briantho wrote:
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.
That is an amazing set of spectacular photos, Briantho. The OOF rendering is just impossible, looks more like a 50/1.4 than a 28/2. Thank you very much for sharing.
edwardkaraa wrote:
That is an amazing set of spectacular photos, Briantho. The OOF rendering is just impossible, looks more like a 50/1.4 than a 28/2. Thank you very much for sharing.
I agree......does the difference between the AEG vs MMJ matter THAT much?
There is about a $400-500 difference on the auction market.
AEG and MMG are more interesting for collectors because they are made in Germany, but for practical use Japanese made lenses are as good as the German. One consideration though is that the AE are older pieces that have been around much longer, so I normally prefer the MM. Moreover, the MM may have some small silent updates as Zeiss was known to continually improve the designs without advertising it. The AE may also have the ninja star aperture blades, while the MM do not.
edwardkaraa wrote:
AEG and MMG are more interesting for collectors because they are made in Germany, but for practical use Japanese made lenses are as good as the German. One consideration though is that the AE are older pieces that have been around much longer, so I normally prefer the MM. Moreover, the MM may have some small silent updates as Zeiss was known to continually improve the designs without advertising it. The AE may also have the ninja star aperture blades, while the MM do not.
I have the AEG version. I have never seen an MM version of the 28/2. I don't think they exist.
Edit: I did find one MMG version on Google so scratch the above remark. It seems they are extremely rare.
The aperture on my AEG version has very slight ninja star pattern at f2.8, but only on that f-value.
Yes, the CY 28/2 MM is very rare. But the AEs arent exactly common either. I've been on he lookout for quite some time but as I am using a 5D2 I cant go for the few that surface on ebay as I need to test it for mirror clearance first.
carstenw wrote:
And AE lenses cannot be Leitaxed.
Ehum, that's not correct, you can leitax most of them.
jcolwell wrote:
With respect to the OP question on C/Y vs. ZF/ZE, I haven't had any personal experience with either 28/2 lens, but I've had a lot of other Contax Zeiss lenses, and now two ZE lenses. From now on, I'll go ZE rather than C/Y, except if the C/Y is a lot less expensive (say 1/3 or less) than an equivalent ZE lens, or not it's not available in a ZE version, like the V-Sonnar 100-300mm that I recently picked up (it's a peach).
Actually the CY 21/2.8 is often more expensive than a new ZE 21/2.8. It's fairly unique though, but some of the CYs are pretty expensive nowadays. That would include the CY 28/2 which pricewise is not that far behind a new ZE 28/2. So some magic is at least included in the price as i is not that hard to find examples of 2nd hand ZEs cheaper than an equivalent CY :-)
- - -
@OP. Personally I have come to go for the CY's. As a result it's easy to get me to agree to the talk about extra magic and 3D although I see a lot of that coming from the ZEs as well. I like the build of the CYs, their hoods, leather pouches and all that. And perhaps more importantly going forward; I believe I will at some point in time go for a mirrorless FF and then the ZEs is no good as they have the electronic aperture. Whereas the CY's will go on as if nothing happened.
wfrank wrote:
Yes, the CY 28/2 MM is very rare. But the AEs arent exactly common either. I've been on he lookout for quite some time but as I am using a 5D2 I cant go for the few that surface on ebay as I need to test it for mirror clearance first.
Ehum, that's not correct, you can leitax most of them.
Are the ZFs the same optical formula?
I am not to hip on the Nikon gears.
Then, there are something about ZF.1, not certain if this lens is one.
But, the ZFs in general, aren't they manual aperture only?
The electronic aperture in the Canon's is a turn off for me, even though I have Canon bodies.
I am now thinking more in the sharing of lenses for my Canon bodies and my FujiFilm X-E1.
Manual aperture is the way to go, as I understand it, even before I bought the FujiFilm X-E1.
wfrank wrote:
@OP. Personally I have come to go for the CY's. As a result it's easy to get me to agree to the talk about extra magic and 3D although I see a lot of that coming from the ZEs as well. I like the build of the CYs, their hoods, leather pouches and all that. And perhaps more importantly going forward; I believe I will at some point in time go for a mirrorless FF and then the ZEs is no good as they have the electronic aperture. Whereas the CY's will go on as if nothing happened.
Im not sure if design is same or not, but look definitely isnt. Since 28 is one of my favorite lengths I thought a lot about this and saw a LOT of samples and came to conclusion that it will be CY 28/2 or nothing (ok bit exaggerated .. there are options for me) but I honestly thing this is one of best "fast" 28 if not best. Probably not from pure IQ, but that look is amazing..
buggz2k wrote:
Bummer, but good info to know.
Thanks!
No bummmer. ZF and ZF.2 lenses have an aperture ring and can be used in manual mode on any camera that they can be adapted to or Leitaxed for. They only have auto aperture on Nikon bodies -- they don't have an electronic aperture like Canon EF lenses do.
AhamB wrote:
No bummmer. ZF and ZF.2 lenses have an aperture ring and can be used in manual mode on any camera that they can be adapted to or Leitaxed for. They only have auto aperture on Nikon bodies -- they don't have an electronic aperture like Canon EF lenses do.
Heh, I actually had one Nikon lens before, an excellent copy of the ol' Nikon Nikkor-P Auto 105mm 2.5 Nippon Kogaku Non AI
I liked it, then it was stolen, sigh...
I may have to get another one.
wfrank wrote:
Dont forget that things can rotate in the most obscure directions in equipment made for that brand.
buggz2k wrote:
Ahh, sounds MUCH better now, thanks!
I hear some of them Nikkors are good, keep on looking :-)
- - -
Has anyone here in this knowledgeable crowd tried the Contax 28/2 (AE or MM) on a 5D2? Pebbleplace.com denotes this lens "iffy" which normally means it *can* cause mirror problems on 5DC. I have a few MMJ/MMG that are called "iffy" and none of them cause mirror problems on my 5D2. So I have some hope.
Would really appreciate any experience on this. Thanks.
wfrank wrote:
Has anyone here in this knowledgeable crowd tried the Contax 28/2 (AE or MM) on a 5D2? Pebbleplace.com denotes this lens "iffy" which normally means it *can* cause mirror problems on 5DC. I have a few MMJ/MMG that are called "iffy" and none of them cause mirror problems on my 5D2. So I have some hope.
Would really appreciate any experience on this. Thanks.
No personal experience with the lens but my impression from this forum and the mflenses forum is that it has real mirror collision problems on the 5Dc and mk2, unlike many of the other lenses being marked as "iffy" for the 5D. Also, I had a copy of the 35-70/3.4 that didn't clear the mirror, while that lens is marked green in the Pebbleblace Contax DB, so it's just an limited set of data.
It seems they are extremely rare.
