p.5 #1 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Works out, I found a good deal using one of eBays recent specials and ordered a 35-70. I can see keeping both for my purposes as they have different uses. Did you check the 28-85 to see if a baffle is creating the smaller circle?
Audii-Dudii wrote:
So far, the 35-70 is showing some promise, but the 28-85 arrived (finally!) this afternoon and it didn't take me very long to determine that I will be returning it.
As you noted, its IQ does fall slightly, but noticeably short of the standard set by the 35-70, which is a strike against it, as is its larger size and heavier weight. But more importantly for me and my purposes, the size of the image circle it projects across its focal length range is actually smaller than those projected by the corresponding C/Y prime lenses I already own!
Between 28 and 31 mm, the 28-85's image circle allows for only 2-3 mm of rise/fall/shift movements, increasing to only 4-5 mm from 35 to 65 mm, which is the range where I will be working most of the time.
At every focal length where the 28-85 overlaps with the 35-70, it projects a smaller-to-significantly smaller image circle. And since the only reason that I'm willing to consider using a zoom instead of a prime is due to the potential for having a larger image circle within which to work, I can't see that I will have much reason to ever use the 28-85.
Fortunately, the seller I bought it from offers a no-questions-asked return policy, so I'll pack it up and have it on its way back tomorrow. <sigh> ...Show more →
p.5 #2 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Mathieu18 wrote:
Works out, I found a good deal using one of eBays recent specials and ordered a 35-70. I can see keeping both for my purposes as they have different uses. Did you check the 28-85 to see if a baffle is creating the smaller circle?
I did check for a baffle. But if there is one, then I don't see it.
p.5 #3 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Audii-Dudii wrote:
So far, the 35-70 is showing some promise, but the 28-85 arrived (finally!) this afternoon and it didn't take me very long to determine that I will be returning it.
As you noted, its IQ does fall slightly, but noticeably short of the standard set by the 35-70, which is a strike against it ...
I doubt that. Would you care to show what you mean?
p.5 #4 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
wfrank wrote:
I doubt that. Would you care to show what you mean?
Nah ... I'll pass, thank you.
Conducting a proper, fair comparison that will satisfy others as being accurate will require too much effort on my part and there's nothing in it for me.
That's because even if the 28-85's image quality is clearly superior to that of the 35-70, I will still return mine due to the small size of the image circle(s) it projects across its focal length range.
p.5 #5 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
For what it's worth, that fits my gut on the two lenses as well. I might do a quick side by side if I get around too it. Not knocking the 28-85, I like it but I don't think the borders on the wide end hold up to the 35-70.
p.5 #6 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Mathieu18 wrote:
For what it's worth, that fits my gut on the two lenses as well. I might do a quick side by side if I get around too it. Not knocking the 28-85, I like it but I don't think the borders on the wide end hold up to the 35-70.
Side by side comparison would be highly appreciated.
p.5 #8 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Audii-Dudii wrote:
Nah ... I'll pass, thank you.
Conducting a proper, fair comparison that will satisfy others as being accurate will require too much effort on my part and there's nothing in it for me.
That's because even if the 28-85's image quality is clearly superior to that of the 35-70, I will still return mine due to the small size of the image circle(s) it projects across its focal length range.
<shrugs>
Well thank you too, but that was not the issue of your first statement. I have both and I doubt what you implied was correct.
p.5 #9 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Wilhelm ( I believe I got your name right but please accept my apologies if not), what’s your take on the IQ of the two. I had the 35-70, sold it and got the 28-85 some time later. My initial feeling was that the 28-85 didn’t hold up on the borders as well as the 35-70, especially on the long end. CA was also more present. I recently received the 35-70 again and probably will test, but as you have experience with both I’m curious what your take on it is.
Thanks regardless.
wfrank wrote:
Well thank you too, but that was not the issue of your first statement. I have both and I doubt what you implied was correct.
p.5 #10 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
I have both as well. The biggest draw back for me is its size, plus some distortion for 28mm, which doesn't bother me that much. Remember it's a more complex lense
Here are some pictures from the 28-85 Zeiss 28-85 Japanese Garden Jan 14 29 by Tri Tran, on Flickr
p.5 #11 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Mathieu18 wrote:
Wilhelm ( I believe I got your name right but please accept my apologies if not), what’s your take on the IQ of the two. I had the 35-70, sold it and got the 28-85 some time later. My initial feeling was that the 28-85 didn’t hold up on the borders as well as the 35-70, especially on the long end. CA was also more present. I recently received the 35-70 again and probably will test, but as you have experience with both I’m curious what your take on it is.
Thanks regardless.
Both are excellent and have the typical CY color and contrast signature. Sharpnesswise I have trouble distinguishing the two. The 28-85 will show more CA opened up (as you've seen), but according to me a cheap price for the extra range on both sides. The drawback is weight/size, and being heavier it is a bit more prone to zoom creep. I bought it initially for a Canon 5DII where it was easier to live with the size, less so with the A7II.
The 35-70 is rightfully and widely celebrated with the 28-85 is on par but far less known. Being so superb copies can be found cheaper, a hidden gem to some. As always individual copies can vary. I went through three 35-70, first decentered, the 2nd an ugly copy, the third perfect. First copy I got of 28-85 was spotless. Still have both.
p.5 #12 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
I had the 28-85 for a while 2 years ago and sold it for the 35-70 for size, weight and constant aperture.
I don't see much difference in image sharpness and contrast. At 28 there was a little more CA and some distortion. Both are very good.
Compare the mtf's @ zeissimages.com. In the center they are about equal, in the midfield 28-85 is higher wide open than 35-70. Stopped down, 35-70 is better in the far corners though.
p.5 #13 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Well I'll admit. I remembered the 35-70 as better than it seems to be, or my last copy was better. Also didn't spend as much ( or maybe any?) time on more than 24MP. Which isn't to knock the 35-70, but it's probably closer to the 28-85 than I was thinking.
p.5 #14 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Took the 28-85 on a field trip yesterday. Looking at the shots, I was pretty impressed. Not an every day lens but it gets the job done. This one was my favorite shot of the day.
p.5 #15 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
After some testing I have these things to say about the 28-85 in comparison to the 35-70 (which I both have):
- The 28-85 has the CLEARLY superior bokeh of the two. Although of course with a slow lens like this the blur potential is limited, you can get VERY nice blurred backgrounds! Has anyone noticed in above posting from TriTran (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1137526/4&year=2012#14422539) the 4th picture with the tree where the backgroud really melts away and you get awesome 3D? That's how the 28-85 looks! Very suited for busy backgrounds (woodland, gardens etc.). The 35-70's bokeh is significantly busier, nothing to write home about.
- The 28-85 has less contrast. For me, often shooting high dynamic range scenes like landscapes, this is actually convenient because not only getting an optimal exposure on my A7III is easier, but postprocessing is also a breeze with the files.
- While with the 35-70 corner-to-corner sharpness is really easy to achieve and it's an awesome lens for all situations where you want "all sharp", the extreme corners of the 28-85 remain a bit softer even at f8. You can optimize sharpness by focussing on the corners (seems that field curvature plays a significant role here), but the fact remains that optimal focus requires more attention than with the 35-70.
All the other things (CA, heavyness etc.) I don't need to repeat.
Because the rendering is so nice and you get so appealing-looking results and because 28-85 is a useful range, it is a lens I actually enjoy using very much and can really recommend.
My next project is now doing something against the zoom creep. Read about people who used some kind of thin tape for that...
p.5 #16 · CONTAX C/Y CARL ZEISS VARIO-SONNAR T* 28-85mm F3.4-4.0 MM
Zoom creep is easy to get rid of. I put 3 layers (2 layers didn't suffice with my lens copy) of Dymo plastic tape on the underside of the lens. No more zoom creep, and the focus ring has some nice resistance now, too.
