I currently own the Contax 28/2.8 and am very happy with it for the most part. It's actually one of my favourite lenses in the C/Y lineup. However, I've recently been thinking of purchasing the ZF 28/2 for its faster aperture and floating element. And now, after experimenting with the ZF 25/2.8 for a while, I'm wondering if the C/Y 28/2 wouldn't be the better choice.

Viewfinder brightness. I do a lot of night photography, and the faster aperture would definitely give me more light in the viewfinder for composition. ZF or C/Y, either or.

Star effect. How many aperture blades do the C/Y 28/2 and ZF 28/2 have? The 28/2.8 has 6, making a very pleasing star. If the ZF 28 is anything like the ZF 25, I probably won't like it (light sources rendered as mushy balls with 16 or so "spokes"). I wonder, does the C/Y 28/2 produce a nice star effect?

Infinity focus and mirror issues. I use a 5D and have heard varying reports on mirror hangage with the C/Y 28/2. My 28/2.8 hangs from time to time, no biggie. Is my 5D unlikely to be able to handle the C/Y 28/2? I also wonder if there are infinity issues with the C/Y 28/2 like there are with the D21. The ZF would give me perfect infinity focus with no mirror issues, I assume.

CA/Blooming. I don't think the faster C/Y has much, if any. My reference for this is PebblePlace. How does the ZF 28/2 perform in this regard?

What I really need to see is a 16-9 report on these three lenses.

Thanks in advance.

I would recommend Lloyd Chambers ZF review. The one thing that does come up on the 28/2, which he loves, is curvature of field. The lens, like all of the ZF line save the 50 macro appears to have some color fringing/sensor bloom.

Also try the nikoncafe.com - lots of comments on the ZF line their with sample shots.

In regards to the C/Y 28/2 - the rear floating element can be knocked out of alignment and leads to fringing, one side by sharper than another, etc. I went through several copies and my last from Son was the best. It cost dearly... In light of those challenges, I would suggest starting with the Zeiss ZF over the C/Y. Zeiss will no longer service the AE 28/2, so a bum 28/2 is a bum 28/2.

For night shooting I would pick a 35L due to the aperture advantage. Wide open my 35L was sharper. At F2.8 the C/Y and 35L were about equal. At F4 the Zeiss was considerably sharper in all aspects. Their colorings and contrast is quite different, so whether that would for you or not is another consideration. For evening, handheld, walk-around shooting - 35L gets my note.

Rob, thanks for the advice. I'll have a look around some more and may purchase the ZF review from diglloyd. I'm sure it would make a nice read.

John, you mention exactly what I don't want to go through with the C/Y 28/2, which is one reason I'd just as soon get the ZF. I would like to know beforehand how many aperture blades the ZF has, though, and if the star effect is significantly different between it and the C/Y version. Strange, I know. Most of my work is from a tripod stopped down to at least 5.6, so I don't need the uber-speed of the 35L. For composition, though, the brighter viewfinder would be very nice. For evening handheld, I've been thinking of picking up an older Nikon 35/1.4.

The ZF28 has 9 somewhat-rounded aperture blades, like all the other ZF lenses, which results in an 18-edged star.

There are no mirror clearance issues with any ZF lenses, whereas if you already have issues with the C/Y 2.8/28, you'll most definitely have issues with the C/Y 2/28.

As mentioned, the ZF does have fairly pronounced curvature of field from about 18mm onward. This is not too much of an issue at infinity, but it is at close-range, where it's a pretty good lens, thanks to the floating element.

One bit to also consider is that by itself, the ZF does 1:5 magnification at closest focus. If you stick on an extension ring, you can easily get 1:2 or even 1:1, on a 28mm f/2 lens.

Also, from a purely image-drawing perspective, it has a certain biting plasticity that I haven't seen since the Holy Distagon 21 (TM). At f/4 to f/5.6 it's basically outresolving any sensor edge-to-edge, even the 1DsMk3.

For those in the US who are concerned about repairing the CY lenses, KEH repairs Ziess lenses including those with the floating element. At least that is what they told me.

Not wanting to give away any of Lloyd's work, I can only STRONGLY suggest anyone looking to buy a ZF lens, especially the 28 and 25mm do what may seem abhorrent in this day and age of free info (really opinion) everywhere and pay for the review - at least until a free product of equal depth that does real-world (e.g. looking at bloom, light shape in night bokeh, etc) vs. just well-lit test subject shooting becomes available.

The cost will be less than any re-stocking fee on any one of the ZF lenses.

The 25 and 28 are excellent lenses, but have limitations if one is looking at night shooting, high contrast work, etc.

jonboring wrote:
For those in the US who are concerned about repairing the CY lenses, KEH repairs Ziess lenses including those with the floating element. At least that is what they told me.

Good to know.

boy LLoyd ahd some a long way since he was my roomie up on the north rim

Conner999 wrote:
The 25 and 28 are excellent lenses, but have limitations if one is looking at night shooting, high contrast work, etc.

Thanks, Rob. I assumed this about the 28 after getting the 25 and playing around with it. Everything about it is perfect except the shape of the aperture blades. Well, for me at least; I'd rather have the blades produce a nice "star" than smoother bokeh. I think I'm going to put getting the 28 on hold, but I'll continue to lust after it, and who knows, maybe I'll break down and pick it up in the future.

Steven, just get a 16-35mkII. You know that was a nice lens haha.

Steven, I'm in the same boat. Am looking for something shorter than 35 (I may move the 35 ZF for the 50M ZF..) and ideally F2-2.8. Unfortunately, the more reading I do, the more limited the options look wrt CA/bloom control, bokeh and close-focus performance.

Chris, I'd like to pick up the 16-35 II (could then sell the 17-40), but the cash difference doesn't make the move all that attractive. But 16-35 II - OM21/3.5 - D28/2.8 does sound nice. 16-35 II - OM21/3.5 - ZF28/2 sounds even nicer, but that would bankrupt me right now. Need to sell something!

Rob, what have you read about the CA/bloom control of the ZF28? The C/Y version looks pretty good in this regard, and I'd imagine the ZF to be the same or better.

Hi Steve,

I am evaluating the 28/2 ZF this weekend actually. I have two days left on the B&H return policy to make the decision and it has been rainy and overcast this weekend. Dang.

The link below are RAW files of assorted subject matter which I have tried to name in as descriptive a manner as possible (assuming you do not want to download everything). The files marked as Landscape is the location where I take all of my lenses intended for use in landscape to test out. I have included some wide open shots too but I seldom shoot wide open so my technique may be suspect.


http://www.box.net/shared/vhealaj48s


The 28/2 ZF appears to beat the C/Y 28/2.8 in the corners on scenes focused at Infinity. But, I have a concern about the 28/2 that reared its head in the photo labeled Cat. I have it marked as f8 but it may been anything from f8 to f11. Take a look and tell me what you think. Check out the ground just behind the large tree in the left foreground and tell me what you think is going on there.

I must admit that I am now spoiled by my Distagon 21mm and the stunningly sharp images across the frame it produces beginning at f5.6 so other lenses pale by comparison. Although neither of the Zeiss 28s are 21s, the 28/2 is very acceptable but requires f8 to acceptably resolve those corners.

The following link are RAWs from my C/Y 28/f2.8 if anyone is interested or wants to compare the two. These are of the same scene as that in the files marked "Landscape" in the 28/2 link though shot on a different day.

http://www.box.net/shared/9c1m1f9s80

All images are shot with a 5D. Sorry I cannot discuss CA/Bloom as I do not know what that is really.

Wow, Rick. Thanks for the files! I'll have a look at them when I get a free moment and will let you know what I think.

Steven,

Another lens to consider, albeit a stop slower and a little harder to find is the Ver 2 of the Leica 28/2.8. I borrowed one to try and it is a knock-out.

Sharp across the frame starting at WO (see Leica site for MTF), amazing small detail capture for a WA (or any lens for that matter), floating element, close focus to 12", built-in hood, images just 'pop' into focus on FC. Very good with flare. The price is also $1000-$1500, so roughly in line with 28/2s (ZF or CZ). Watch for stuff focus rings however.

Am contemplating one myself as like yourself, would like a floating element fastish 25-28mm

Here's a comparison of the C/Y 28/2.8 against the C/Y 28/2.0:

http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc/zeiss_28f2_vs_zeiss_28f28

and how the C/Y 28/2.8 compares to the 2nd version of Leica 28/2.8:

http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc/zeiss_28_vs_leica_28

Well, on a 5D, C/Y 28/2.8 seems to perform excellent...

Bob

Nice comparisons. Having owned the CZ and used the Leica, where the Leica excels vs the CZ (at a considerable premium) is: the floating element and being, for all intensive purposes as sharp across the frame at 2.8 as F8. It really comes down as to how you intend to use the lens.

Rick,

I've had a chance to look at some of the files. I'm not sure what I should be seeing in the cat pic in the left foreground behind the big tree. Is it softness or a smearing of fine detail? Or is it just the way the ground looks there?

Looking at the landscape files, it really looks like the lens peaks at f/8. By f/11, a lot of fine detail is gone. I did a Smart Sharpen of 180/0.4/0 on the full rez images, and f/8 really is better.

Except for the extreme corners, it's pretty amazing that the C/Y performs so well. C/Y center sharpness appears better (no surprise there), and CA seems to be less (but the ZF and C/Y pics were taken on different days, so it's hard to say). The sides and especially the corners are where the ZF resolves more.

Man, I don't know anymore. I thought the ZF would be better than it appears to be, and its value is really being put into question by the recent price hikes. The shot of the amps is particularly disappointing. I've never used a C/Y 28/2, but surely the blooming (axial chromatic aberration?) can't be as bad as the ZF. Maybe I expect too much.

From my CZ vs. ZF experience so far, I'd safely say that CA/blooming is more easily encountered with the newer lenses.

I've had a chance to look at some of the files. I'm not sure what I should be seeing in the cat pic in the left foreground behind the big tree. Is it softness or a smearing of fine detail? Or is it just the way the ground looks there?

Warped focus seems like an apt description and it occurs in an unusual spot behind the tree and not in front of it.

Looking at the landscape files, it really looks like the lens peaks at f/8. By f/11, a lot of fine detail is gone. I did a Smart Sharpen of 180/0.4/0 on the full rez images, and f/8 really is better.

Yep, absolutely correct.

On those landscape files, it looks to me like the right side of the images to about 25% inward are noticeably softer than the left 25% of the image. Some of the subject matter is farther away on the right side but the 21mm has no problem resolving detail on the far river bank from the same exact location where I setup my tripod.

Don't know if you looked at the broom file but it was particularly telling. Focused in the center of the bristles at an angle between 45 & 60 degrees about 4 feet away @f2, the entire left side of the image was oof. I would have called this front focusing but can that happen on a manual focus lens? More like it is decentered maybe? I tried two different nikon>EOS adapters and got the same result.

Man, I don't know anymore. I thought the ZF would be better than it appears to be, and its value is really being put into question by the recent price hikes. The shot of the amps is particularly disappointing. I've never used a C/Y 28/2, but surely the blooming (axial chromatic aberration?) can't be as bad as the ZF. Maybe I expect too much.

I thought the amps pic was the better of the bunch. I don't know what CA/bloom is and now you've introduced another term I am unfamiliar with: axial chromatic aberration. Can you or anyone explain? can this stuff be dealt with in post? I often see folks say they can fix CA easily in post but not sure if blooming is a different thing.

I've sent the lens back for an exchange. Here's why I am giving it another chance instead of washing my hands of it. I had the 25 ZF for evaluation a year ago and it too presented weird distortions of focus except worse. I sent it back but I blamed everything on the adapter. Well, I ordered a new adapter for the 28/2 from happypagehk when I ordered the lens thinking the first adapter was simply a bad apple. When I started getting the weirdness on the 28/2 with the happypagehk adapter, I switched and got the same effects (as described above for the broom file) from the older adapter I used with the 25/2.8. So, now I am ruling out the adapters.

I can not believe that two expensive Zeiss lenses (both ZF) have performed so poorly because they are poorly designed and engineered. Something's wrong here. Maybe it is my technique but I invoke the Blind Hog Principle that I can not screw up a 100 images to the point where I haven't gotten one keeper.

I have the 50 f1.4 ZS (M42 version) and it works just fine and blew away the c/y 50 f1.7. Do you suppose there is a bit of a difference between the ZF and ZS versions for FF?

Rick,

If you look at the MTF for this lens, there is a resolution dip and recovery for the ZF 28/2 that would be kind of close to the area behind the tree in the 'cat' pic, but why you'd see it only in the one spot is supicious. This may be curvature of field, but I don't know enough about how to spot that to be sure.

The amp pic is sharp as anything, and the "plasticity" of the image is fantastic, but look at the purple halo/glow around the white markings on the dials, etc. That's going to be next to impossible to remove in post and ruins the shot IMHO.

If you feel your not getting an evenness of focus, then I'd sell the adapters you have and get a Kindai. The fact that you are pleased with the ZS 50/1.4 is even more reason to think that the Nikon adapters you have aren't the best. The optics are the same for ZF and ZS lenses.

Conner999 wrote:
From my CZ vs. ZF experience so far, I'd safely say that CA/blooming is more easily encountered with the newer lenses.

Why is that? Restrictions (legally imposed or otherwise) on lens materials like lead, etc.? All over the literature for the 28/2, Zeiss says they've taken the older C/Y design and "optimized" it.

First, I wouldn't rule out the adapter issues until you've used the lenses on a Novoflex adapter. If that's too expensive, try a Kindai adapter. I've used both, and the Novoflex is a fine piece of design and machinery.

Second, both the ZF25 and the ZF28 have strong fields of curvature. This is referenced on a few sites on the 'Net. This is also seen in the MTF graphs, especially at around 18mm, where there's a sharp drop.

Finally, while one optimizes a lens in one direction, as it were, other types of aberrations begin to crop up, especially in wider lens designs. Sometimes this can be corrected with aspherical elements, but even those can leave some unsavoury marks on images.

Steven no idea - just an observation of mine. Smarter folks may have an idea.