This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
p.4 #2Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
hauxon wrote:
Sadly I need to work! hehe
hey man it's 2015 September.... what happened to your 28/2 images?
Sadly I need to work! hehe
hey man it's 2015 September.... what happened to your 28/2 images?
Sep 26, 2015 at 06:59 PM
p.4 #3Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
The lens got stolen along with most if my gear in 2011!
Sep 27, 2015 at 05:12 AM
p.4 #5Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
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.
http://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/172085_1754895883147_4058565_o.jpg
http://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/172087_1754895643141_7393275_o.jpg
These are from my Facebook. Don't know if the links will work.
http://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/172085_1754895883147_4058565_o.jpg
http://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/172087_1754895643141_7393275_o.jpg
Sep 27, 2015 at 06:43 AM
p.4 #6Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
hauxon wrote:
The lens got stolen along with most if my gear in 2011!
WHAAAT? ok I feel you man.....
The lens got stolen along with most if my gear in 2011!
WHAAAT? ok I feel you man.....
Sep 27, 2015 at 08:34 PM
p.4 #7Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
hauxon wrote:
Here are few I found on my Flickr stream:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5067/5564690891_2e49da35f2_b_d.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5043/5203065338_d1e5242dbe_o_d.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4111/5203065174_85b0273b10_o_d.jpg
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.
Here are few I found on my Flickr stream:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5067/5564690891_2e49da35f2_b_d.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5043/5203065338_d1e5242dbe_o_d.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4111/5203065174_85b0273b10_o_d.jpg
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.
Sep 27, 2015 at 08:38 PM
p.4 #8Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
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...Show more →
Thank you for sharing.... I like both images. The first one is that at f2? seems like bokeh is better than 35/2... it's not nervous.
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...Show more →
Thank you for sharing.... I like both images. The first one is that at f2? seems like bokeh is better than 35/2... it's not nervous.
Sep 27, 2015 at 08:40 PM
p.4 #9Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
Yes I think both are f/2. The 2/28 has bit less contrast than the 2/35 but more smooth bokeh instead.
Sep 28, 2015 at 03:23 AM
p.4 #10Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
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.
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.
Sep 28, 2015 at 05:13 AM
p.4 #11Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
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.
Sep 28, 2015 at 06:08 AM
p.4 #12Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
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.
Sep 28, 2015 at 07:14 AM
p.4 #13Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
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?
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?
Sep 28, 2015 at 10:22 AM
p.4 #14Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
I have the ZE, used it with a 5DII for a while and now sees occasional use adapted to my A7.
Sep 28, 2015 at 07:52 PM
p.4 #15Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
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.
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.
Sep 29, 2015 at 08:07 PM
p.4 #16Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
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.
formula4speed wrote
I have the ZE, used it with a 5DII for a while and now sees occasional use adapted to my A7.I think there is a change, the new one has more lateral CA while being sharper. Must be the lead-contained element thing.
Sep 29, 2015 at 08:32 PM
p.4 #17Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
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.
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.
Sep 29, 2015 at 08:53 PM
p.4 #18Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
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.
http://www.jhg-photo.de/fm/isl27821fm.jpg
http://www.jhg-photo.de/fm/isl27827fm.jpg
http://www.jhg-photo.de/fm/isl27910fm.jpg
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.
http://www.jhg-photo.de/fm/isl27821fm.jpg
http://www.jhg-photo.de/fm/isl27827fm.jpg
http://www.jhg-photo.de/fm/isl27910fm.jpg
Oct 02, 2015 at 02:27 AM
p.4 #19Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
jhg photo wrote:
As Hrannar impressively showed, any Zeiss seems to work to its best as soon as it arrives in Iceland.
Anyone heard from Ronny? :-)
As Hrannar impressively showed, any Zeiss seems to work to its best as soon as it arrives in Iceland.
Anyone heard from Ronny? :-)
Oct 02, 2015 at 02:41 AM
p.4 #20Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison
twoeye wrote:
Anyone heard from Ronny? :-)
are you talking about Ronny the 85 planar guy with leaping german shepherd?
jhg photo wrote
As Hrannar impressively showed, any Zeiss seems to work to its best as soon as it arrives in Iceland.are you talking about Ronny the 85 planar guy with leaping german shepherd?
Oct 05, 2015 at 03:39 AM