Zeiss 35/1.4 vs. 35/2.8

[Guest]

is it really worth the money to go for the 351.4 over the 35 2.8. it is about 4 times tthe increase in cost. putting the gain of speed aside,is it really worthwhile?
in fact, i read this book which says that the 35 2.8 by ziess is suppose to be one of two unique ziess lens with some magic which means exceptional lens. the other is of course the 100 macrko.
any idea guys how true is this?

 

[Guest]

The 35/2.8 is probably the cheapest lens in my outfit. 8 years ago, I bought it used for a pittance because the mount was damaged. I had it repared by my local Contax reseller, and overall, it costed me less than half the price of a brand new lens.

To this day, it is the lens I use the most. I'm doing a lot of landscape photography, and I just love the perspective this lens gives, which is very close to the human eye's. Distortion and vignetting are unnoticeable, and there's no flare whatsoever. As an additionnal bonus, it is a very small and lightweight lense that you can carry along during your long Adirondacks hikings.

I also use it for architecture photography, and am always impressed by the lack of linear distortion, the color saturation and overall sharpness. By comparison, the Vario-Sonnar 35-70 F3.4 that I once used produced noticeably distorted images (barrel at 35, pincushion at 70).

Above all, this lense just have that "Contax quality", which is difficult to explain and quantify. My opinion is that it is due to the color balance and the evenness of field illumination. In any cae, I think this lense is probably the best bargain in the Contax lineup, whether you buy it used or new.

Guillaume Couture