Using Zeiss extensivly!  first of all, theres not much differance between these two, only that one is faster!  apart from that, no differance. In fact I would say the slightly slower gives a slight sharper image. Thats the one I would go for.

Image quality is ofcourse superb, as with all Zeiss optics. These optics are made by Cosina and is ofcourse not to be mixed up with the original Zeiss for the Hasselblads ( which you can have converted to small format),  but the Zeiss/Cosina, are pretty much on par.

In fact these two 35 mils you are mentioning and the superwides are the Zeiss I would actually recommend.

Having said all this, the Canon and Nikon, 35 mils are ofcourse very god as well, I mean you really have to look hard to see any big differance, still I recon the Zeiss are just a bit sharper and also they give a very clean picture, not any visable CA or whatever.

Thanks Christian, I'm into Zeiss glass too. I love their rendition and microcontrast. I tried the Canon 35mm L too and it's great, just that the image seems a bit flat compared to what I get from Zeiss.

Edit: what polarizers are you using on your Zeiss?

Im using a Zeiss polariser actually, same as I use for the HD4 optics. However a bit of caution here, you want a circular pola, not the linear. Agreeing with you, the Zeiss gives more contrast and a more "living"  picture then the Canons or Nikons.

best.

I have a Canon 35/1.4. I can't imagine how the zeiss would be much better. And I have AF
Canon DPP also corrects the CA very well (and if you shoot JPG's camera does it also quite nicely, I believe?)

Of course the Canon design is very old (from the 1990s?), I think it has some potential to be upgraded to a "mark II" version in the near future (?)

Canon's DPP is a piece of cr@p, honestly.

Yes, it definitely has its shortcomings, it can be a pain to use and does not have all the bells and whistles. But I have not yet seen a better image quality come out of any other RAW-converter. I have lightroom but rarely use it (mostly for my Fuji X100), I just don't seem to get good results with it (Comparing Canon images). And on a pixel-peeping level DPP delivers IMHO the best details.

BTW when (which year?) did you last time seriously try to do something with DPP? (It may have developed since then...)

AF is not critical for my work, it's not my first manual focus lens. Quality uber alles, yes?

I don't know if I have poor vision, but I can't seem to focus 35/1.4 correcly using MF and large apertures (1.4...2). But maybe you shoot at f/11

Quote from: Tabimura on June 01, 2012, 04:13

Canon's DPP is a piece of cr@p, honestly.

Yes, it definitely has its shortcomings, it can be a pain to use and does not have all the bells and whistles. But I have not yet seen a better image quality come out of any other RAW-converter. I have lightroom but rarely use it (mostly for my Fuji X100), I just don't seem to get good results with it (Comparing Canon images) And on a pixel-peeping level DPP delivers IMHO the best details.

BTW when (which year?) did you last time seriously try to do something with DPP?

Any camera manufacturers own raw-converter is optimized for its raw-files, DPP for Canon, NX for Nikon, they might not be the most practical to use but, yes, they will churn out the best quality.

LR and ACR, are very practical, batches, etc. However both these converters will very often clip the red/yellow channels, no big deal but sometimes it can be a pain and impossible to rescue.

Sorry, not by a mile. Everything on LR is better than either DPP or NX. I don't want to get too technical in details, but I know very well my way around all these softwares. Take for example the sharpening method (unsharp mask) of DPP against the sophisticated deconvolution method from LR. Not in the same league. Not even getting to local adjustments, lens support for everything and other stuff.

Agreeing, but only if you need sharpening or NR, etc. In-camera as well as in softwares, I try deperately to avoid any sharpening or NR, it renders artifacts, noise, etc, its unavoidable. DPP and NX, are not in the same league for handling, etc, but they do render the "cleanest" file.

I do as little as possible in the raw-converter, rather trying to get it right in-camera from the beginning,  the rest I leave to PS or Barco,  which can do things so much better.

Barco system has a raw-converter incorporated, I have used it and its staggering! trouble is it comes with the entire system installed, the Hollywood industy software and at a price-tag of 15K.
Bit on the expensive side for a software.

Quote from: Tabimura on June 01, 2012, 04:43

Sorry, not by a mile. Everything on LR is better than either DPP or NX. I don't want to get too technical in details, but I know very well my way around all these softwares. Take for example the sharpening method (unsharp mask) of DPP against the sophisticated deconvolution method from LR. Not in the same league. Not even getting to local adjustments, lens support for everything and other stuff.

I have to disagree, but:

- I don't do any sharpening at RAW stage (I always never even sharpen anything, that's the way stock sites and pre-press places wants them),
I always have my sharpness set at "3" (on a scale from 1 to 10) just to correct the anti-alias-filter.
- I don't use lenses by other manufacturers than Canon
- All my files goes as 16bit tiffs trough Photoshop, I don't need all the local adjustments stuff

BTW. If I understand correctly, the latest version of DPP can sharpen according to "lens profile" and sharpens the corners more compared to the center. I have yet to learn more about this (I think the 5D mk III does it even in-camera when shooting JPG)

And yes, as I wrote, I have Lightroom. It's just too compicated, too much adjustments and menus, importing images etc.
I like the simplicity of DPP, even if I would like some more features.

thats the way to go. A raw-converter should be easy as pie, no silly gimmicks, etc. LR, is trying to be a PS, but with no chance. Same with Phaseones pro converter, a million sliders, etc. No need for all that.