Canon 35L vs. Zeiss 35?

jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
edited May 24, 2010 in Cameras
I'm about to pull the trigger on a 35L, but then I thought about the Zeiss 35. Some interesting reviews of the Zeiss 35/2 at B&H. Anybody here owned both? I'm tempted. Being "limited" to f/2.0 doesn't concern me that much, but MF kind of does, as I will be shooting my kids (that sounds funny) with this lens.
-Jack

An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,130 moderator
    edited May 24, 2010
    I think of my adapted manual focus lenses as "specialty" lenses. AF lenses are much more convenient and practical for common use.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Moogle PepperMoogle Pepper Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited May 24, 2010
    35L get it. The Zeiss sounds more expensive and something that you wouldn't put on too often.
    Food & Culture.
    www.tednghiem.com
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited May 24, 2010
    Moogle Pepper wrote: »
    35L get it. The Zeiss sounds more expensive and something that you wouldn't put on too often.

    The Zeiss is actually about $400 cheaper at $1000, due to no AF.

    I've decided that MF is not for me and shooting my kids. This is based on the fact that even when an image looks perfectly sharp and in-focus to me through the viewfinder of my 5DII, using AF, there is a significant chance it won't when I look at it on the computer later. So how could I possibly MF with the thing? I'd probably need a thick matte screen that would take away from the enjoyment of the VF with my other lenses, and even then who knows. I've also heard from a few users on dpr that the L gives up nothing to the Zeiss in terms of IQ.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Sign In or Register to comment.