This is off topic so I'll try to be brief.
I received the Leica 28/2.8 (Elmarit-R II) today and just compared it to the Zeiss 28/2 (Distagon ZF). Basically both excellent lenses with similar performance.
Here are my thoughts after comparing both lenses and studying my test images:
Weight: With their hoods and respective adapters, the Zeiss is exactly 100 grams heavier. (but it's a stop faster)
Size: The Zeiss is noticeably longer than the Leica with adapters attached.
Manual focus: The Zeiss wins here as its focusing ring helicoid is much smoother allowing easy focus micro-adjustments. The Leica focusing ring is a little stiffer in comparison.
Flare: I saw more flare with the Zeiss when stopping down. I would say they are similar though with no loss of contrast when the sun is in the frame.
Sunstar: I think the Zeiss wins here with its 18-point sunstar (comparable to the 16-35/4's). The Leica has a 6-point sunstar. This is subjective though.
Distortion: Very similar barrel distortion.
Aberrations: The Zeiss shows slightly more CA when comparing to the Leica which performs great here.
Real Focal length: It seems to me that the Leica is a 28.5mm and the Zeiss is a bit narrower at around 29mm or even 29.5mm.
Field Curvature at Infinity: The Zeiss is flat-field at infinity distance. That is surprising because this is not the case at close distances. The Leica has very mild field curvature at wider apertures but nothing to worry about. I have read that the Leica had pronounced field curvature and I can tell you that it's definitely not the case. (It just has mild inwards field curvature up until f/4. At f/5.6 and smaller there is nothing to report)
Resolution/micro-contrast: They are both very similar. Neither is sharp at the extreme edges until f/9. That would be my landscape setting for both lenses. Stopping down further does not improve the corners and degrades the center.
Contrast: I'm surprised the Leica has such high contrast. I would say they are very similar here.
Color rendering: The Leica wins here and that's surprising to me because the ZF 28 renders beautiful neutral colors. The Leica produces bolder/warmer colors which are pleasant to the eyes.
Fred Miranda wrote:
@sebboh@
I'm glad the Proxar 1m worked for you!
------------------------
This is off topic so I'll try to be brief.
I received the Leica 28/2.8 (Elmarit-R II) today and just compared it to the Zeiss 28/2 (Distagon ZF). Basically both excellent lenses with similar performance.
Here are my thoughts after comparing both lenses and studying my test images:
Weight: With their hoods and respective adapters, the Zeiss is exactly 100 grams heavier. (but it's a stop faster)
Size: The Zeiss is noticeably longer than the Leica with adapters attached.
Manual focus: The Zeiss wins here as its focusing ring helicoid is much smoother allowing easy focus micro-adjustments. The Leica focusing ring is a little stiffer in comparison.
Flare: I saw more flare with the Zeiss when stopping down. I would say they are similar though with no loss of contrast when the sun is in the frame.
Sunstar: I think the Zeiss wins here with its 18-point sunstar (comparable to the 16-35/4's). The Leica has a 6-point sunstar. This is subjective though.
Distortion: Very similar barrel distortion.
Aberrations: The Zeiss shows slightly more CA when comparing to the Leica which performs great here.
Real Focal length: It seems to me that the Leica is a 28.5mm and the Zeiss is a bit narrower at around 29mm or even 29.5mm.
Field Curvature at Infinity: The Zeiss is flat-field at infinity distance. That is surprising because this is not the case at close distances. The Leica has very mild field curvature at wider apertures but nothing to worry about. I have read that the Leica had pronounced field curvature and I can tell you that it's definitely not the case. (It just has mild inwards field curvature up until f/4. At f/5.6 and smaller there is nothing to report)
Resolution/micro-contrast: They are both very similar. Neither is sharp at the extreme edges until f/9. That would be my landscape setting for both lenses. Stopping down further does not improve the corners and degrades the center.
Contrast: I'm surprised the Leica has such high contrast. I would say they are very similar here.
Color rendering: The Leica wins here and that's surprising to me because the ZF 28 renders beautiful neutral colors.. The Leica produces bolder/warmer colors which are pleasant to the eyes.
Hmm so for 2-3x the money you save 100g, maybe gain a bit of contrast, lose a stop, and get worse (by my lights) sunstars. Well that's not going to work for me! Now we just have to find out the specs of the 2016 elmarit-m so we can try that with a correction element. Or just relax and hope for a Loxia...
ZM 25 quck update. I tried a 46-52 instead of the 46-55 with the Proxar lens and it does not fit properly. So you have to go 46-55 than 55-52 step down than add a 52 retaining ring. Than I added a 52-62 step up to act as a hood works great protects the front lens element and does not vignette. I should add here I never use front lens caps so for me this works really nice
DavidBM wrote:
Hmm so for 2-3x the money you save 100g, maybe gain a bit of contrast, lose a stop, and get worse (by my lights) sunstars. Well that's not going to work for me! Now we just have to find out the specs of the 2016 elmarit-m so we can try that with a correction element. Or just relax and hope for a Loxia...
I just added aberration correction, distortion, and real focal length to the list. As I wrote before, there is no real winner here. It really depends on your needs and preferences. Personally, I would be happy with either lens but like you wrote, a Loxia Distagon 28mm is welcome.
Without the Zeiss Distagon 28/2 ZF's hood, the difference in weight (both with adapters) is only 65g. (The Leica has a built-in hood)
I really like the Leica's rendering but as you wrote, the difference is price may not be worth the small advantages for some shooters. I paid $500 for a mint Zeiss Distagon 28/2 ZF here at FM so the difference in price for me was well above 3x.
GMPhotography wrote:
ZM 25 quck update. I tried a 46-52 instead of the 46-55 with the Proxar lens and it does not fit properly. So you have to go 46-55 than 55-52 step down than add a 52 retaining ring. Than I added a 52-62 step up to act as a hood works great protects the front lens element and does not vignette. I should add here I never use front lens caps so for me this works really nice
Thanks for the update Guy.
I recieved my Proxar on Friday but unfortunately it wasn't the black version. It's a bit more difficult to remove the lens from the filter holder on the silver version but a couple of quick cuts with the Dremel was all it took. I have the step-up and step down rings on order. If you get a chance can you post a foto of your zm25 with the rings on it, I'd like to see how the whole setup looks with the 52-56 step-up "hood".
Will do. I'll get it up tonight. I'm still freaking painting. This time the pool. Between painting the house and pool I saved 7 grand in costs. Wish I could apply that to gear. Lol
Yea this is serious honey do's
MIRANDA1 wrote:
Thanks for the update Guy.
I recieved my Proxar on Friday but unfortunately it wasn't the black version. It's a bit more difficult to remove the lens from the filter holder on the silver version but a couple of quick cuts with the Dremel was all it took. I have the step-up and step down rings on order. If you get a chance can you post a foto of your zm25 with the rings on it, I'd like to see how the whole setup looks with the 52-56 step-up "hood".
GMPhotography wrote:
Will do. I'll get it up tonight. I'm still freaking painting. This time the pool. Between painting the house and pool I saved 7 grand in costs. Wish I could apply that to gear. Lol
Yea this is serious honey do's
Now you have to upload a picture of the ZM 25/2.8 + mod AND your painting job!
GMPhotography wrote:
. . . I'm still freaking painting. This time the pool. Between painting the house and pool I saved 7 grand in costs.
Ha. Me too. I only have to finish painting a house, though.
As far as OptoSigma is concerned, I'm one of those 20 or so that ordered the PCX 5000. I may try mounting it in a hood without extra rings. I have 46mm and 49mm generic hoods on the way.
JimBuchanan wrote:
Ha. Me too. I only have to finish painting a house, though.
As far as OptoSigma is concerned, I'm one of those 20 or so that ordered the PCX 5000. I may try mounting it in a hood without extra rings. I have 46mm and 49mm generic hoods on the way.
It would be awesome if there a way to mount the front-lens to the original hood.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It would be awesome if there a way to mount the front-lens to the original hood.
Would it be worth talking to an optician/spectacle dispenser - they're grinding lenses down to complex shapes all the time, and reducing a 50 mm diam to 48 circular should be a simple job for them.
Just a thought and I certainly could be wrong but I remember like Nikon and Canon making close up lenses . Heck even Vivatar. Would any of those possibly work
Sure, every main camera manufacturer made close-up lenses and, of course, also brands specialized in filters. For instance, Heliopan, Hoya and B+W make very good +1 close ups. There's no reason why they shouldn't be as good as the Proxar 1m. but then, nobody knows for sure until a real test is done. Not difficult for you guys who own a ZM25. Remember, no need to dismantle anything and use step-up /step-down rings. Those close up filters come in handy standard threaded mounts.
artur5 wrote:
Sure, every main camera manufacturer made close-up lenses and, of course, also brands specialized in filters. For instance, Heliopan, Hoya and B+W make very good +1 close ups. There's no reason why they shouldn't be as good as the Proxar 1m. but then, nobody knows for sure until a real test is done. Not difficult for you guys who own a ZM25. Remember, no need to dismantle anything and use step-up /step-down rings. Those close up filters come in handy standard threaded mounts.
I've wondered about this as well, from a cost perspective I think it would be a wash, the B&W 46mm +1 is $26US.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Also, the B+W and Heliopan 46mm Close-up +1 lenses are single coated.
Hoya make a multicoated range though https://contrastly.com/hoya-closeup-lens/
If it comes in different sizes one could get one that screws in directly, but I think the MC ones might be 58mm only.
Fred Miranda wrote:
@sebboh@
I'm glad the Proxar 1m worked for you!
------------------------
This is off topic so I'll try to be brief.
I received the Leica 28/2.8 (Elmarit-R II) today and just compared it to the Zeiss 28/2 (Distagon ZF). Basically both excellent lenses with similar performance.
Here are my thoughts after comparing both lenses and studying my test images:
Weight: With their hoods and respective adapters, the Zeiss is exactly 100 grams heavier. (but it's a stop faster)
Size: The Zeiss is noticeably longer than the Leica with adapters attached.
Manual focus: The Zeiss wins here as its focusing ring helicoid is much smoother allowing easy focus micro-adjustments. The Leica focusing ring is a little stiffer in comparison.
Flare: I saw more flare with the Zeiss when stopping down. I would say they are similar though with no loss of contrast when the sun is in the frame.
Sunstar: I think the Zeiss wins here with its 18-point sunstar (comparable to the 16-35/4's). The Leica has a 6-point sunstar. This is subjective though.
Distortion: Very similar barrel distortion.
Aberrations: The Zeiss shows slightly more CA when comparing to the Leica which performs great here.
Real Focal length: It seems to me that the Leica is a 28.5mm and the Zeiss is a bit narrower at around 29mm or even 29.5mm.
Field Curvature at Infinity: The Zeiss is flat-field at infinity distance. That is surprising because this is not the case at close distances. The Leica has very mild field curvature at wider apertures but nothing to worry about. I have read that the Leica had pronounced field curvature and I can tell you that it's definitely not the case. (It just has mild inwards field curvature up until f/4. At f/5.6 and smaller there is nothing to report)
Resolution/micro-contrast: They are both very similar. Neither is sharp at the extreme edges until f/9. That would be my landscape setting for both lenses. Stopping down further does not improve the corners and degrades the center.
Contrast: I'm surprised the Leica has such high contrast. I would say they are very similar here.
Color rendering: The Leica wins here and that's surprising to me because the ZF 28 renders beautiful neutral colors.. The Leica produces bolder/warmer colors which are pleasant to the eyes.
navmannz wrote:
Would it be worth talking to an optician/spectacle dispenser - they're grinding lenses down to complex shapes all the time, and reducing a 50 mm diam to 48 circular should be a simple job for them.
-John
Does anyone really use glass anymore for their spectacles? I've used plastic lenses for many many years now . . .
BastianK wrote:
I don't know of any solid intel the post has not yet been updated with.
Anything specific I missed?
I'm sorry, perhaps I spoke prematurely. I thought there were some updates as a result of new tests, new info. Please forgive me if I'm wrong. I didn't meant to say you didn't do a comprehensive job, only that as this goes on, new information will present itself - some not necessarily relevant, some useful and it could help to have a repository of sorts to add any new crucial elements. Perhaps your article is that address, and great!
Here is the way I attach the opto sigma 1.5m pcx to the Contax G 21. First I attach a 55-52 step down ring then I place a spacer on the step down ring as if I don't there is a slight gap and can hear a rattle from the PCX lens moving. On the spacer I place the PCX and then clamp down with a Cokin P 52mm adapter.
