Tariq Gibran wrote:
I'll jump in as I owned two copies of this particular lens. First copy was unbelievably tack sharp wide open in the center with super high micro contrast but even stopped down to F11, the extreme corners were never tack sharp. This copy also exhibited some pretty severe CA - some of the worst I have seen.
Second copy behaved much differently with more uniform performance across the frame and less CA but not quite as sharp in the center wide open as the first copy. As such, it was better for landscape use as the extreme corners did sharpen up nicely but the lens seemed a bit "boring" to me as compared to the first copy. I have never seen two copies of the same lens behave so dramatically different than these two copies of the CY 28. Odd. Both were also MM though there was quite a range between the serial numbers....Show more →
Tariq, I have seen you mention this before. Is it possible that the two lens differed in adapter thickness/infinity adjustment? It seems like it is possible that the second one had an infinity adjustment that was just past infinity or a thinner adapter allowing the corner to come more into focus.
I believe the second copy did not reach infinity which accounts for the lower center sharpness and better corners, typical zeiss wa curvature. Focusing ring variations were not uncommon in film days, or an adapter issue.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Tariq, I have seen you mention this before. Is it possible that the two lens differed in adapter thickness/infinity adjustment? It seems like it is possible that the second one had an infinity adjustment that was just past infinity or a thinner adapter allowing the corner to come more into focus.
The time span between the use of both of these lenses was quite a bit and they were used on different systems with different bodies. The systems used actually would have favored the earlier copy as it was used with a 5D classic. The same adapter was used with many C/Y lenses and worked perfectly with all of the other lenses. Since that adapter allowed for perfect, tack sharp infinity focus wide open in the center and corner sharpness was never reached even by F11 on the 5D classic, I don't think this is a case of field curvature and/or an adapter issue explaining the problem.
The second copy which performed so well across the frame was used on my Sony a900. It really did behave as a different lens reaching border/ corner sharpness by 5.6. And even though different systems were used, the fingerprint or look of each lens was so dramatically different that I'm positive this went far beyond the look contributed by just using a different camera. The rendering of the first copy had extreme micro contrast and colors were super saturated, even from wide open. What one would expect from Zeiss. The second copy rendering was bland by comparison and lacked the typical Zeiss look. Anyway, day and night.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I believe the second copy did not reach infinity which accounts for the lower center sharpness and better corners, typical zeiss wa curvature. Focusing ring variations were not uncommon in film days, or an adapter issue.
I don't believe that was the case. The second copy performed extremely well. On the a900, it never was out of focus or unsharp in the center or the border rather the difference was a lack of the extreme micro contrast as exhibited by the first copy. Anyone seeing images or even 100% crops from the second copy would proclaim its performance to be pretty amazing. The requirements of the a900 24MP sensor might account for a tiny bit of this difference in micro contrast but certainly not as much as was seen.
Anyway, this is a bit off topic to the thread I guess.
After I got my 21mm Zeiss F2.8 it was left completely unused.
Because it's so small though I would often find myself throwing it in the bag when I wasn't taking the large 21mm with me however I never end up using it for some reason.
The times I've specifically gone out to use it, its worked out very well but I find that if I'm shooting wide I prefer at least 24mm or if not then 35mm.
You're right though about corner to corner sharpness, its pretty impressive even on FF and even at F4 seems sharp enough to me.
Aug 29, 2011 at 08:33 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
No one has mentioned it yet, but in my view if you want the best landscape lens at 35mm it seems to be the Zeiss C/Y mount PC 35mm f/2.8. This lens will give you very sharp corners unshifted and has quite decent microcontrast even at f/5.6 (and I believe it gets better stopped down to f/8 and f/11). It is a spectacular lens and won't cost more or much more than the C/Y 35 f/1.4. In my view what is so special about the C/Y 35 f/1.4 is the super high microcontrast in the central 2/3rds of the frame stopped down, but if you want sharp corners, IMO, the PC 35 f/2.8 is the one to get.
I've been studying MTF charts all day and I think the vario sonnar 35-70 is looking mighty fine... as well as the 80-200 and 100-300 wow those are good.
Fly -- Even giving consideration to poor web viewing sizes, those images really look terrific. I'm impressed with the broad wide angle look you got from the lens -- especially the shot under the bridge. That 28mm would seem to deserve more thorough use.
I know what you mean about choices and what to grab when going out. It's tough to get into rotation if the lens isn't the latest acquisition or favorite.
Gunzorro wrote:
Fly -- Even giving consideration to poor web viewing sizes, those images really look terrific. I'm impressed with the broad wide angle look you got from the lens -- especially the shot under the bridge. That 28mm would seem to deserve more thorough use.
I know what you mean about choices and what to grab when going out. It's tough to get into rotation if the lens isn't the latest acquisition or favorite.
I'll be putting Pen's particular CY 28 lens to use again. Funny how these lenses tend to boomerang around!
The 80-200 is especially nice in the 80-135 range ... highly underrated/underappreciated, imo.
+1 @ choices ... C/Y 35-70/3.4 in my bag, headed toward the 24L TS-E II ... rethinking the 35mm to go with it for a 1-2 combo, likely to fund the 24L TS-E II with the 18mm, 21mm & 28mm glass ... choices, way too many choices.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The time span between the use of both of these lenses was quite a bit and they were used on different systems with different bodies. The systems used actually would have favored the earlier copy as it was used with a 5D classic. The same adapter was used with many C/Y lenses and worked perfectly with all of the other lenses. Since that adapter allowed for perfect, tack sharp infinity focus wide open in the center and corner sharpness was never reached even by F11 on the 5D classic, I don't think this is a case of field curvature and/or an adapter issue explaining the problem.
The second copy which performed so well across the frame was used on my Sony a900. It really did behave as a different lens reaching border/ corner sharpness by 5.6. And even though different systems were used, the fingerprint or look of each lens was so dramatically different that I'm positive this went far beyond the look contributed by just using a different camera. The rendering of the first copy had extreme micro contrast and colors were super saturated, even from wide open. What one would expect from Zeiss. The second copy rendering was bland by comparison and lacked the typical Zeiss look. Anyway, day and night. ...Show more →
Interesting. My copy of this lens that I'm using on my 5D classic is quite much like the 1st copy you're describing, except I don't have problems getting corner to corner sharpness, and CA is well controlled in my case. For infinity landscapes, f/8 or f/11 will do it. Perhaps it still could be a bit sharper in the fine details, so perhaps they are being covered up a bit by the "fat" microcontrast.
On the other hand, the pictures from FlyPenPfly look very much like what I see from my copy and that is your 2nd copy (which you have back now), right?
AhamB wrote:
Interesting. My copy of this lens that I'm using on my 5D classic is quite much like the 1st copy you're describing, except I don't have problems getting corner to corner sharpness. For distant landscapes, f/8 or f/11 will do it. Perhaps it still could be a bit sharper in the fine details, so perhaps they are being covered up a bit by the "fat" microcontrast.
On the other hand, the pictures from FlyPenPfly look very much like what I see from my copy and that is your 2nd copy (which you have back now), right?
Pen's sending it to me today. Guess I will have to do some more testing.
Out of curiosity, do you run into severe issues with CA in strong lighting situations such as light streaming through fine tree branches and so forth? My first copy suffered this to great extent on the 5D. Never saw an issue with the second copy.
Here is an example posted way back from my first copy of the lens showing the dramatic sharpness fall off in the right extreme corner as well as the CA issue - taken at 5.6 I believe : http://www.gibranstudio.com/28ca.jpg
