Ok. I've read a lot, including getting a subscription at diglloyd. And I've decided the 28 is the better choice for me. I suspect the curvature of field issue is a bit inflated, maybe like the EF 50/1.2 L focus shift (I've had one and it does not matter in reality). Looking at the samples at diglloyd I could not see significantly lesser contrast or color than with the other ZE lenses and the "3d" is suddenly there. Conclusion: 35/2 is technically better but the 28 is still excellent and better focal length for me. I really want the fast f/2 aperture and ZE integration with my Canon body, so a CY 28/2.8 or Leica 28/2.8 are not options.
I'm off to BHPhoto to buy a ZE 28/2 and 58mm ring for my Lee holder!
Get both the 35/2 and the 28/2 if possible. Though the focal lengths are close, they are lenses with different personalities. Through the mid apertures they have about equal sharpness across the frame. I think, though I'm still learning the differences, that the 28/2 may have more of the "3D" characteristic than the 35/2 - maybe because of the higher contrast of the 35/2 - maybe because of the films I am using.
None the less, having owned the Nikkor 28/2 AI and the 28/1.4 AF-D, I enjoy shooting with the ZF28/2. It has forced me to pay more attention to the focus in the corners of the frame.
I've sold my EF 35/1.4 L and am planning to use the money to buy a Zeiss ZE lens instead.
There will be ZE 35/1.4, probably next month.
Everyone seems to agree the 35/2 is great but some mixed reviews for the 28, mainly it being dull for landscape witch is a big issue for me (but I find kind of hard to believe).
I can't comment on ZE 35/2, because I don't have it, but ZE 28/2 has clearly more contrast and vibrance than EF 35/1.4. I don't see it any duller than 21/2.8 or 100/2, which usually get raving reviews here. The only reservation I have against the 28/2 is purple fringing, but as Philber said, it can be usually removed in post.
I don't know why you lads are having so much trouble telling the zf35 from the 28 ...the 35 is for the head, the 28 is for the heart. And for those that think the zf35 is a close enough approximation to 28mm, it's not.
I'd have to disagree with the "dull landscape" description. I have some stuff taken with Velvia that are "lush". I like the way trees about 200 yards away seem to pop off the transparency. And I've not encountered the purple fringing yet. I don't normally shoot at f2 or f2.8 though, and rarely at f4.
35/2 Distagon users do have a penchant for constantly posting 100% crops and discussing how perfect their lens is. I guess one could presume that 28/2 shooters are actually out there shooting I'm joking of course, before someone attacks.
bluetsunami wrote:
35/2 Distagon users do have a penchant for constantly posting 100% crops and discussing how perfect their lens is. I guess one could presume that 28/2 shooters are actually out there shooting I'm joking of course, before someone attacks.
I own the 35 and once upon a time, the 28 as well. The 28 takes time and effort to learn while the 35 is easier to shoot right out of the box. As far as the 100% crops, hell, it's just plain fun to show off resolution beyond the scope of your own sensor. Makes gearheads giddy with expectation...
carlitos wrote:
I'd have to disagree with the "dull landscape" description. I have some stuff taken with Velvia that are "lush". I like the way trees about 200 yards away seem to pop off the transparency. And I've not encountered the purple fringing yet. I don't normally shoot at f2 or f2.8 though, and rarely at f4.
For shooting at f/5.6-11, far cheaper options abound & are likely just as good at small apertures. To me, the whole point of an expensive, fast, sharp lens is to tap into its high-resolution while shooting at wide-open apertures.
Photozone was, as usual, late to the party and way off the mark. Concluding that the 35, "may not deliver superb results on full format DSLRs", is just not so. He is the single outlier to report this out of the dozen reliable reviews I've read. I shot both the 35 & 28 and it just isn't so.
You're better off subscribing to Lloyd Chambers' exhaustive reviews (http://diglloyd.com/zf/index.html) and learning something before you drop heavy money on glass that doesn't speak to you. Better yet, rent one after reading the review.
Who tests a lens without CRC and expects it to function in that fashion and then serves this up as the major caviat on the optic?
I can observe that my Nikkor 14-24 is a poor macro lens but the comment would be asinine and immaterial. Or to quote an old Yiddish adage, "If my grandmother had wheels, she could have been a trolley car".
I remember Photozone finally getting around to testing the-then 6 year-old Nikkor 70-200 v.1 about 2 weeks before the v.2 was announced. As if he had anything to add at that point that had not already been said by a host of others.
This was only after they finally got a D3x and started doing FF Nikon analysis long after everyone else had; prior to this, all his testing had been on a D200.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Unfortunately the testing targets require such distances, not only at PZ but I suspect all major review sites to do the same.
Well then, great that we have this forum to go by since such tests are irrelevant for the vast majority of real world uses. I will be sure to pay attention when they test Macro lenses I suppose.
Thanks for making me feel good about the purchase.
I'm joking of course, before someone attacks.