I took a look in Lightroom at the 300 something images I shot with the lens while I had I it. While there are some fine images there I was surprised by how many were slightly OOF and often the "best" images in a series. Probably just shows how difficult it was to nail manual focus before liveview/mirrorless. I did have the lens from November through January so daylight was not on tap here in Iceland. The lens is sharp and has nice bokeh but in retrospective I liked look from the 35/2 ZE more. I think my memory of it also colored by the theft. I never got to take it with me on a decent phototrip.
These are from my Facebook. Don't know if the links will work.
daaaamn these are good man.... now we're talking. I'm interested on the bokeh compared to 35/2.. One guy from this thread i think joakim... for some reason all his 28/2 images are gone.
hauxon wrote:
I took a look in Lightroom at the 300 something images I shot with the lens while I had I it. While there are some fine images there I was surprised by how many were slightly OOF and often the "best" images in a series. Probably just shows how difficult it was to nail manual focus before liveview/mirrorless. I did have the lens from November through January so daylight was not on tap here in Iceland. The lens is sharp and has nice bokeh but in retrospective I liked look from the 35/2 ZE more. I think my memory of it also colored by the theft. I never got to take it with me on a decent phototrip.
These are from my Facebook. Don't know if the links will work.
hauxon wrote:
Yes I think both are f/2. The 2/28 has bit less contrast than the 2/35 but more smooth bokeh instead.
thank you.... by the way how bad is the CA.?
I have to go back there again [ iceland ] and bring in some serious zeiss lenses. you guys are blessed with natural beauties, I meant environment....oh yeah chicks too.
when things are settled here I am definitely going back.
I didn't have the lens long enough to take shots where CA would be an issue, at least I never noticed any in my images. Must be some reviews out there.
CA is definitely noticeable in backlit situations near wide open. It also vignettes quite a bit. I think of it as one of my "character" lenses rather than one that is clinically perfect. Overall I think it's an underrated lens though, the images it produces are beautiful.
formula4speed wrote:
CA is definitely noticeable in backlit situations near wide open. It also vignettes quite a bit. I think of it as one of my "character" lenses rather than one that is clinically perfect. Overall I think it's an underrated lens though, the images it produces are beautiful.
Formula,
Which 28/2 version you have contax or the newer ZE\ZF?
formula4speed wrote:
I have the ZE, used it with a 5DII for a while and now sees occasional use adapted to my A7.
the ZE 28/2 is this the same lens as contax 28/2 with modified coatings? some say it's different and some it's the same exact lens with some modifications.
bushwacker wrote:
the ZE 28/2 is this the same lens as contax 28/2 with modified coatings? some say it's different and some it's the same exact lens with some modifications.
I think there is a change, the new one has more lateral CA while being sharper. Must be the lead-contained element thing.
hiepphotog wrote:
I think there is a change, the new one has more lateral CA while being sharper. Must be the lead-contained element thing.
i was checking Zeiss data sheets.... the ze got 10 elements in 8 groups while the contax got 9 & 8. while their block diagrams looks identical but with one additional element on the ZE.
The ZE 2.0 35 mm is a fine lens for many occasions.
As Hrannar impressively showed, any Zeiss seems to work to its best as soon as it arrives in Iceland.
According to this thread, these photos from Jan 2014 were taken near Vik with the ZE 2.0 35 mm stopped down to f 6.3-8.
