p.1 #1 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Does anyone have this lens and any in depth reviews on it as i can not find much information on it and having just purchased it ( delivery Tuesday ) and info or pictures taken with this lens would be appreciated.
A quick note from the other thread, yes I would go for a 5D2. Dont want to sound like an FF snob, but I went from 7D to 5D2 a couple of years ago and that is possibly the single most improving step Ive made. The 5D3 dont bring much to the table if you're into MF, for me it's the opposite - it does not support fast mattes as the EG-S.
I have plenty of images, here are just a few from spring when I got the lens.
p.1 #4 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
wfrank, these are fantastic. I'm glad there's a thread devoted to this lens.
I bought my C/Y 28-85mm almost a year and a half ago and have used it primarily for video with a Canon 7D (I shoot stills with an old Rollei 35s with a Zeiss 40/2.8). I've noticed that after the two shoots this year with this lens that have been handheld for over 4 hours, my lens mount becomes loose. As in, when I put another lens on, the focus isn't sharp throughout the frame on the same focal plane. It was a $250 repair 6 months ago and this time I'm looking at the same.
I'm totally bummed out because I absolutely love this lens. The colors are true-to-life and gorgeous. I like the color depth much more than Canon's lineup of L zooms. Also, the sharpness makes the image pop. I've had clients wow out loud when I put this lens on after a Canon non L prime. My copy even has a larger dust particle towards the rear element that I can't tell exists on video.
I'm wondering if anyone here (now or in the future) has had this problem with this lens on their Canon or Nikon dSLR? I wonder if it's my Fotodiox Pro C/Y to EOS adapter, or perhaps it's my camera. Or, it could be how I zoom. It could also be how top-heavy this lens is and when I place it on a flat surface without a rig, the weight ends up on the lens, rather than the bottom of the camera. Sometimes when I shoot doc-style, it's hard to be completely delicate.
p.1 #7 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
freaklikeme wrote:
Define "lot." It's less problematic than it is on the 300/4, but worse, IIRC, than the 35-70.
The 35-70/3.4 has absolutely minimal lateral CA. Less than the Z* 35/2.
Compared to the 35-70, the 28-85 seems to have fairly heavy CA in the corners, at least that is what I've seen in a number of Wilhelm's shots. I think the Distagon 28/2.8 would do a bit better (it also has some CA but better controlled, although I hear there is also copy variation in this), but the zoom still has the same gorgeous rendering.
p.1 #8 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Thanks niknaz! Much appreciated.
Guess the size/weight of the lens has something to do with the wear you experience. I only use low-cost adapters (have a range of CYs) and find that suffice, but compared to me you seem like a heavy user. In case you dont know, you could Leitax that lens. That means replacing the CY mount with a EF mount - it is easy and fully reversible. It will become as sturdy as a native lens. I thought I was going to Leitax all mine, but I got myself a film Contax S2 and want to use the lenses on that too, so for now I wont.
Regarding CA I dont seem to have the fidelity to spot it (except when it's obvious fringing). I cannot see it in the images above so if someone could point it out that would help.
From here at FM - and from I've read elsewhere - the CA is (would/could) be mostly at the low mm's. And if you like, in the mm's the 35-70 doesnt have. Starting at 28 makes all the difference for me, dont care so much about 70 or 85. But it is big, that is the drawback. Despite having CYs like 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and more I left them at home at a car meet just to bring the 28-85. Here's a shot I like from that occasion. Wouldn't be the same without the hexagons.
p.1 #9 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
wfrank wrote:
Regarding CA I dont seem to have the fidelity to spot it (except when it's obvious fringing). I cannot see it in the images above so if someone could point it out that would help.
I don't want to come across as a terrible pedant , just telling what I see:
In the first boat shot (IMG_8213) it's most obvious on the church tower (bright cyan fringe left, red right) and on the horizontal bar at the tip of the mast (cyan fringe top, red bottom). I also see it in the text on the ship "TEATERSKEPPET".
IMG_9208 -- the wall with fuse boxes and graffiti: the black lines closer to the edge of the frame have the same fringing.
IMG_8116 -- yellow moped: the diagonal struts on the bridge in the left half of the frame all have fringing.
My eyes pick up on these fringes that I know shouldn't be there, probably because I enjoy exploring the detail in pictures (and I have some experience scrutinizing lens performance of course).
Anyway -- I really enjoy looking at your shots, even though I've seen most of these before.
p.1 #10 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
AhamB wrote:
I don't want to come across as a terrible pedant , just telling what I see:
In the first boat shot (IMG_8213) it's most obvious on the church tower (bright cyan fringe left, red right) and on the horizontal bar at the tip of the mast (cyan fringe top, red bottom). I also see it in the text on the ship "TEATERSKEPPET".
IMG_9208 -- the wall with fuse boxes and graffiti: the black lines closer to the edge of the frame have the same fringing.
IMG_8116 -- yellow moped: the diagonal struts on the bridge in the left half of the frame all have fringing.
My eyes pick up on these fringes that I know shouldn't be there, probably because I enjoy exploring the detail in pictures (and I have some experience scrutinizing lens performance of course).
Anyway -- I really enjoy looking at your shots, even though I've seen most of these before. ...Show more →
And I noticed just one example, you are good in this.
Tho truth is, that this like many other C/Y has look thats unmatched by anything else.
p.1 #11 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
AhamB wrote:
I don't want to come across as a terrible pedant , just telling what I see:
By all means no, I am trying to understand so thanks Benjamin for guidance
I've picked one of the identified places and looked up the original RAW (uncorrected FWIW). With effort I can see some pinkish to the left of "PP" in the text "Teaterskeppet". But I fail in some color tests so I have that male gene.. This is most likely 28mm which as I understand it is the worst case. Mini and 100% crop:
p.1 #17 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Because it destroys fine detail in either case and additionally represents a design flaw. The later is a negative for those of us always looking for that perfectly designed lens.
BTW, this is one lens I keep intentionally looking for deals on. I want one... CA and all.
p.1 #20 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
wfrank wrote:
By all means no, I am trying to understand so thanks Benjamin for guidance
I've picked one of the identified places and looked up the original RAW (uncorrected FWIW). With effort I can see some pinkish to the left of "PP" in the text "Teaterskeppet". But I fail in some color tests so I have that male gene.. This is most likely 28mm which as I understand it is the worst case. Mini and 100% crop:
, just telling what I see:
