Upload & Sell: On
Funny, I have it the other way around. The ZF 25 2.8 does 1:2, the 2.0 does 1:6. Aside from mere measurements, the draw of the 2.8 is absolutely sublime for environmental macro portraiture, and allows for more creative subject placement at close focus. The 2.8 is practically a macro lens from my experience, and no slouch at landscapes either. Just my 2ç.
Yes, it is true the 25 f/2.8 has a very close .17m MFD, whereas the f/2 has a .25m MFD, so you can get closer with the f/2.8, but keep in mind how close that is. At MFD, the f/2.8 has a working distance of only 6cm (or 2.4 inches), so you are very close indeed at such a wide angle and such high magnification. For my use the f/2 is gets as close as I have ever wanted to get at such a wide angle (13cm or just over 5 inches in working distance). Of course some might want the really short MFD of the f/2.8.
What I was commenting on was the performance at MFD and I am a big fan of floating element designs for close focus work. I am surprised Zeiss didn't add one to the f/2.8. it does do quite well without one, but it would do better with one and for my taste I can see the difference even though it isn't all that large and prefer the f/2 images, but I can see why some might want what the f/2.8 has to offer. If it came in ZE mount, I would be very interested in the f/2.8 for its size and all around performance, but I have to admit I have a pretty strong preference for lenses that focus the Canon/Leica/ Zeiss C/Y mount way.