Just to clarify, the CA I noticed in my test shots were off-axis at closer distances so it's probably better described as LoCA or Bokeh CA.

Thanks for the feedback and comments on this.
I'm still undecided on which I will keep.

Here's some more testing but this time against the light and on a non-flat scene.
Shots were performed with 5D2 using live-view (focussed on the center fence), mirror lock and cable release.

The Leica was on the Novoflex and the Zeiss on the Rayqual (the only adapter I've tried so far). Both at f2.8.

The order is Leica then Zeiss.

Centre left and top left.

Here's the toughest part of the test.

The R28 seems to perform better on the edges here than it did on the flat shot, but the ZF seems pretty good right out to the very edge.

Again both lenses are stunning a couple of stops down.

I'm just trying to rationalise this and figure out if it's worth having the money invested in the R28 over the ZF considering it's about twice the cost.

The Leica looks better to me - sharper, better contrast, slightly better color.

yeah, wide open the Leica seems to have a more contrast and certainly renders more fine detail.

The ZF seems to have even sharpness right to the edges whereas the Leica seems to be super sharp but looses some of it's zing into the edges and corners.

At real-world shooting from f5.6 onwards there's not a lot to complain about with either.

Both would be suitable for most wide shooting at closed down apertures, but after jumping through many hoops with the R28 it'd feel weird selling it.

Having said that, the sale of the R28 would go someway to pay for the much needed overhall on my classic car thats been languishing in the garage too long

At the prices they are going for now, I can't afford to keep a Leica R 28 around myself when I'm pretty happy with the CY 28 2.8. The Leica is a LOT more money for a tiny bit of performance gain but I think that's always the case when your dealing with stuff at the high end.

I think these last sets show how strong the Leica is, and start to show the weaknesses of the Zeiss. The purple fringing is much stronger in the Zeiss shots, and the Leica shots give a better impression of sharpness. I am not sure that you are going to see night and day differences, but clearly more money give better performance in this case.

Before deciding, you should also go out and shoot what you normally shoot, and make sure that you like the look of the lens you keep.

John, if you like lenses in this FL consider the 28mm Scheider Super Angulon shift lens. I just bought a copy and I may well keep it and part with my Leica.

Mike

The Super Angulon is not meant to be critically sharp in the corners until f/8. Have you tested it yet?

johnahill wrote:
...
I'm just trying to rationalise this and figure out if it's worth having the money invested in the R28 over the ZF considering it's about twice the cost.

If it were only ever about value then I think we'd all just be using cheap OM lenses. But it's never just about value is it?

Thanks for the comparison. I've been looking for a nice 24 and always wondered if the Zeiss 25 was good enough as the Contax 25 that I used many years ago wasn't (IMHO)!

JJ

carstenw wrote:

Before deciding, you should also go out and shoot what you normally shoot, and make sure that you like the look of the lens you keep.

I've had a few shoots with the R28 but that was before the CLA, one trip done with the ZF and pretty happy with it.

I need to get out and get some real world shoots done with the R28 since it's CLA and now that I have the Novoflex which seems the best so far.

The reason I started these tests was that the Leica has a reputation to live up to. It's known as possibly the best 28mm SLR lens and most folks who have used it rate it as sharp corner to corner wide open.

My initial tests on a flat target showed some fall-off in the corners until f5.6.
I was just trying to quantify the the premium of the R28 and whether it lives up to its reputation.

Well, you are comparing some of the best lenses available so it's no surprise they both look great. However, I can clearly see better microcontrast with Leica - just look at how crisp small leaves and the bark details are on the last pair of pictures, compared to relatively mushy look from Zeiss.

Here's some crops at f5.6, more likely of real world usage.

Leica followed by Zeiss

and top left crops

carstenw wrote:
The Super Angulon is not meant to be critically sharp in the corners until f/8. Have you tested it yet?
It's been on a few outings but when I shoot WO it's for selective focusing so the edges and corners are usually OOF. I'll take a few test shots this weekend.

Mike

well... if you don't plan to shoot at 2.8 to 4, ZF25 does its job from 5.6 and up.
Other than that, I can't tell you how you should invest in your gear.
Personally I shoot at wide open a lot for fixed focal length lens. Otherwise, the zoom lens would do just fine when stop down.

But I do as I said above. Moreover the SA is a shift lens which the ZF is not.

Mike

Edit, I guess you were responding to John...

I would go with whichever focal length you like shooting with the most. Though it's only a seemingly small 3mm, that can be quite a lot in a regards to angle of view with wide angles.