I see B&H has them in stock. Anyone seen a review or have an opinion on this?

i haven't been able to find much.

What I know is that it has one more lens element compared to the Hollywood version in the Contax range.

I ignore what is the purpose of the extra element over a design that was already near to perfect in the Contax version.
Wanting to be evil one could think that the extra element would serve to add further correction in order to minimize the effects of poor assembling by Cosina factory? ;-)
But this is just bad talk, maybe the new element brings actual improvement :-)

One thing I would really be interested in about this lens, is does it clear the 5D mirror? Because the Contax version that I have does not clear it at infinity, although it comes really close. Considering that the Nikon version must have a longer register distance compared with Contax, I'd say that it should clear the mirror, but I would like to hear this from someone who has actually tried with the lens.

I just bought the Contax version. It's arriving, tomorrow. Will it fit my 20D, without any issues, or isit just the 5D that causes problems? Thanks.

ADAM HIRSCH wrote:
I just bought the Contax version. It's arriving, tomorrow. Will it fit my 20D, without any issues, or isit just the 5D that causes problems? Thanks.

If the 20D has the same mirror size and distance as the 400D, you will use it no problem.

I took the following image with both of these lenses using a Canon 1Ds 3 mounted on a tripod with cable release and mirror lockup. The exposure was F8.5 at 1/4sec. The focus point was the center of the building. The images are screen shots from Lightroom saved as JPEGs. I set sharpening and clarity to zero but obviously in a real life situation you would apply some sharpenning to these images and would gain a lot of extra edge detail.

Full scene:



100% detail view 1



100% detail view 2

I don't know about the new ZF, but I have the C/Y one and I think it is a great lens, much better than the little 2.8 version, especially in terms of color ( the little wonder 2.8 Distagon in cold, not natural at all to my view ) and this is one of the reasons I am in with alt. lenses. From the images above it looks like the new version has more contrast.

Did the lighting change or does the C/Y have the natural C/Y 'glow' and the ZF simply lacks the 'glow' ? (I see this 'glow' in my other c/y lens and much prefer it).

I.e, is the ZF very cold ?

you2 wrote:
Did the lighting change or does the C/Y have the natural C/Y 'glow' and the ZF simply lacks the 'glow' ? (I see this 'glow' in my other c/y lens and much prefer it).

I.e, is the ZF very cold ?


I think that is the lighting change at the end of the day. The ZF looks colder in the first crop (c/y crop has distinct orange highlights from the setting sun that apparently had moved by the time the ZF sample was taken), but warmer in the second crop (look at the concrete). I don't suspect, however that the 2 lenses will have the same color characteristics, but they sill be similar. The ZF will probably match all the other ZF lenses better than it matches the c/y lens.

Looks like the zf may have more ca.
Dan

Edit. Upon closer inspection maybe the zf is better. Look between the telephone poles.

Raul, do you have a 28mm 2.8 distagon to compare also? What is your impression of the two lenses especially the CA?
Thanks,
Dan

Please do not trust the color of the images as the lighting was changing very rapidly and even though these pictures were taken only minutes apart the color temperature of the light was probably significantly different to be able to say that one lens renders color in one way or another. I now have a few CY and ZF lenses and in general the ZFs have very good color, contrast and resolution - they tend to have more CA than the corresponding CY models. In the case of the 28/2 the difference of CA between the CY and ZF versions seems to be small (at least with my copy). Both lenses produce surprisingly good images at close range even when wide open. I like the ergonomics of the old CY model with its large focusing grip. With both models images pop in/out of focus on my viewfinder making manual focusing much easier.

Dan, I tested 2 copies of the CY 28/2.8 with good results at F8 and beyond. I think the 28/2.0 ZF is definetly pulling more information but to be sure I would need to do a side by side test...

If you were starting out, would you adapt CY lenses to a Canon body, or ZF lenses to a Nikon body? Thanks

Yes. It looks to me that the ZF is slightly better with respect to CA than the older c/y lens. It also looks a bit sharper as well.


DanPBrown wrote:
Looks like the zf may have more ca.
Dan

Edit. Upon closer inspection maybe the zf is better. Look between the telephone poles.

Hi Adam, if you are concerned with image quality like the rest of us and you are willing to live without the convenience of autofocus, taking IQ and price as important variables, I would recommend CY adapted lenses like the 28/2.8 and the 60/2.8 1:1 Macro. These 2 lenses will perform really well and give you lots of coverage. Also I would recommend a nice tripod !

If film is an option I would go with Nikon - a used Nikon FM2n or FM3A with the CZ 35/2 and one of the Nikon 60 Macro. There are so many other good permutations but these are two I am familiar with...

ADAM HIRSCH wrote:
If you were starting out, would you adapt CY lenses to a Canon body, or ZF lenses to a Nikon body? Thanks

ZF lenses to a Nikon body. It would be easier to work with, but more expensive as the older c/y lenses can be had for less money.

You could also adapt ZF lenses to a Canon body, just like you can adapter the c/y. Just need the proper adapter. It would still be stop down metering, and manual aperture, however.just like the c/y lenses on the Canon.

The only C/Y 28/2 lenses I have seen for sale lately were almost as much as the new ZF. But, I've only been looking for a short time. With the ZF you are also getting a new lens that can be repaired and has a warranty. Would that sway anyone here?

GR - not really. Assuming you buy a clean version of a CY here or from KEH (nice return policy), there is not a lot that can go wrong with a MF lens if you are starting out with a clean unit on day 1.

I were starting out today, I'd look VERY hard at a D3 and ZF glass and the new 14-24. AS much as I love Leica glass, Zeiss glass is damn close or on-par in many instances, cheaper and no stop-down and the ability to code lenses for exif and no BS with adapters would be nice.