The 28 f:2.0 is IMHO one of the weaker lenses in the Z* lineup. It has more CA, its colours are less saturated, and it is less contrasty than the 5 other ZEs I have owned. OTOH, it is very sharp from MFD to infinity, including wide open (except some corner softness). That makes it again IMHO a speciality lens. I used it for full-day, full-light shooting, which it handled better than my othe rZeiss lenses.
It is also fair to note that my opinion is in the minority here. There are very competent shooters on this forum who are delighted with their 28.
What lens did you use in the above shots? The contrast is excellent despite the sun being in the frame.
@Mark: Nice light in these shots.My favorite is the first one. Seems to be some vignetting in the corners on the first shot, is that due to the filters you used?
@Edward: I am guessing he used the Zeiss 21 with a polarizer and 2-stop grad ND filter on the first shot.
carstenw wrote:
I wonder how the 28/2 compares to the 25/2.8 (and the upcoming 25/2)?
I will let you know in a couple of weeks. I just got a used copy of the 28 (but not much time to shoot right now). If I will really make it to one of the Berlin meetings you can all try it out (and the 25mm). It is also a ZF though.
since I have the 50 MP the 25's macro abilities don't impress me any more. It is sometimes hard to avoid swirly bokeh. You can play around with it, which is fun, but the results are not consistant. I have postet a few examples in the 25/25/35 thread.
At the very MFD I don't find it sharp at the center at all. But maybe if you move away a bit it is sharp.
Otherwise it is a very good landscape lens which is sufficiantly sharp for my purposes from 2.8 on (3m to infinity) and VERY sharp at 5.6 and 8.
I bought the 28 mainly for its 2.0, and if the 25/2.0 comes out and is better than the 25/2.8 I might swap them both for the 25/2.0.
philber wrote:
The 28 f:2.0 is IMHO one of the weaker lenses in the Z* lineup. It has more CA, its colours are less saturated, and it is less contrasty than the 5 other ZEs I have owned. OTOH, it is very sharp from MFD to infinity, including wide open (except some corner softness). That makes it again IMHO a speciality lens. I used it for full-day, full-light shooting, which it handled better than my othe rZeiss lenses.
It is also fair to note that my opinion is in the minority here. There are very competent shooters on this forum who are delighted with their 28....Show more →
Philippe, I am glad that you are describing the lens, rather than simply calling it good or bad, because interestingly, the characteristics you describe sound rather attractive to me nonetheless, I don't think I would make a move in this area until the new 25 is out.
Vincent, what is the size and weight of the new one? That could make a difference to me.
@Vincent , any chance that Zeiss could design a ZE 70-200 zoom lens. I just came back from taking a lot of Zeiss primes to Alaska on which I had to use my 70-200L 2.8 IS a lot of times due to inability to foot zoom when I was on a boat and when I was in a bus in Denali Park. I also needed to use my 16-35L which I haven't used since I got my 14-24G and then ZE 21/2.8, for a few close waterfall shots which required wider than 21mm. I am hoping Zeiss could design a ~16mm lens whose performance could match the mighty 21 and be better than the current 18mm lens. I used my C/Y 100/2 Planar as much as I could and it easily outperformed my 70-200L but as I said there were too many times when I needed either a shorter or longer focal length than 100mm. I might look at getting right now a Contax N 70-200 Conurus converted lens for this purpose.
philber wrote:
Lovely quartet, Sami! The last three really appeal to me, each with its own appeal!
+1 and yet, I really like the first shot as well. Really good control of difficult lighting condition
Just won a Contax Zeiss 100 f2 on ebay for £550 including postage from the US to the UK. Is this a good deal? Is there much difference in this and the new ZE version? Any tips for converting it to my 1Ds2?
They are both from the C/Y 21 - no polarizer - on the 1st - the 21 doesn't like strong direct light source into the lens - I did get a few with the lens angled just right that didn't flair - the vignette showed up on the jpeg conversion - I'm sure it could be fixed but I'm the worst post process person to ever log onto the internet.
The second has a #2 or 3 reverse GND with the ND graduation lined up at the bottom of the pink band.
Here is a quick one with the Contax 70-200 "N" - that lens has equal to slightly better IQ than the Canon 70-200/4 IS for tripod mounted landscape in a much smaller/lighter weight - I had the Canon - it's too big and heavy to pack for overnight trips - continental divide looking north at south face of 14k Long's Peak in the background about 7 miles away - 197mm @ f13
Thanks Mark for the sample shot with the Contax N 70-200. Do you have any more you could post and do you have any comparison shots with the Canon? TIA. May have to get one of these now.
R.Young wrote:
Just won a Contax Zeiss 100 f2 on ebay for £550 including postage from the US to the UK. Is this a good deal? Is there much difference in this and the new ZE version? Any tips for converting it to my 1Ds2?
Sounds pretty good to me, somewhat lower than average. Depends on condition though, and shipping/customs fees. Just get a good adapter and you should be set. Have fun, and post shots here!
I think the new one is perhaps a bit sharper wide open, but has perhaps a little less of a certain old-style Contax look. They are both brilliant in any case.
Ordered a fotodiox adapter too. How do I know which version it is? I've hear of MMJ or something?
There are two versions of many Contax lenses, although not all. The MMJ (=MM Japan) versions are the newer ones, which can be Leitaxed, for example. They have the smallest aperture in green.
