evr1n wrote:
Thanks AhamB. Have read it before but didn't help me.
I'd just buy the ZE 28/2 then. From the images that from that lens that I've seen here (notably from Carsten) I feel it's a great lens and you can be sure that it will work on any FF Canon body. The Contax will be a little different but I wouldn't attach too much value to other people's personal preferences. If you really want to try the Contax you could just try to buy it on ebay from a seller that has a decent return policy -- if it doesn't clear your 5Dmk3's mirror, you can return it and only lose the shipping fees.
AhamB wrote:
If you really want to try the Contax you could just try to buy it on ebay from a seller that has a decent return policy -- if it doesn't clear your 5Dmk3's mirror, you can return it and only lose the shipping fees.
If only the seller has really generous return policy and specify you can return the lens for whatever reason. I try to avoid people who "rent" lens this way to test if it works for them or not.
The ZE is really a much safer bet. And what if the mirror damage the C/Y's rear element (is it possible)?
I can only interpolate/estimate the difference between my old C/Y 28/2 on film against my current ZF 28/2 on 12MP and 36MP, but I'd say the current one is --- as others have stated--- a slightly better performing lens. Besides, do you really want to suffer with an aperture stuck closed to it's set stop all the time? Sounds like torture to me.
While the current Zeiss lenses are indisputably better than the Contax in optical performance, it is easy to see even when you browse online photos that the Contax lenses produce such a pronounced 3D effect and nicer rendering. The 3D is what attracted most users to Zeiss lenses, but it seems the current glass is unable to match the old Contax glass, and by a wide margin. The Contax 28/2 is one of those magical lenses, and the magic is absent in the Zeiss version.
If I buy now, I will get the Zeiss, but I regret having sold all of my Contax glass a few years back.
aleksanderpolo wrote:
If only the seller has really generous return policy and specify you can return the lens for whatever reason. I try to avoid people who "rent" lens this way to test if it works for them or not.
The ZE is really a much safer bet. And what if the mirror damage the C/Y's rear element (is it possible)?
I believe that most ebay shops (in Europe anyway) don't need an especially "generous" return policy for you to be able to return the lens. Incompatibility with your camera is a good enough reason anyway. I've had to send back a Contax 35-70 because it didn't clear my 5Dc's mirror and it didn't reach infinity. They pretty much have to take back the item anyway if they want to avoid getting bad feedback.
About mirror damage: I've seen at only one report of a person that had their 5Dmk2's mirror fall off because of a lens that blocked the mirror, but that won't happen with just any lens. If you back off from infinity you can take a shot and gradually focus closer to infinity to see at which point the mirror starts to hang.
edwardkaraa wrote:
While the current Zeiss lenses are indisputably better than the Contax in optical performance, it is easy to see even when you browse online photos that the Contax lenses produce such a pronounced 3D effect and nicer rendering. The 3D is what attracted most users to Zeiss lenses, but it seems the current glass is unable to match the old Contax glass, and by a wide margin. The Contax 28/2 is one of those magical lenses, and the magic is absent in the Zeiss version.
If I buy now, I will get the Zeiss, but I regret having sold all of my Contax glass a few years back....Show more →
I haven't used enough Z* lenses (only the ZF 25/2.8) to be able to comment from personal experience, but if I look at John Black's reviews for instance, I don't think he felt that the ZE missed the magic of the Hollywood 28/2, and it seems he is a Zeiss afficicionado as much as any of us. The main thing that has stood out for me looking at all the images in this forum is that Z* lenses seem to have a significantly warmer color rendition than most Contax lenses, which doesn't always help with the clarity/transparency.
Indeed I love the neutral/cool balance of the Contax, and if you look at John Black work with Contax glass you can easily see the qualities I am talking about. His photos with the 100/2 are stunning.
Among the current Zeiss lenses, there is only one that still keeps the old Contax magic, and that is the ZM 50/1.5. Almost every shot has strong 3D and the background separation is amazing. The new glass seems to be designed for optical excellence but less character.
But you wouldn't want to use that lens on a Canon FF body because it requires a "leverectomy" (aperture lever presses against the top of the mirror box, not allowing to mount the lens, so you have to cut it off).
Krosavcheg wrote:
From what I know, The 5D MkIII mirror is smaller (0.45mm) than 5D MkII.
And from personal experience: 45/2.8 only causes the mirror hang at infinity, 35-70/3.4 does not require any modification, 35/1.4 works just as well.
Hopefully, 28/2 should clear mirror in case it caused hang on earlier 5D models.
From my experience one copy of 35mm f1.4 Distagon cleared the mirror at infinity and the other one didn't with the same adapter
One day I will try Contax 28mm f2 Distagon though.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The choice of adapter is also very important. You need an expensive adapter that has the right thickness. To my knowledge, only the Kindai and Rayqual are thick enough to allow the mirror clearance on the 5D.
If the design is correct shouldn't they all have the same thickness? I have a rather cheap one from BigIs seller from Ebay and had no problems with 50mm f1.4 & 35mm 1.4. One copy of 35mm 1.4 didn't clear the mirror at infinity though.
AhamB wrote:
I'd just buy the ZE 28/2 then. From the images that from that lens that I've seen here (notably from Carsten) I feel it's a great lens and you can be sure that it will work on any FF Canon body. The Contax will be a little different but I wouldn't attach too much value to other people's personal preferences. If you really want to try the Contax you could just try to buy it on ebay from a seller that has a decent return policy -- if it doesn't clear your 5Dmk3's mirror, you can return it and only lose the shipping fees....Show more →
I just brought one home Found an occasion locally yesterday and picked it up this afternoon. It is my first ZE lens. I have to 2 ZF's even I use Canon. But i will definitely try to find an old design Hollywood distagon and compare them side to side
Keith B. wrote:
I can only interpolate/estimate the difference between my old C/Y 28/2 on film against my current ZF 28/2 on 12MP and 36MP, but I'd say the current one is --- as others have stated--- a slightly better performing lens. Besides, do you really want to suffer with an aperture stuck closed to it's set stop all the time? Sounds like torture to me.
I have two ZF's lenses used on Canon camera and it was never an issue.
edwardkaraa wrote:
While the current Zeiss lenses are indisputably better than the Contax in optical performance, it is easy to see even when you browse online photos that the Contax lenses produce such a pronounced 3D effect and nicer rendering. The 3D is what attracted most users to Zeiss lenses, but it seems the current glass is unable to match the old Contax glass, and by a wide margin. The Contax 28/2 is one of those magical lenses, and the magic is absent in the Zeiss version.
If I buy now, I will get the Zeiss, but I regret having sold all of my Contax glass a few years back....Show more →
Would you still choose new Z 28mm f2 over the old one Ed?
MaxBerlin wrote:
While talking about the 2.0 28mm I am amazed by what this Pentax can do -
l
Is this 3D or still 2D
Thanks to everyone. Just brought home as new condition ZE 28mm f2 lens but I'm rather set up to find a decent copy of the Hollywod's bit of magic and compare them two.
The correct thickness should be 1.49mm to 1.50mm. Most cheap adapters are around 1.40mm to 1.45mm. This may look like a very small difference, but it's enough to make the mirror hang with some lenses, and cause others not reach infinity wide open. I understand the need for thinner adapters so that all lenses reach infinity, but I prefer the correct thickness and no mirror trouble.
As for the second question, after you work with manual aperture stop down for a while, it gets a bit annoying. That is why I would choose the ZE over the Contax despite it's more attractive rendering. However this would not be a problem with LV. That is why I am planning to buy back a few select Contax lenses when I upgrade my Leica to the M 240.
Since I bought the C/Y 28/2, it's been my most used lens. Here are some samples showing various situations. All on NEX 7. Never used the ZE/ZF version, so can't comment on differences.
AhamB wrote:
But you wouldn't want to use that lens on a Canon FF body because it requires a "leverectomy" (aperture lever presses against the top of the mirror box, not allowing to mount the lens, so you have to cut it off).
Why on earth not? Are you a member of PETL (People for the Ethical Treatment of Lenses)? I use an anesthetic, on me.
The aperture leverectomy doesn't compromise the performance of a Pentax-K lens on a Pentax DSLR, on which the removed mechanical aperture control lever can't be used, nor does it affect resale price.
@jcolwell: Body comes and goes, but lenses that were discontinued have historical value, especially the rare ones. I would rather shave the mirror if needed than performing leverectomy, unless it is reversible. And I think it does affect resale price, no? I wouldn't touch a leverectomized lens, but that's just me.
aleksanderpolo wrote:
... And I think it does affect resale price, no?
No, it does not affect resale price. I have some experience in this particular area. Here's a list of Pentax-K lenses that I've bought, leverectomized, used, and subsequently sold. Some of them are rare and very spendy.
Although I have seen several cases where modified ones sold for less than current price, I certainly haven't seen enough data to argue with you. Thanks for the info.
I think the time of year has a larger effect than the presence or absence of an 'ectomy. We're currently in the lean times for sellers. September through January are the best times, for sellers...
Found an occasion locally yesterday and picked it up this afternoon. It is my first ZE lens. I have to 2 ZF's even I use Canon. But i will definitely try to find an old design Hollywood distagon and compare them side to side
