Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZM Review
Image Quality:
As we know, there is no reason to recalculate official Zeiss IQ analyze data, because unlike many other producers, they are not theoretical but result of realistic testing.
Here are official 
data:
As we can see here, center resolution is already great at f/1.4 and it gets just slightly better at f/4. Performance is outstanding up to the last 25% of the image frame, where at f/1.4 we can see fall of resolution, but at f/4, results are extremely good across the frame. Also CA seems to be well controlled.
Distortion has slightly wavy character, but it is bellow 1% (measured on ideal height) which is great result.
Only weaker spot from official Zeiss lab test results seems to be vignetting. At f/1.4 this is to be expected, but at f/4 I would like to see lower light fall.
Let’s take a look how those data manifests visually. However, keep in mind, that I tested lens on camera that it wasn’t designed for, thus my visual results will certainly differ from the official calculations.
Here are 100% crops of respective zones of ISO chart. This chart was shot at close to minimum focus distance. Optical performance might be quite different with increased focus plane distance, so please keep that in mind too.
Center resolution wide open is truly exceptional and it actually holds up very good up to some 75% toward edges. But edges are exactly where Sony A7/r and their thick sensor cover glass comes into play, as I will demonstrate later with a field test shots. CA is also greatly under control as official MTF suggests with only purple fringing being slightly pronounced.
Let’s take a look at similar crops from A7r, which is more demanding sensor especially in the corners.
Surprisingly, there is no big difference between two sensors.
To put things in perspective, we need to take a look at some direct comparisons…
First, let’s compare Distagon 35/1.4 ZM with its big brother – Distagon 35/1.4 ZF.2. One would expect that bigger lens with more glass inside, considering same producer, will at least have equal performance.
Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM vs Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZF.2
f/1.4
Use slider to move between images.
This was big surprise for me. While Large ZF.2 Distagon have much better extreme corner, in most part of the image, especially in the center, it stays quite behind. After seing those results, I re-visited Zeiss pages for tested lens and indeed – MTF shows, that my results are OK. Not only that, but Big zeiss has also much more pronounced distortion and even worse CA. The only department where it comes above smaller brother is extreme corner sharpness and less pronounced vignetting.
At f/5.6, situation improves for ZF.2 in the center, but ZM improves in the corners, so both lenses performs equally well.
f/5.6
To eliminate possible problems with Sony sensors, I give an advantage to ZF.2, making another set of images with it on Nikon D800E. In comparison (to equalize resolution) I put ZM on Sony A7r. here are results:
Sony A7r + Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM vs Nikon D800E + Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZF.2
f/1.4
Performance of ZF.2 is slightly better, but it still stas behind ZM in larger part of the image.
f/5.6
On Sony A7r, Distagon ZM need to be stopped down to f/8 or better f/11 for sharp extreme corners, but center resolution is amazing.
Before we proceed with comparisons, let me just show you one set of images, where we can see that corner performance is not the problem of Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM, but rather of its combination with Sony A7/r cameras.
Here is one image taken with Sony A7, Sony A7r and Leic M-E, from which I will show you 100% crops
Looking at 100% crops from all 3 cameras of the respective zones,
it is more than clear where the problem with edges lies. Looking at the images from the native Leica body, I am truly impressed with overall performance of the Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM. (You might need to right click on the image and choose “show image” command. Than you should be able to enlarge the image to its original size to better see differences. You can also check my Flickr service page, where you will find lot of images in originals size – link. That collection will be updated later).
But getting back to my Sony A7/r cameras, I can still say, that results are outstanding, because I almost never need even sharpness toward edges wide open with my lenses. I don’t shot stars, and to be hones, I don’t know when I might need it otherwise.
If you consider Distagon ZM, but like me you have Sony A7/r/s cameras, there is recently another possible solution how to improve extreme corners – http://www.kolarivision.com/thinfilterconversion.html. I haven’t tried their service yet, it’s just couple of weeks on the market, but it looks very promising. In fact, I might do it just because of Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM, out of curiosity, even if I don’t really need sharp edges wide open.
Why I am so excited about this center performance?
Let’s take a look at series of comparisons against some of other 35mm f/2 and faster lenses from my collection.
Sony A7 + Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM vs Sony A7 + Minolta AF 35/1.4
f/1.4
f/5.6
Sony A7 + Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM vs Sony A7 + Sigma Art 35/1.4 DG HSM
f/1.4
f/5.6
Sony A7 + Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM vs Sony A7 + Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 II
f/1.4
f/5.6
Sony A7 + Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM vs Sony A7 + Zeiss Loxia 35/2 Biogon
f/2
f/5.6
And finally…
Sony A7 + Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM vs Sony A7 + Sony FE 35/2.8 ZA
f/2.8
f/5.6
Take a good look at those comparisons and make your own conclusion. In my eyes, only lens that comes over Distagon ZM is Sigma Art 35/1.4, but at the price of much larger size, especially with adapter. even so, the difference in center resolution is not so big and in a real life, it was basically drawn between the two, as you’ll see later.
P.S. I have also compared Distagon 35/1.4 ZM on Sony A6000 vs SEL 35/1.8, Loxia 35/2 and FE 35/2.8 (ISO chart as above). However, I wouldn’t suggest this lens for APS-C sensor and it doesn’t seem that there is much interest for A6000 among my readers. If I got at least 10 request comments for such a comparison, I will post it as an appendix to the review. (It’s lot of work, so that’s why I am asking to see if there is enough interest).
Please help support this page and upcoming reviews and buy through affiliate links, with no extra cost for you:
Buy on BHPhoto: 35mm f/1.4 Distagon T* ZM Lens for M-Mount (Silver)
Buy on Adorama: 35mm f/1.4 Distagon T* ZM Lens for M-Mount (Silver)
To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.
Great work, as usual Viktor. The lens is now on my shopping list.
By the way I like your new slider tool, quite interactive:)
Just 2 comments:
1) I was dissapointed with a performance of Loxia at f2 studio test (outer zones were not much better than tested lens)
2) Also Voigtlander 35/1.2 seems to be not great, however the character and bokeh will be I guess its strong weapon.
I know that announced sony 35/1.4 will be great in the corners with AF, but as an manual shooter I will always prefer this beauty.
radissimo
Thanx mate. Loxia 35/2 improves quite a lot stopped down and even wide open is actually much better in the corners than Distagon on A7. But Distagon on Leica M-E is another story 🙂
CV 35/1.2 is definitely not best corrected 35mm lens on the market, but wide open, it has great character (not about sharpness) and stopped down to f/5.6 and smaller it become actually very sharp across the frame.
Distagon is sharper lens with higher micro contrast of course. It depends what you prefer more – Blade sharpness or teasing Mystique.
I am glad you like our slider. It’s not perfect but for the proper comparomoetr IT guys here asks for over 4000 EUR. No way to jake that much with the blog yet…
Best regards to Scotland,
Viktor
“Use slider to move between images.”
Unfortunately, this doesn’t work! Nothing happens when you click the images in the three browsers I’ve tried: Safari, Firefox and Chrome.
You don’t have to click on images, you have to move the line (slider) left or right to reveal image bellow.
Nice review.
the lens looks definitely tempting. Anyway, guess I will wait for the sont FE 35/1.4 distagon….any guess if it might be actually the same design?
one of topic question: In your A7/A7R review you bashed A7 cameras quite heavily and commented that you dont like any of them. Seems that you changed your mind on the topic? Or just kept one for reviewing?
Hi Jozef,
I expect the Sony FE 35/1.4 ZE to have basic Distagon construction scheme but not the same design as ZM version. Lens will be much larger and heavier too. Most importantly, new Sony Zeiss will be AF lens with manual focus by wire, which is big minus for my use (90% of shots are MF).
I haven’t changed my mind regarding Sony A7/r cameras that I still own. All of my critics stands but the new A7MII seems to improve on the sensor reflection issue, so that particular camera can be significant improvement and if I would have one, I could possibly change my conclusion. However, until Sony gives possibility for lossless RAW compression, I am not going to buy any new Sony body, so I might never know how good cameras they will become.
Cheers,
Viktor
Thanks for the reply Viktor
Well, I’m aware about the size/AF differences. My question was pointed to the optical formula 😉 Guess we will have to wait some weeks till its out for comparison.
Hm, I see this “lossless compression” ranting quite often. Is it really such a big deal?
Hi Jozef,
my answer was commenting optical formula mainly, and I am sure they are not going to be completely the same. Distagon design is strongly asymmetrical and it is not based on exact number of elements inside, nor about their shape or type. From the first look at both lenses, it is clear that they are not of the exactly same design, but they still might be close in performance. However, looking at how 35/1.4 ZM is small and how greatly it performs on native Leica body, I am simply impressed what Zeiss engineers were able to put together. Sony E version look much more in line with other Zeiss Distagons 35/1.4 (ZE,or old C/Y).
The lossy compression of Sony RAW files has two consequences for my use…
First it’s not only about compression, but also about lens software corrections that are applied during compression, especially vignetting correction. This is done within A/D conversion on the hardware level, same as noise reduction, in order to improve efficiency. While for users, this is basically welcomed technology, it makes for me unreliable platform (which otherwise would be almost perfect) for cross lens comparisons among brands and types.
Second, I am often shooting products for living, where I have to go to the very edge of contrast and DR. When I tried to boost the chrome line in the product design and push everything else into dark black e.g., I experienced compression artifacts.
In any case, I understand why Sony did it and I doubt they will change it soon, but for me it means to look for other testing platform or to leave cross platform lens testing aside if there is none that can set even conditions. (Or at least to not include native E mount lenses in my tests).
Another reason why I didn’t buy A7 MII is IBIS being the main difference. Because I use tripod for 90% of my work, I don’t need IBIS (and faster battery drain) and thus I will rather wait for really new sensors.
Cheers,
Viktor
so the FE 35 monster is out, Steve Huff published his “first look” review and the guy is absolutely raving: “this lens may just be the best 35mm lens I have ever shot when it comes to IQ, pop, color, detail and overall rendering. It is gorgeous. Really”. So it looks promising. Are you planning to have a look on this beast too?
Thanks for the explanation, I have a clearer picture now about the whole thing 😉 I persnally am waiting for the new version of A7r. I still hope for a 36mpix version with electronic 1st curtain which would address the shutter shock issue. If the rumors are true and the A7RII will be a 50mpix beast, then I go for the A7II (dough I dont really care about the IBIS that much either)
Hi Jozef,
with all respect, Mr.Huff is raving about everything lately. “Best I ever used” is kind of motto of his pages. But he has lot of traffic for sure and he knows the positivism is what makes people happy. BTW, he also saw and talked to ghosts…
I most probably won’t try this lens (even if I would like), because I can’t get it from Sony for testing and I am not planning to buy it.
I am working on Zeiss APO Sonnar 135/2 review right now and that will be followed by shot out of 135mm on A7 – where five of most prominent 135s will be compared (including new Samyang 135.)
If I somehow succeed in getting in touch with someone from Sony international and they send me the lens/lenses, I will be happy to test them though.
Best regards,
Viktor
🙂 well, for some reason the guys name is recently downgrading to the lights of Ken Rockwell :D. However its not entirely true, especially regarding the sony lens. His FE lens reviews were always like: “yes its nice, but I still prefer to slap a voigtlander on the a7”, he called the 55/1.8 boring-the lens that all sony shooters love and rave about. Its really first time he is enthusiastic about a FE lens.
The 135 battle sounds interesting, I hope you wont leave out the Sony/Zeiss 135/1.8, that would be a sin! Looking forward for the review
Hi Jozef,
Sony Zeiss Sonnar 135/1.8 will be included in the shot out part together with EF 135/2 L, APO Sonnar 135/2 ZF.2 and Samyang 135/2 Nikon mount. (I might manage to make one or two shot comparison including Nikkor 135/2 DC and Sony 135/2.8 STF, but it all depends of time and weather conditions).
Cheers,
Viktor
great, looking forward for the comparison…
BTW, I thought you are joking about the ghosts thing, but here I see this: http://huffparanormal.com/ 😀 😀
I am never joking. But I saw ghosts too 😉
Thank you- Viktor. Very nice review. I ‘m waiting your another reviews. 🙂
Best regards!
Thank you Vasil I am glad you liked it.
Cheers,
Viktor
Thanks for the good work. As usual, it is extremely well done.
Can’t wait till you do a comparison with the new Sony Zeiss 35 F1.4 FE lens. Any chance that you may publish the comparison anytime soon?
Thank you Simon for your kind words. Unfortunately, I can’t get in touch with Sony International and we are not on their PR list. On top of that in the last period Sony seems to slightly ignore Europe and especially Czech Republic with new products supply, so we have to wait. All this means, that while I would love, I can’t test Sony lenses until I decide to buy one for myself, and I recently have no plans of doing so. I hope that we will somehow break this limitation in the future, because I believe that Sony Camera division deserves attention and publicity.
But it’s not all negative. I am working now on comprehensive review of Zeiss APO Sonnar 135/2. While this is not new lens, it is considered to be one of the best in its class. I hope to manage to make few direct comparisons against rather new Samyang 135/2 and another famous 135 – Sony Zeiss Sonnar 135/1.8 ZA on Sony A7r.
Oh, and there should be new Zeiss lenses announcement very soon. But pssst 😉
Cheers,
Viktor
Thank you very much for such a thorough, informative review! There seems to be very little information about this lens on the internet.
(I especially like your “mover slider to compare” tool)
The ZM 35mm F1.4 seems like the perfect 35mm lens, but unfortunately the price is too much for me… And the Sigma 35mm Art seems like a very good value!
I was wondering how the sigma lens handles when used as a manual focus lens on a sony A7 or A7m2?
I am just an amateur and 90% of the time I shoot environmental portraits (I am considering buying a canon mount version since I already have a 70D, so I can use it on both bodies)
How is the feel of the focus ring for MF? Would the Sigma lens be a good option to consider?
Thank you in advance!
Hi Daniel,
Sigma manual focusing is quite good for AF lens. You might lack that extra precision in the final stage of acquiring critical focus (on the eye e.g.) at super shallow DOF, but it is still possible.
There is also Sony A mount version which will AF with LA-EA4. Between Canon and Nikon, you are deciding between convinient settings of aperture, fully functional metering and TTL, EXIF record and AF (even if terrible slow) and versatillity of Nikon mount, which can be used on most other mounts recently…
Cheers,
Viktor
Mr. Pavlovic,
Thank you for your input! Even though my brain is telling me that the Sigma is a much better lens for me, I spent the last couple of nights fantasizing about getting the ZM 35mm f1.4!
I would love to get one, but probably not worth the price difference for my usage.. 🙁
But I might thank myself later for not buying a completely manual lens with no electronic contacts..LOL
Dear Viktor,
many thanks for your reviews and comparison.
The Distagon ZM seams to be a great performer. I would love to use it for technical subjects.
Your comparison with your model guides me to the Loxia instead. Inside the building the ZM 1.4 and the ZA 2.8 show a pritty face, long hair, a nice coat, jewelry and hands. For me the Loxia 35 shows me a pretty woman instead. For me the wow is on the whole person first until I loose myself into the details. The unretouched parkside pictures give me the imagination, that she would choose the Loxia 35, or the Nokton picture, while she might argue to have no Make-up, hair wax used on the ZM and ZA. Since you proved that the Loxia sharpens up very quick when stopped down i prefer this as a multi purpose prime 35 for natural subjects and nature.
Best regards: Juergen
Hi Juergen,
thank you for your comment. It represents the way I would like my reviews to contribute to the community. Trying to give as much field related information as possible and some comparative shots, I let the readers to make their individual conclusions. I rarely score or describe the lenses in general terms and I don’t believe in one lens being better than the other in all aspects. It is not most popular approach, people like to read that their lens is “better” than others, but it’s at least another point of view.
With the choice of Loxia, I am sure you won’t make a mistake and I wish you lot of nice images with that nice Zeiss lens.
Cheers,
Viktor
Your exhaustive comparison might have been decisive regarding the Distagon ZM had you attached the ZM to the camera for which it was designed–The Leica M Series. Comparing like brand lens (D810+ZF.2) and then mixing brands to evaluate the mismatched pairing is a mistake that others also too often commit.
Legacy lenses attached to foreign bodies simply will not perform optimally.
The IR cut filter etc. sensor stack attached to the SONY A7 Series (Including the A7R) is at least 2mm thick and its degrading effect nullifies all your hard work. The ZM was in fact designed to interface with the far thinner sensor stack of the Leica or the even thinner surface of photo film.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/sensor-stack-thickness-part-iii-the-summary
Any refracting element placed between the lens and sensor not originally designed to be there severely degrades the final outcome–especially at the field edges. Moreover the sensor stack renders the MTF useless as a guide.
To your credit you have arranged a PROPER FORMAT for comparison and I look forward to future efforts.
M
You might be very surprised if you compare the A7 Series to the Leica with this advanced Zeiss ZM lens.
Hi Michael,
If you have read the review carefully (but who will actually) you’ll find lot of notices about sensor cover composition and its influence to the final image quality. Don’t forget however, that recently applied software correction, “hard coded” in RAW files (by many producers including Sony and Leica) are another factor that influences image quality. Finally, on the page 3, you will find comparison images between Sony A7 and Leica M-E body with the same lens. You need to use slider to reveal left or right image.
We couldn’t use Leica for more tests as it was borrowed body that we had to return. We are not interested in Leica digital cameras, so we are not planning to use them in the future either. Zeiss is putting ZM line on hold, so there won’t be many of their lenses to test on Leica bodies anyway, and there are way better review pages dedicated to Leica fans.
Thank you for your critic and for your encouragement. If you’d like to add something more to this discussion, please use our forum section, where you can open related thread. We are limited in number of comments bellow the article, so I will have to exclude any new contributions related to this topic.
Cheers,
Viktor
This is literally the best ZM 1.4/35 review on the internet. I’m currently have the CV 35mm 1.2 and amazed how the ZM can outperform it.
Like @Li Yan: Best test for the 35 ZM 1.4, thank you very much!
I use it since six weeks on a Monocrome 246 and it has become my #2 lens on this body (close behind the C-Sonnar).
By the way: the best lens I ever had imo is the Apo Sonnar 135 you are referring in your ZM 35 test…
how did you retouch it? i like it. since it is just hobby, i would like over-retouch it.
Hi alan, I am not sure witch image do you have in mind?
Hello Victor
I know this is an older review, but quite recently I had a chance to compare ZM 35/2.0 with Loxia 35. I was surprised, to see how well ZM lens performed. It was a bit sharper than Loxia up to F4, had a tiny smoother bokeh wide open. Then I added FE 35/1.4 and this lens was better then either Biogon. But that made me think of ZM Distagon 35/1.4. I love small format of A7R, and while FE 35 is gorgeous, is also huge. I was wondering, if I may be happy with having ZM 35/1.4 Distagon instead. I don’t mind manual focus and having helicoid LM-NEX adapter will give me additional benefits of shorter MFD.
Enough about me, my question is: did you have a chance to compare ZM 35/1.4 with FE 35/1.4? If so, what was your opinion/conclusion?
Thank you again for your continued effort to help others.
Hi Piotr,
when you say that ZM 35/2 was sharper than Loxia 35/2 (not my experience, reading MTF50), was your impression from the center of the image or averaged MTF reading? I am asking, because Biogon 35/2 was notably behind Loxia (smeared corners) at the image edges at any aperture in my test published here.
Regarding ZM 35/1.4 and FE 35/1.4 I didn’t compare them directly but you can see results of the ZM 35/1.4 in my review – http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-distagon-35mm-f1-4-zm-review/
FE 35/1.4 is very similar in performance, except that it is much bigger and there are some sample variations too. FE 35/1.4 reminds me of a Sigma 35/1.4 Art with somewhat smoother bokeh.
Cheers,
Viktor
Thank you for reply Victor.
ZM was sharper in center, but only at F2 (visible) and F2.8 (barely). From F4 Loxia was bit better. Outside center, Loxia was just a bit sharper. Meantime, FE 35 was sharper then either Biogon in center, but much smoother outside, it was actually as sharp WO as ZM or Loxia at F2. Should you care I can send you RAW,s for your own conclusions. I am attracted to ZM Distagon, because of its size, but having good copy of FE, I am little hesitant, unless there are some other advantages. If I decide to go ZM route, I would probably do Kolari mod on my A7R, although not sure, if this wouldn’t affect performance of native lenses. Choices, choices…
Regards
Piotr
Hi Piotr,
The only thing I can say, is that you maybe had a bad copy of Loxia, because as you can see from my tests, my sample was much sharper toward edges than old Biogon at any aperture. Stopped down to f/2.8 it compares favorably to the FE 35/2.8 but with less vignetting. Loxia overall has a more organic rendering, meaning that the micro and global contrast are well balanced with the transferred tonal range, which results in a sort of more natural tonal response of the captured image. It also has smoother background blur than FE 35/2.8.
The biggest downside of the Loxia is very pronounced coma. Loxia is IMHO great lens for live subjects – street, concerts and event photography and stopped down to f/5.5-f/11 it becomes very usable for landscape too. No other manual focused lens will give you same comfort on Sony Ax cameras.
If you look on my ZM review, you can see that the level of smearing in the edges on Sony A7r is not really big, nothing like with Biogon design e.g. Kolari modification will reduce this smearing but will involve some other issues that you won’t read much about, including increased sensor flaring in some situations. Not the best thing to do with your camera, but if you need better corners with UWA lenses on A7r, probably only way to go. ZM will give you sharp edges at f/5.6-f/11. FWIW ZM 35/1.4 was for my taste, the most appealing 35mm lens that I shot with across the platforms. There are sharper lenses in the center (not by much), sharper at the edges, lenses with slightly smoother bokeh such as yours distagon FE, but as the overall package for the lovers of the manual focus, it is probably the best you can get. For the Techart adapter it might be slightly too heavy however, and Techart might show deformation in time. resulting in the mount plane decentering.
Cheers,
Viktor
I have checked your site and i have found some duplicate content,
that’s why you don’t rank high in google, but there is
a tool that can help you to create 100% unique content, search for; Boorfe’s tips unlimited content
Thank you very much for this review, I’m considering the voigtlander 1.2, I do have on the mail box coming the 40 mm 1.4, and own the zeiss 2.8. Of course will keep only one.
I like manual focusing but I got the techart pro which give me eye AF on my a7iii!..wow, is fantastic.
Would like to see if the voigtlander’s at 2.8 equal the sharpness of the zeiss.
Regards.
Great review,smashing pictures of the lovely silver version of the lens.
Thanks for the size comparison picture.
Every review says that this is a top lens but maybe a bit big on an m camera.
When so many reviewers rate a lens so highly it must be true.
swd362
twhn55
ufeh4o