Reader Comments

  1. 1) John
    July 22, 2013 at 8:13 pm

    Excellent review as always Nasim!

    How do you take such beautiful pictures? I love the image of the bridge, the bench and the image at the museum is also phenomenal!

    • July 23, 2013 at 1:30 pm

      Thank you for your feedback John! The bridge image is taken in San Francisco at sunrise. Unfortunately, I did not have any filters with me to blur the water more, so I had to increase my f/stop. If I had an ND filter with me or if the water was a little more wavy, I would have gotten a better shot for sure…

  2. 2) Gabriel
    July 22, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    Hi, i bought it too.. can u give us pictures that show a field curvature please?
    thank u

    • July 23, 2013 at 1:28 pm

      Let me see if I can find a way to actually show this in some images. I will take a look at chart photos and then some shots at infinity later tonight. As for field curvature, take a look at this article.

      • 2.1.1) Gabriel
        July 24, 2013 at 6:24 pm

        Thank u so much Nasim

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          July 28, 2013 at 3:00 pm

          Gabriel, I apologize that it took me so long to get back to you – been busy with other reviews this past week. I updated the page 3 of this review with examples that clearly show field curvature issues from the center, mid-frame and corners of the frame. I hope that you will find this detailed study helpful. I also attached a visual graph that represents field curvature @ f/2.8, which clearly shows the “cone-shaped” form of curvature, using 144 areas of an image. Took me forever to run that one, but I think it looks pretty good :)

          • gabriele
            July 28, 2013 at 4:46 pm

            Thank you very much for the new graphics, I find it very difficult to understand if my goal is affected by forward or backward field curvature. seems to be ok close, and a little ‘less far .. but maybe I’m wrong to do the test.
            thanks again

      • 2.1.2) gabriel
        July 26, 2013 at 5:48 pm

        Just couse i want to learn how and what shot to see clear field curvature..

  3. 3) Ankur
    July 23, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    Nasim, great review there!

    Not quite sure about the optical performance considering the $$/value ratio! Almost sounds like, even with its uncanny bokeh and slight front/back focus throw of Sigma 35 f/1.4 – it’s possibly the best value for money overall.

    • July 23, 2013 at 1:27 pm

      Yup, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is a much better value for sure, which is why I gave this lens a “3” for value.

  4. 4) Julián
    July 29, 2013 at 8:13 am

    I was always curious about a good review from this lens, and finally I found it. Thanks a lot Nasim.

  5. 5) preston
    July 30, 2013 at 10:11 pm

    Wow, wasn’t expecting it to look worse than competitors in the bokeh comparison! I’m not a bokeh nut by any stretch, but having halos around out of focus circles is very distracting in actual photos.

  6. 6) gabriel
    July 31, 2013 at 9:13 am

    On the field I find it not suitable for portraits, it’s too sharp, and the focus is very difficult, almost impossible not to make mistakes at f1.4. You have to use the preview button. I have to install a katzeye and a magnifying eyepiece, but it does not change much, it is a design flaw of optics suffering from LOCA. It ‘a pity

  7. 7) Rick
    August 9, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    I would like to see a 35mm f/2D review, please!!!!
    It’s the most affordable 35mm prime , since not all readers can afford a 1.4 lens!!

  8. 8) Hwang Dongwon
    July 25, 2014 at 2:03 am

    Thank you for such a nice review. I’ve also seen your review of Distagon T* 35mm F/2.0, and I wonder if there is a big difference between the two lens. Since I only have zoom lenses, I wanted to get a single-vision lens. The Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 lens was my only consideration, only before I saw your review of the F/2.0 lens.(Especially because you recommended it for non-professional users; I’m a student.) I’m relatively new to photography, and probably any of these lens would provide me excellent photography experience. I would just like to know if there is a big difference between having the 1.4 stop and not. I currently use Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 lens on Canon 550D, and I do want to try the F/1.4 stop. However, if there isn’t a noticeable difference between 1.4 and 2.0, I do have a mind to go for the F/2.0 lens; not because of the price range, just because it seems more compact and lighter.(I personally like its design better, too.) I take photos of people, close objects both indoor and outdoor, and some buildings. Could you give me any advice?
    btw, I’m comfortable with MF, so that’s not a problem.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *