Originally posted by SergioFromSF DogLover, can you elaborate on the benefits of the ZK lenses? If you have 35/2, how does it compare with DA35? Also, how come ZK are not AF compatible?
Thanks,
-s
I have never had either the ZK 35/2 or the DA35 but I have seen enough from them and read enough about them to know that they are both excellent lenses.
The appeal of the ZK's for me are two-fold:
1. You know that you are getting state-of-the-art IQ (the current 25 and 18 are possible exceptions). If you take a bad image, it's your fault.
2. There is an overwhelming feeling of quality that, in my experience, is unsurpassed. The way the focusing ring turns is just sublime. AF ability would absolutely destroy that. There is a heft and solidity that just oozes quality. Even the way the metal hoods click on and off gives me goosebumps.
You do have to be comfortable with MF. If you're not, you won't care for them. I have found that a split focus screen helps, though some don't like them. Many will say that Voigtlanders or even old Pentax give the same feeling, and that may be true, I don't know. I have latched onto Zeiss because I do know what I get from them and I love it. I sometimes wish I had latched onto these alternatives as I could save a lot of money! (though I'm too anal to buy anything used) But I'm not someone who wants a huge amount of lenses anyway. Somewhere around 10 feels about right to me. I'm definitely a "quality over quantity" kind of guy. In that respect, I am probably exactly in Zeiss's target market, and that's fine with me as long as they continue to deliver. Hope this sheds at least a little light for you, though you may have to use one to truly understand.