Hi,
I've been thinking of Distagon 28mm f2 for many months. After reading reviews, tests and opinions I'm still not convinced which one should i get.
I'd love to hear your opinions. Which one did you choose and why? What are the differences in image quality from your point of view?
28/2.0 is slightly better in almost every respect (sharpness,contrast,CA,colour vivdness) than 28/2.8 at comparable f stop from f4 up,though differences are not striking.It is one stop faster but much bulkier and more expensive.MFD is nearly the same (24mm vs 25mm).
I choose 28/2 any time I want to get the best IQ I can get from a 28mm Zeiss lens on FF camera,leaving 28/2.8 for my NEXes.If I were you I would probably try both and find out for myself which one suits my needs better.
Peire wrote:
28/2.0 is slightly better in almost every respect (sharpness,contrast,CA,colour vivdness) than 28/2.8 at comparable f stop from f4 up,though differences are not striking.It is one stop faster but much bulkier and more expensive.MFD is nearly the same (24mm vs 25mm).
Thanks Peire but I'm not considering 28mm f2.8
I'm going to get old "Hollywood" version or new ZE/ZF version of 28mm f2 Distagon.
From some sources the older version was totally different construction but some sources claim that the new version is better
You should know that the Hollywood does not clear the mirror on Canon 5D and 5DII. Don't know about 5DIII. Think it works on 1D series though. Leitax works of course.
hauxon wrote:
You should know that the Hollywood does not clear the mirror on Canon 5D and 5DII. Don't know about 5DIII. Think it works on 1D series though. Leitax works of course.
I use 5DIII. Don't know either about the mirror clearance issue
hauxon wrote:
You should know that the Hollywood does not clear the mirror on Canon 5D and 5DII. Don't know about 5DIII. Think it works on 1D series though. Leitax works of course.
I don't understand why Leitax would make a difference. Presumably the mirror interference is only a function of lens position, which must be the same for proper infinity achievement.
carstenw wrote:
I don't understand why Leitax would make a difference. Presumably the mirror interference is only a function of lens position, which must be the same for proper infinity achievement.
Of course, having a Leitax mount won't make an otherwise uncompatible lens into a compatible lens, but I would like to give two thumbs to Leitax, anyway.
In my experience, the Leitax mount has the most accurate geometry of any common mount conversions, including generic, Fotodiox, and Fotodiox Pro. The main advantage offered by the more accurate Leitax mount is to eliminate asymmetry that often results in left/right or top/bottom differences in sharpness. I now have Leitax mounts on my Distagon 28/2.8, Sonnar 100/3.5, Vario-Sonnar 35-70/3.4, and Vario-Sonnar T* 100-300/4.5-5.6. They all perform noticeably better (in some cases, only slightly) with Leitax than with other adapters, and the heavier 100-300mm lens has a much more secure mount with Leitax than a simple adapter could provide. Same for my Oly 21/3.5, and 24/2.8 lenses. I'll probably get Leitax for the Oly 85/2 that's on the way to me, if it's a good copy.
I haven't tried the top-of-the-line Novoflex adapters, except to play with one on a Summircon-R 90/2 a few years ago at Camera West. It had a super tight fit but they're more expensive than Leitax, and I don't see how they could be better - except that an adapter can be used for more than one lens; unless you're like me, and want one per Alt.
With respect to the OP question on C/Y vs. ZF/ZE, I haven't had any personal experience with either 28/2 lens, but I've had a lot of other Contax Zeiss lenses, and now two ZE lenses. From now on, I'll go ZE rather than C/Y, except if the C/Y is a lot less expensive (say 1/3 or less) than an equivalent ZE lens, or not it's not available in a ZE version, like the V-Sonnar 100-300mm that I recently picked up (it's a peach).
jcolwell wrote:
Of course, having a Leitax mount won't make an otherwise uncompatible lens into a compatible lens, but I would like to give two thumbs to Leitax, anyway.
In my experience, the Leitax mount has the most accurate geometry of any common mount conversions, including generic, Fotodiox, and Fotodiox Pro. The main advantage offered by the more accurate Leitax mount is to eliminate asymmetry that often results in left/right or top/bottom differences in sharpness. I now have Leitax mounts on my Distagon 28/2.8, Sonnar 100/3.5, Vario-Sonnar 35-70/3.4, and Vario-Sonnar T* 100-300/4.5-5.6. They all perform noticeably better (in some cases, only slightly) with Leitax than with other adapters, and the heavier 100-300mm lens has a much more secure mount with Leitax than a simple adapter could provide. Same for my Oly 21/3.5, and 24/2.8 lenses. I'll probably get Leitax for the Oly 85/2 that's on the way to me, if it's a good copy.
I haven't tried the top-of-the-line Novoflex adapters, except to play with one on a Summircon-R 90/2 a few years ago at Camera West. It had a super tight fit but they're more expensive than Leitax, and I don't see how they could be better - except that an adapter can be used for more than one lens; unless you're like me, and want one per Alt. ...Show more →
You're right, the rear element probably moves too far back to clear the mirror. I might have had a picture in my head of a lens with some kind of a flange on the mount that could be taken off with a dremel or would be missing in a Leitax EF mount. ...but that's probably just distant memories of someone using a dremel on the rear lens assembly (not the mount) of a 19mm Leica-R.
I did have the 28/2 ZE few years back and did like it a lot but I don't know how it compares to the "Hollywood". I'd only think about getting the Contax lens if I was a collector since the ZE is really a good lens.
Thanks to all. I expected some more feedback though
It looks like most of FM users use the new version. I have seen excellent images from you taken with the ZE/ZF version, so I will probably try this one first to avoid issues with the mirror.
Btw, thank you all for the ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!). I am reading it from the beginning second time right now and still finding loads of information and excellent images!
IMHO, the old Contax glass reached a level of artistry unrivaled by any other glass, classic or modern. The 28/2 is a magical lens, not unlike the 35/1.4. The DOF is much shallower than comparable lenses of the same FL, an old design trick, and the bokeh, well, is very Zeissy.
I personally much prefer the old Contax rendering to the modern Zeiss.
edwardkaraa wrote:
IMHO, the old Contax glass reached a level of artistry unrivaled by any other glass, classic or modern. The 28/2 is a magical lens, not unlike the 35/1.4. The DOF is much shallower than comparable lenses of the same FL, an old design trick, and the bokeh, well, is very Zeissy.
I personally much prefer the old Contax rendering to the modern Zeiss.
I never really had a chance to compare C/Y vs Z. I have few C/Y lenses ad couple Z's but never had a such a dilemma before. What bothers me is that some opinions claims that the old design Hollywood was changed when stepping up to Z family and character of this famous lens changed. One similar example I had to choose between C/Y and Z was when I bought 35mm f1.4 (in this case it was HFT version) and it was made because of the color, bokeh differences. Images and opinions many of FM users helped me to choose this one over the new Z version.
In case of 28mm f2 opinions are rather mixed.
I'd love to hear a bit more from someone who had both of them and had a similar dilemma.
...and to complicate things, consider the ze/zf 25/2.0?
which was what i chosen after considering CY and Z variations of 25 & 28mms at f2 & f2.8.
What i Really liked was if zeiss produced a 24 or 25mm at 1.4!
(yah and there was this thread i saw of a prototyped cy 25/1.4 which never made it to production)
well i guess if its the 'hollywood' images u r after, then nothing else cuts it.
From what I know, The 5D MkIII mirror is smaller (0.45mm) than 5D MkII.
And from personal experience: 45/2.8 only causes the mirror hang at infinity, 35-70/3.4 does not require any modification, 35/1.4 works just as well.
Hopefully, 28/2 should clear mirror in case it caused hang on earlier 5D models.
The choice of adapter is also very important. You need an expensive adapter that has the right thickness. To my knowledge, only the Kindai and Rayqual are thick enough to allow the mirror clearance on the 5D.
