35L is preferred.
If you don’t have enough exposure, won’t the “virtue flavor” come out in the later stage? The films taken with Zeiss heads also need to be post-processed, otherwise they won’t be usable.
In the digital age, with PS, the taste of the lens is no longer the main pursuit.
Earned films can only be used in RAW after post-production. Lenses of the same quality can only be compared after enlarging the output after post-production. Otherwise, the taste will be different if you change the monitor or the body.
It is easy to output JPG directly. The color style is determined by the camera settings, and there is no need to compare.
I was also obsessed with Zeiss, but later gave up. In addition to being nostalgic on film, I just occasionally played with the workmanship.
Technology is always improving, and the era of Zeiss has passed.
If we talk about specific applications, a few people always use the 35 head at f1.4. Even so, the 35L is not bad at all. Most of the lenses that can be used at this level are full-frame cameras. This focal length is mostly used in humanistic photography. How many people are currently practicing manual fast focusing skills? If it's more out-of-focus blur, I'm afraid only equipment geeks would study it at this focal length.