. It's an amateur lens with great performance for its size/price.
As far as mechanical aperture ring, you won't be able to use it, because you have to set it to f/16 or f/22 for the camera to work (aperture controlled then by your camera's controls). Unless your lens is Ai - these are older lenses with performance not so great for modern digital. The best of them is the Nikon 35mm f/2 AI but not as good as the f2D, because it has some CAs... the big advantage of the f2D is very low CAs, which makes it sharper with better color).
Check out for full evaluation tables (4K vid): ua-cam.com/video/2r2TeQ3Pn1k/v-deo.html
@@CameraMystique I currently have a heavy used (alot of scratches and loosing coating, etc) nikon 35mm f2 AI lens and I mostly used on film camera (which is why I need suggestions on lens with mechanical aperture ring). And yes I do notice a bit of CA at corner. If I upgrade from there, is the 35mm f2 afd worth the upgrade or are there any other choices that would improve the contrast and sharpness (perhaps even faster aperture?).
@@peterpete6231 You can see the comparative performance in the tables in the video I sent you. And yes, the 35 f2D is a noticeable improvement over the one you have (especially from f2.8 and up, not at f2), and you will be able to work the aperture ring of the lens with your film camera. You will notice huge difference from f/4, significantly better color and sharpness.
The focusing ring throw is not as long as the lens you have now though... it's shorter, because it's primarily an AF lens. And it's not as smooth. Optically is a lot better, but functionally it's something you have to get used to.
@@peterpete6231 Here, comparison test with example pics: ua-cam.com/video/far_T437408/v-deo.html
Thanks for the info. Are the Voigtlander or the zeiss in 35-40mm range (both f2 and f1,4) worth looking into beside the 35 nikon afd? Do I miss any other f mount lens in 35mm lens that have aperture ring outside of the list or they are already some of the best that I can buy?
Early on in the video were you referring to the 300mm f4 AF ED or the AF-S 300mm f4 D ED?
Thanks!
This one: www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3004af.htm
Thanks a lot!
You mean Tamron 35 f/1.8 (not 2.8). I have it and was permanently attached to my camera, but after buying the Distagon f/2 Tamron stays in my bag. I agree with you about the Tamron VC, it is not that effective.
@@CameraMystique I agree about fringing, it does exist. But it can be corrected in post-processing..
@@hellasride2717 I just made a video for this subject, it's better this way (and it's cold outside :-)
I feel better. I have been kvetching about the f/2D or wait and get a distagon. I decided to buy a Nikkor 35 near mint with Hoya HD UV- $215. I still have the 35 distagon on my watch list but it's a little more than 2x the price . I'll be using it on a D200 or D7100 as a 52.5mm though.
ditch the hoya - yellow tint
@@CameraMystique I have B&Ws and L37c too. 😉
@@413TomaccoRoad The distagon has high CAs with high res cameras, so it won't last when you upgrade, and if you go mirrorless, the Nikon is better. The best of the three is the Tamron if you like 35, the Nikon is great (stop down for good corners), cheap, small, light, no CAs.
@@CameraMystique I prefer the 5.6 or 8 and "be there" approach. I never shoot wide open. I have been eyeing the D850 used market- looking to see how much for less than 15k shutter count. $1200 is the general price give or take some. Maybe later in the year or next year.
@@CameraMystique Have you compared the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 Ultron with any of them?
Nice to see you on youtube :)
Hey Yannick. Won't be for long here, but I'll make soon a short series on Nikon speedlights.
Current modern lenses tend to focus Only on sharpness but not the characteristics and dimensions.
That's not necessarily true. A lot of modern lenses have excellent rendering, much better than the old ones.
Do you think the Zeiss distagon 35mm f2 zf classic would be a good match for a Nikon d850, or would a Milvus 35mm f2 be a better option? Some people say that it's the same lens formula with different coatings only, however if that is the case, then why does dxomark state in their graphic reviews that the Milvus is substantially sharper? Someone contacted a zeiss rep and he said its the same, so now I am not sure which one to buy. Any advice would be appreciated. Do you think the Nikon 35 f2d would be a better match for the Nikon d850?
Thank you for your very informative videos. Subscribed.
For D850 (my own experience):
-- Nikon f2D - sharp only above f/4, but excellent CA control, "classic look" (not too "digital"), cheap and small.
-- Distagon 35 - much CAs - fringing
-- Tamron 35mm 1.8 -- Excellent all around, stabilization only about 1 stop.
-- Milvus 35 f/2 - some CAs, sharper than the Distagon
-- Milvus 35 f/1.4 - very little CAs, insane 3D feel, but expensive - also much better consistency for manual focus via viewfinder, and the best bokeh ever. I've shown many images from this lens in my videos.
If you can't afford the Milvus 1.4, get the Tamron. Don't get the Tamron used.
@@CameraMystique That zeiss milvus 35mm f1.4 looks very unique, but it comes with a price to match such excepcional lens.
I am not to impressed with the images I saw on flickr with the tamrons 35, it seems to me that it doesn't render green very well, giving the impression of a luminiscent plasticky tone. Perhaps it's just my perception or my screen. I don't know.
When you suggest the Tamron you are referring to the 1.8 or the 1.4 over the Milvus 1.4?
@@The7dioses The only one I had was the 1.8. No problem with colors. Colors depend more on white balance and color profile. Most lenses affect WB, so you'll have to create WB profiles or adjust accordingly.
@@CameraMystique I checked a bit further on flickr the Tamrons, while not too convinced, I prefer the 1.4 Tamron over the 1.8 but I can't get over the way they render.
The images are sharp, very sharp, but they lack overall character.
I think I will have to wait and get the Milvus 1.4 otherwise I will wonder "what if Ihad". Thanks for your advise, have a great weekend.
I have bought the 2/35 recently 6 Months ago because it was very cheap (Showroom model). I was nbot able to test it our because of some personal circumstances.
It should be resonable good even if it is a very classic design. The review of the lens here shows that it seems to have green colour cast.
Thanks for the video. one remark though,. chromatic aberration does not contradict to a good micro contrast. e.g. most Leica and Zeiss lenses having moderate to heavy chromatic aberration, also provide superior micro contrast, especially in b&w. (that is why micro contrast was/is often called "Zeiss pop" or "Leica Look"). on the other hand, most modern lenses with low chromatic aberration,superior sharpness, etc. (especially zooms) have poor micro contrast.
Nope. Micro-contrast means the capacity to decipher small variations of contrast in a small area. I have the definition and more details in my 3 micro-contrast video series, the only detailed one on UA-cam on the topid (first part ua-cam.com/video/Cy0fq0FHXDM/v-deo.html)
Micro-contrast is nothing more than contrast in a small area (vs. "macro-contrast" or "overall contrast").
*When chromatic aberrations smear details, obviously good contrast is lost.* That's also why lenses that smear details can't be good for B&W photography, you have to stop them down.
As far as the "pop", that's just good contrast in the in-focus areas, along with good acutance, which provides for sharp and dramatic separation from the out-of-focus areas. Not to be confused with dimensional rendering etc. I have plenty of videos on the topic in this channel.
i have also a short 1 minute video of a direct comparison of two lenses, one Zeiss with medium CAs, one Voigt with low CAs. Watch it and tell me which image you think has better macro and micro-contrast, and which one would convert better in B&W: ua-cam.com/video/L-yLsgeP1JY/v-deo.html
This whole nonsense about CAs being good somehow or that older lenses are superior in micro-contrast, is the false philosophy of a non-photographer on YT, he's the only one on planet Earth that supports something like that, and contradicts the experience and practice of the best photography and cinema real practicing professionals and serious lens reviewers.
Chromatic aberrations kill micro-contrast, smear images and on top of it are far more problematic in digital than they were on film, and that should be clear by the definition of micro-contrast itself.
I have a d4s, lower mpx count, and i'm looking for a 35mm. I don't shoot often at fast aperture, so i don't like to carry heavy 1.4 glass, a f2 or 2.8 is good enourgh. So, is the difference in sharpness with the Tamron enourgh to justify the price and the weight penalty, even with a 16mpx body?
Only if you shoot wide open. the Tamron is noticeably sharper up to f2.8, and slightly sharper at f4. After that, they're the same. To tell you the truth, it's difficult to see it at f4 with a good sample of the Nikon.
@@CameraMystique okay, thanks, so i think i'll pick the nikon
@@lucabuondonno2051 I have a review somewhere in this messy channel, with examples.
Interesting 🧐
Is the Nikon 35mm f2 AF non-D ver optically identical to the D version? I got the non-D because its way cheaper than the D version. Thanks!
You mean you got the manual old Ais version? It's not identical to the D.
@@CameraMystique nope not AI, its an AF, but the designation is not D. This one: www.flickr.com/photos/144797631@N08/45885602425
@@symonserna A rare lens - at least in the US. Never tried it.
I have a few pre D lenses. My understanding is the pre D's are optically identical to the D versions. Only issue is there’s no in camera distortion correction available for the pre D lenses. Lightroom also might not be able to correct them for distortion. Whereas the D versions are correctable. I think Lightroom just never bothered to offer a distortion correction for the Nikon pre D's.
@@CameraMystique Do the ais versions have the same performance as the the f2 D? Where I live there is a ais for sale but I can't find f2 D. I'll wait if the ais version isn't as good.
I have the Zeiss 35mm F2 but I used it on D300 and it work well for forest photo. Now I have a D700 and I will test the lens on it. The 35mm is a not wide enough and I think the 28mm is better. Many year ago I had an AF 35 to 70mm /2.8D but I had problem indoors with the lens. It was good as a portrait lens. I got the 35mm for use as a normal lens on the D300.
I enjoy your excellent lens reviews. I was surprised by your largely negative opinion of the Zeiss Distagon 35 f2, which has generally received very positive reviews by others, including the Angry Photographer, particularly regarding its sharpness, micro-contrast, and color rendition, with no mention of CA or field curvature issues, as far as I recall. I hope that you will review the new Zeiss apo-lanthar 35mm f2, which is supposed to appear in March 2021. Thanks
*a)* The Zeiss 35 f2 distagon is well known for CAs. Sharpness is good but not the best in category. Color is frequently polluted by those CAs, producing an artificial but not realistic magenta-like saturation in the blues and reds (giving the false impression of fuller colors), and the more pixels your camera has the more they appear, especially in the high contrast areas. You shoot with a modern APO lens and then with that old distagon, and the images from the distagon in the small details are murky, due to the CAs - which also means mediocre micro-contrast up to f/5.6.
CAs also trick the optical focusing system on DSLRs, which force you to engage liveview to achieve good focus. It's not a "bad" lens - if you get the focus ok it's very good - as long as you're willing to clean the CAs or you shoot at f/4.5 and the colors are a bit more "brilliant" than other lenses. It's outdated though nowadays. It's a lens made for the film era, and I have not found it to cooperate well with the tight pixel pitch on modern digital cameras. It's quite nice on the D750 and D700 and other cameras with larger pixels where CAs are not themselves of high contrast and are more easily cleaned with less color damage. Old film lenses were never designed to deal with the diffraction that the sensor cover glass causes or with the surface diffraction of the sensor's micro-lenses. We're talking about an era where practical results were tested for certain film emulsions... There are exceptions though, such as the Voigt apo-lanthar series or the Sonnar 135 and some others who happen to be accidentally great.
I have a 3-video series on micro-contrast (the only series on UA-cam that defines it and analyzes it in detail) - first part is: ua-cam.com/video/Cy0fq0FHXDM/v-deo.html
*b)* "Apo-lanthar" is a name for a series of Voigtlander lenses, most of which are of stellar quality. The two that I have is the old 125 and the old 180, rare items nowadays - the 125 is a stellar lens (not as good as the Zeiss Sonar 135, but the Voigt is one of the best macro lenses ever made, thus quite useful multi-purpose lens). The newer ones they say are even better and smaller, with better bokeh etc., but I have no intention of buying them since whatever I have right now is more than enough for me.
@@CameraMystique Thanks very much for taking time to give me this valuable information.
Check also this one: ua-cam.com/video/L-yLsgeP1JY/v-deo.html
@@CameraMystique Thanks
Very interesting video. What puzzles me is how is it possible that the zeiss 35/2 is regarded by some very seasoned camera people as almost the "best" lens ever made, do you see any redeeming qualities of it, does it still have something else going for it in your opinion?
Which "seasoned camera people"? Personally I do not know anyone who says it's the best lens ever made (lol). It was a good manual lens 20 years ago, it's still a good manual lens if you stick with low-res cameras (it's got high CAs in high res sensors). It's difficult to focus in SLRs because of the CAs wide open, it needs color correction in most cases with modern cameras. If you're using a D750 you'll say it's a good lens overall, but nothing spectacular. It also has a really tight throw, which can make accurate focus even more difficult in distances, even in liveview. If you know of any redeeming qualities (other than its small size and good construction), list them here:
I shoot with strobes only @F8-F11 what would you recommend for Canon 5DS, Zeiss 35 f2 or Tamron 35 f1.8?
With such a tight pixel pitch, CAs will be exaggerated, therefore I'd prefer the Tamron. Though the best 35 in this case is I think is the Canon 35L. So if money is not an issue, I'd go with the Canon 35 - you'll also get better focus and most likely better longevity.
@@CameraMystique 35L version 1 or 2?
@@marsdahustler The 35L II
+
Are you Greek?
Yes
@@CameraMystique i supose that from your accent. Hi from Mytilene Greece
@@stratoszafeiriou7147 Κρητικός εδώ