Hi Steve,

I went back to the amp pic and looked at it at 100% and I see what you mean about blooming although I must admit that most of it on this pic does not bother me. The worst of it seems to be situated within the areas where the glare from the overhead lights hit the scene.

What seems more concerning to me on this pic looking at it now at 100% is the loss of sharpness on both sides of the image, a goodly distance into the image, to the point where one can not say it is just normal "edge problems". It is clear it is happening at both ends of the image, maybe as much as 25% into the left side of the image all the way up and down that side, and as much as 10% into the right side of the image all the way up and down that side

Because of the very straight horizontal lines, this image shows in a very clear manner the very distinct curvature that drops away from the center. Curvature in and of itself is no big deal for me except where and if it causes this kind of softness. Maybe stopping down would have straightened this out but unfortunately I wasn't thinking "stop-down" when I shot this. When I get the next lens I will reshoot to see if stopping down resolves this particular softness in this particular scene.

At that close a distance and with the lens wide open, it's DOF you're seeing. I actually though you did a good job of paralleling the subject to get the amp sharp across most of the frame. Of course the floating element helps a lot here too, which is why I just sold my ZF 25/2.8 (very close focusing, but unfortunately no floating element).

shiwan wrote:
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.

Hi shiwan,

I suppose I shouldn't rule out anything, but I have to tell you that if all adapters cost $160 & up, I probably would never have gotten into Alt lenses in the first place. Not sure when happypagehk adapters lost their cache around FM, but I have never had any kind of trouble with happypagehk's C/Y > EOS & M42 > EOS adapters.

The field curvature idea seems more likely since there appears to be a significant drop in sharpness beginning at the point where the curvature is accelerating (especially wide open).

I guess I thought pics could not be posted here unless one paid for the priviledge, which is why I posted RAWs in links. If I am violating a rule somebody let me know and I will take the following images down.

Here is the amp pic. See if you think this is an adapter problem. Could it be that I may have the same kind of vibe off this lens that I had off the 50L ie it doesn't behave as I am used to other lenses behaving so I am having trouble telling myself the lens is fine?

StevenPA wrote:
At that close a distance and with the lens wide open, it's DOF you're seeing. I actually though you did a good job of paralleling the subject to get the amp sharp across most of the frame. Of course the floating element helps a lot here too, which is why I just sold my ZF 25/2.8 (very close focusing, but unfortunately no floating element).

When I get the replacement, I will obviously reshoot many of these scenes and shoot a series using a variety of apertures. I usually do. I did with the landscapes. Don't know why I did not on the f2 shots.

Now for the BIG question. Do folks think the lens is performing like it should given its design and CA?

Here's a landscape @f8.

rfkII,

What you are describing/seeing is a 'curvature of field', in effect, DoF not being perfectly consistently perpendicular to the lens element - is 'snakes' or curves or 'warps' a bit on off the expected plane.

The first and only occasion I've yet heard it mentioned in a review of the 28/2 ZF was that by Lloyd Chambers in his extensive review of the ZF line (highly recommended - worth the $$). Focus sharp in center, middle frame softer, sharp again near outer section.

IT IS NOT A SAMPLE ISSUE -- but an oddity of the remake of the 28/2ZF. Thus, the 28/ZF in my mind is not a great landscape lens - much better as a close focusing WA.

Lloyd goes thru a much better description of the issue and some of the limitations it produces - despite the lenses strong suits.

The 35/2 ZF is a MUCH better, if not THE bets ZF product IMHO and experience re IQ and no sample variation.

What you are describing/seeing is a 'curvature of field', in effect, DoF not being perfectly consistently perpendicular to the lens element - is 'snakes' or curves or 'warps' a bit on off the expected plane.

The first and only occasion I've yet heard it mentioned in a review of the 28/2 ZF was that by Lloyd Chambers in his extensive review of the ZF line (highly recommended - worth the $$). Focus sharp in center, middle frame softer, sharp again near outer section.

I went ahead and ordered the review.

I also hunted down a spec sheet from the Zeiss website (which I now discover I had already downloaded - Duh!!). Zeiss' spec page in part says:

The Distagon T* 2/28 ZF closes the gap in the line of
high-end lenses for analog and digital SLR cameras
because the jump in focal length from 35 mm to 25
mm is too big for many demanding photographers.
Modeled on current state-of-the-art lenses in this
category, it features markedly improved optical
quality. Thanks to the floating design, image quality
remains almost consistent from the close-up range
to infinity.

These features make the Distagon T* 2/28 ZF ideal
not only for atmospheric photos in weakly
illuminated rooms, but also for attractive portraits
from a close distance. With the aperture fully or
almost fully open, you can use the low depth of field
to make the main subject stand out slightly from the
background without causing total background blur.
The high image quality in the close-up range permits
the application range of this lens to be extended to
include still life photography of small objects.

IT IS NOT A SAMPLE ISSUE -- but an oddity of the remake of the 28/2ZF. Thus, the 28/ZF in my mind is not a great landscape lens - much better as a close focusing WA.

Agree now, after being smacked over the head with actual information. The good news is I have the C/Y 28mm f2.8 which is a great little lens.

The 35/2 ZF is a MUCH better, if not THE bets ZF product IMHO and experience re IQ and no sample variation.

Would you say this is a much better lens for landscapes (in particular)? I looked at the MTF charts for it, and to someone who does not really know how to read the things (I open a window with LL's tutorial beside the lens' MTF), it looks similiar to the 28/2's.

Thanks for the information, opinions and ideas.

Between the two, I'd pick the 35/2. One of teh sharpest lenses ever created, clear colors, no field distortion, etc., However like all the ZFs save the 50 macro, does suffer from CA - something the older CZs seem better optimized to defeat.

If I had a clean slate, I'd choose one of (from what I have used only):

1. Leica 28/2.8 Ver 2 (sharp across frame starting WO) - images just 'pop' into focus, floating element for close work, About same cost as a 28/2 ZF. Again, ONLY the latest version with the built-in square hood.

2. Your CZ 28/2,8 stopped down (to get high-res (flat MTF) across the frame).

3. The Leica 35/2 - probably best bokeh in bunch and considered by Son as much better close up than the 28 CZ.

4. If you want really wide - the latest Leica 19/2.8. Needs mods to fit a Canon, but picture the Leica 28, just wider. Sharp as freaking tack.

Others will have their own suggestions as well.

If you go Leica, wait for a good deal. Prices until now have climbed in part due to people buying in anticipation of an uber R10 from Leica. That expectation has diminished and am starting to see: a) more Leica gear coming for sale and b) at better prices as people start to cut back their exposure.

1. Leica 28/2.8 Ver 2 (sharp across frame starting WO) - images just 'pop' into focus, floating element for close work, About same cost as a 28/2 ZF. Again, ONLY the latest version with the built-in square hood.

How do you tell if it is Version 2?

BTW, I called B&H and told them to hold off on the exchange and just refund me. I told them I was apparently mistaken about the lens being faulty and offered to reimburse them for the shipping back. They thanked me for my honesty (my stupidity notwithstanding) and let me off the hook.

rfkiii wrote:
1. Leica 28/2.8 Ver 2 (sharp across frame starting WO) - images just 'pop' into focus, floating element for close work, About same cost as a 28/2 ZF. Again, ONLY the latest version with the built-in square hood.

How do you tell if it is Version 2?


The latest version has a built in hood and 55mm filters. The older 28mm had a hood that came off and took series filters. The older version also had 48mm filter threads.

Robert

Thanks for the reply.

The Leica website lists the 28/2.8 with 55mm filter threads and built-in hood like it is in production, but nobody (B&H, Adorama et al) has one for sale. Is this the right lens or is the Version 2 we speak of a vintage lens?

Also, the Pebble Place List is quite ambiguous about the versions of the 28/2.8 in terms of the language we are using here and also the compatibility on a 5D.

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Leica_db.html

According to the list, the version labeled as "1998- " with 55mm threads & built-in hood does not work on a 5D.

The two versions earlier than 1994 use Series 7 filters (whatever that is, maybe the 48mm you mention).

It appears that the version "1994-1999" has a question mark as to compatibility. If this is the version 2 we are discussing, are there adapting issues on a 5D?

Sorry to be such a pain.

Edited by rfkiii on Apr 07, 2008 at 04:38 AM GMT

No need to apologize, better to ask now...

Conflicting descriptions
------

I find some all-brand retailers tend to be all over the place with their descriptions of Leica R lenses due to the various iterations, filter sizes, etc. The result in those cases is that you're never quite sure what the hell they're describing. Just look for the sliding square hood.

Current Production
-----
The 28/2.8 latest is a current lens and frackin' expensive (like all Leica gear) new - and very rare 2nd hand.

ROM or 3Cam (a little cheaper) matters little if shooting on a Canon.

Ok for 5D
----
I had an older 3Cam on my 5D and worked fine. Sold the lens, regretted it, and just now bought a nice ROM unit from robsteve for my 1Ds2.

The PebblePlace db may simply reflect the fact that not enough users have supplied input to clearly tell. While 5Ds vary in their tolerances, the only R lenses I know that consistently give an issues are the ultra-wides and the 35/1.4. The 50/1.4, while listed as a no-fit, but will apparently do so with a simple 2 minute mod. Unless you have a VERY wonky copy of the 5D, I'd be very surprised if you had an issue.

Re: being in-stock
------
IMHO what you are seeing (and has been told to been happening in Europe) are Leica retailers keeping their stocks of R lenses low until/if they see movement on a new R camera. Especially with the recent management shakeup at Leica.

To finance ONE R lens in inventory, B&H could finance multiple, much faster moving, low-risk Canon/Nikon units. Many 2nd hand dealers will no longer buy R glass used, selling only on consignment - or offer you prices that would make you weep (e.g. $2500 for a ROM 180/2.8 APO...). None want to be holding a financial bag if Leica doesn't come thru in the Fall. Aperture in the UK recently had a big sale dumping their R glass.

What to look for
----
Ok... the single and ONLY important tell-tale you have to watch for is the built-in square hood. No sliding square hood, and it's not the lens you're looking for. Period. No exceptions.

Question to ask the seller other than the obvious for any lens? Focus ring smoothness. Older or neglected R lenses can develop stiff focus rings. Nothing a CLA wouldn't fix, but it pays to ask.

Performance
-----
While I am biased against Canon lenses, I'll own whatever works - preference Zeiss (be it CZ or Hasselblad). However but when it comes to the 28mm FL, the Leica 28 Mod II has got to be the the best all-round 28 ever made. If, not I'd hate to see the one that beat it.

Many cheaper 28s are great in center, awesome stopped down across the frame, great at mid-longer distances or great up close with a floating element. The 28 II is all them in one package.

The only thing I dislike (other than it doesn't cost the same as the CZ 28/2.8), is that the sliding hood does not lock in position. Tap the hood against something and it may well retract.

Possible sources
-----------

A good place to start would be posting a WTB here, on photo.net and at (my first stop) www.getdpi.com. Some ideas that seeped into my brain this am between sips of coffee as to where to look:

1. Adorama had/has one for $1500 -mixed rep as a 2nd hand seller. Bit spendy.
2. Re: KEH - don't think I've ever seen one listed.
3. Kurland Photo -tend to be spendy, good rep, poor web descriptions.

4. A chap on Luminous Landscape is selling a couple (from a BIG R collection). However, being European, his prices are roughly 1000 euros/per. That being said, he has been trying to sell this gear for a LONG time.....

5. A well respected UK vendor with gobs of exotica across all brands and formats is FFordes in Scotland. Great email response, considered to have accurate condition gradings. Insured shipping to NA is spendy however. Next time I'm in Scotland, me, my Visa card and an empty camera bag are heading to Inverness-shire (sic?).


Maybe if RobSteve is nice, he'll post some sample shots with MY lens (Rob - will email with get together time on Monday). Err, you know the shot & crop I mean, right Rob?

Good luck with the hunt - and let us know what you do.

Is this the set of pictures?



This was shot wide open. A crop into where I focused is the second picture.





Just to show how good this lens is at f2.8, here is a 100% crop of the white shirt. I don't see much CA in the transition of the white shirt to the darker shadow under her chin.





Edited by robsteve on Apr 05, 2008 at 07:37 PM GMT

Edited by robsteve on Apr 05, 2008 at 07:38 PM GMT

rfkiii wrote:
Thanks for the reply.

The Leica website lists the 28/2.8 with 55mm filter threads and built-in hood like it is in production, but nobody (B&H, Adorama et al) has one for sale. Is this the right lens or is the Version 2 we speak of a vintage lens?
.

Version 2 is the current lens. I noticed tha Samy's in LA has one. Samy's Camera is a large retailer, probably the west coast equivalent of B&H.

http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=6009

CameraWest shows a used one:

http://www.camerawest.com/

Thanks robsteve. I will check these out. There was an eBay auction for a Leica 28mm ver 2 store demo that sold Sunday for $971. I was 20 minutes late.

Conner999
As previously discussed, the Pebble Place List shows that the 28mm does not work with the 5D. 16-9.net indicates that the Leica 28mm would require a mirror shave. Just wondering if you had your 5D mirror shaved?

I would have no problem getting a mirror shave if that is what it takes. However, horse in front of cart seems like the way to go. I should get the shave first. (Having an adapter on hand before the lens arrives seems prudent also.) Assuming the merchants robsteve mentioned will not hold the lens while I get this stuff done, if there is a glimmer of hope that I could use the lens without the mods, I would order one of them today. Both are vulgarly expensive so I do not want to make a mistake.

By the way, who does mirror shaves these days? Both mirror shave links on the 16-9.net compatibility list are broken.

I wouldn't recommend to shave the mirror of any camera. It's such a violent process and I wouldn't feel confident with the accuracy of my camera once it's done. I bought the 5D thinking it will work with all my existing Contax lenses, except the 18mm f/4. I was very disappointed to find out that my 28mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/1.4 hang the mirror as well. Solution: I bought a used 1DsII. I learned on my expense that current adapters are too thin. After having invested in a few Kindai adapters, now the 28 and 35 work on the 5D as well. As far as I know, Kindai are one of the rare adapters to keep the correct 1.5mm thickness.

rfkiii wrote:
Thanks robsteve. I will check these out. There was an eBay auction for a Leica 28mm ver 2 store demo that sold Sunday for $971. I was 20 minutes late.



That Ebay auction had a few things odd, such as it being relisted and I think I have seen this seller sell this lens before. There may be a simple explanation such as the seller has access to some Leica demo stock and is just selling it off one at a time. BTW, the lens listed was a three cam converted to ROM, not an original ROM, so it could be this store had some new/old stock converted to ROM or it is some of Leica's ols stock converted to ROM. Optically and mechanically there was no difference in this lens whether it was three cam or ROM. Both were made at the same time.

The broom picture does not show any lens defect.
If there is a defect then it's obviously of the FA adapter.
It might have told the shooter that the focus was on the center but it's obviously evident that the focus is really on the left, and what is on the right is blurred simply because it's more distant from the camera.

And this shows I think how carefully we must take opinions posted about lenses when they are given without image support. A simply misunderstood image may lead to undeserved bad reputation for the lens. In this case we can see for ourselves, and verify if the provided comment is correct or not, but when there is no picture to verify, we should really wait before drawing any conclusions.

Folks modifying the 5D mirror and proper adapter thickness for Contax lenses has been discussed here for years. If you search the archives, you will find dozens of threads.

The 5D is an odd ball. Apparently, body tolerances are such that sometimes the mirror hangs and sometimes it doesn't. This also effects the correct flange distance. If the adapter is thick, you may avoid the mirror hanging but you may lose infinity focus. Consensus here is that most 5D's need 1.42mm thick adapter for infinity focus - though this is not true all the time - again body tolerances effect this. You just have to try some adapters on your body and see what results you get. However, don't think a thick adapter solves all the problems because many of us started with 1.5mm adapters, found we didn't get infinity focus and then searched for thinner ones. Also, if the adapter is too thick, again on some bodies, image quality suffers all around.

Also, shaving the mirror does absolutely no harm to the body unless you damage the body in the process. The biggest mistake people make is breaking the mirror and having to replace it ($350) or allowing mirror shavings / dust to fall on the sensor/AA filter. The dust comes off no problem - you just have to clean the sensor real good. If done correctly, there is no harm done and no affect on the camera and you can use all the Contax lenses without issues.

Orio - You might be right re: the adapter and the your are right about the need to see a pics. That said, the ZF 28 is known to have odd field curvature that is a 'characteristic' of the lens. Depends on you want to use it

RE: the 5D. When I used Rob Steve's (now my...) 28 ROM on my 5D it worked fine. Note - I now use a 1Ds2 - got fed up with 5D. My copy of the 5D had issues, but not when it camera to mirror tolerance. It worked with every lens I tossed at it - some being unknowns (?) on the PP site and some Ns like the 28/2.8 latest.

Bear in mind, that all an N means is as few as one person reported that their 28 had an issue clearing their 5D. Most adapter makers machine their adapters a hair thin to 'assure' infinity focus. If they do this and/or the adapter is crap and/or your 5D is one that's prone to jamming if looked at sideways, you could have an issue.

I have heard no 1st person accounts of the latest 28 and a 5D having an issue, so it's not a wide issue. That said, if the Gods sneer in your general direction and you have a problem you can:

1. SHAVE THE MIRROR. I would only do this if you plan on keeping the 5D for some and on using a lot of iffy lenses (typically UWA) on the body as well. As Jon says, no harm done but to do it for one If there are alternatives...

Before we look at options 2 & 3, bear in mind that if your mirror catches, it is typically a matter of fractions of a millimeter. In many cases the mirror will 'power thru', just touching the element housing enough to slow it down - resulting in a dark line at the bottom of the pic.

It can literally come down to the thickness of the paint on the rear element housing. Had that issue on my 1Ds2 with an already modified Leica 19mm that had the filed down area re-painted. It was, again, a lens borrowed from RobSteve and not mine to strip the paint from. He used it on a 1.3x crop 1D.

If the mirror catches, it's no biggy. Power down the camera, unmount the lens, power up and hit the shutter release if the mirror doesn't drop at power up. Ok, now for options 2 -3:

2. SWITCH ADAPTERS - some just suck. Too thin, too thick, chips (if FC) all over the place, loose parts, not flat, etc. Just because you have a small lathe and milling machine doesn't mean you should ever use it. Now there is a nice Xmas list addition for my wife to think about.. ;>

3. SHIM THE ADAPTER. Most adapters come in two sections screwed together. Unscrew the ring on the lens side (for Leica held on by 6 screws) and place 1 layer of metallic duct tape (only the metallic type) between the two halves and screw the lens-side ring back on.

Work the screws like tire lug nuts - tighten them a bit at a time from opposite sides of 'the clock' until they are all snug. The idea, like changing a spare, is to ensure the ring is flat and torqued evenly.

Try the lens. If no improvement, repeat with a second layer. Lather, rinse repeat until happy. One layer may very likely do it.

Some bright spark indicated that metallic duct tape is consistently 0.001" thick (or is it 0.0001"? - don't have any here at moment). The idea is to shim the adapter just enough to clear the 5D's @#$ 'molded and put together with oven mitts' tolerances. For a lens like the 28mm (IF you even have an issue) you'll find it will take VERY little shimming to do the job.

Note, that if you are willing to forgo infinity focus - Darn near ANY lens can be made to clear a 5D with a thick enough shim (brass, etc).

If it fixes the mirror clearance but infinity is screwed up. Try using something thinner (Scotch tape?). When happy, measure the thickness of the resulting modified adapter and use that reference when buying adapters.

My advice - give one a try. You'll LOVE the glass and IF you have an issue (which I highly doubt), it will be by a gnats-hair and easily overcome.

Quick Leica 28 shot. Handheld, ISO 100, 1DS2, F2.8. Downsized jpeg from 21x14" RAW, NO USM.

Screen capture of above at 100% via CS3 loupe. Again, NO USM.

USM of 80/1/2 over-sharpens it.

Oh, blew the red channel on tennis ball and had to pull exposure back a tad - got lazy but shot may give some idea of center performance WO, lack of CA, bokeh and effect of floating element. As much as a compressed sliver of a 21x14" 48MB RAW shot can ever show anything anyway.

This same shot with 100 macro ZF showed same res, but ZF had CA on every reflective surface of typewriter.

May come across bit better than loupe shot.

100% crop slice, not screen capture this time.

Many cheaper 28s are great in center, awesome stopped down across the frame, great at mid-longer distances or great up close with a floating element. The 28 II is all them in one package.

I hope so because I purchased the one from Camera West that robsteve posted.

If I am getting the Leica, can I ignore the Nikon 28 thread?

Congrats. Report back what you think when she arrives.

Conner999 wrote:
.
.
.
Possible sources
-----------

A good place to start would be posting a WTB here, on photo.net and at (my first stop) www.getdpi.com. Some ideas that seeped into my brain this am between sips of coffee as to where to look:

1. Adorama had/has one for $1500 -mixed rep as a 2nd hand seller. Bit spendy.
.
.
.

As Connor noticed Adorama had a late 28mm Elmarit for sale, and I bought it. As he noticed it was a little high in price but advertised as a mint demo, model 11333 which is the latest rev. The s/n was 38*******, ie a very recent copy.

After a week with no action (nothing on my CC and no email) I sent them an email and was asked to wait 24-48 hrs. I sent a 2nd email 2 days later and got no reply by the following day so I called. I got through to Alan last Thursday who quickly processed my order, and in fact dropped the shipping charges.

The lens arrived today. It was a noticeably used version 1 (model 11204) s/n 29***** with no rear cap!!!!

It will be interesting to see their response and find out if "my" lens is still there.

Mike