Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 4 5 end

Archive 2010 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

hauxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

I've sold my EF 35/1.4 L and am planning to use the money to buy a Zeiss ZE lens instead.

My first thought was to buy the 28/2 lens. I like the 35mm focal length but sometimes feel it's too tight for me (when shooting landscape). I also feel the 28 might lessen the gap between it and my 18/3.5 Zuiko. But after some research I'm getting doubts about the 28/2. 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). The focal length is right and the f/2 aperture a good thing for shooting aurora but I don't want to be underwhelmed with my first Zeiss.

Does anyone have real life comparison shots of the two lenses? Shots of same subjects with same settings?

Another option would be buying a cheap 28mm lens (Zuiko 28/3.5) and getting a 50MP....

Thanks,
Hrannar

Nov 12, 2010 at 05:24 AM

Dergiman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

can´t help you as i never used the lenses you mention. the zeiss c/y 28/2.8 is excellent stopped down, shouldn´t break the bank. it´s great for landscape.

the olympus lenses have a different draw than zeiss lenses. you could look for some oly lenses that play nicely with your 18mm. the 35mm/2.8 shift comes to mind. it is a stellar performer for landscape stopped down and it is really small. i am looking for a new owner for my copy, btw.

Nov 12, 2010 at 05:57 AM

Ulff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

I have no first hand experience with the ZE 28, but have used most of the other lenses mentioned here. I'm a big fan of the ZE 35 lens and from what I've seen from the ZE 28 I assume that the 35mm would give you the biggest difference in rendering style vs. Canon 35L (although the amount of this difference may not be significant enough for some). If you shoot landscape stopped down to f5.6 or more, the Zeiss C/Y 28 2.8 is a really good alternative to the ZE 28 and the C/Y 35-70 3.4 is as well a really good alternative to both the ZE 35 and ZE 50. I own the 35*70 for years, but am surprised again and again from its IQ and microcontrast at f5.6 or less. The real benefit from the ZE 35 is IMO its wide open performance, even for landscapes, were I like the look (3D-ness together with a lot of vignetting) a lot. The Zuiko 28mm on the other hand draws, as Dergiman already emtioned, very different from all these Zeiss lenses. As I personally like Zeiss primarily for shorter focal lenghts, I wouldn't go the only-50MP-and nothing wider-route.

In this thread I posted some comparisons of Canons 35L and Zeiss 35 ZE:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/936893/1#8852458

Nov 12, 2010 at 07:39 AM

bluetsunami
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

Here's the only comparison between the two I could find online. It has a mixture of other lens so you'll need to hover the cursor over the photos to find out where the ZE28 starts and the ZE35. Here's the link to the set...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jornake/sets/72157623489325958/with/4385775904/

And I'll link to the test photos to make it easier...

ZE28 on 5DMKII

f/2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jornake/4385003031/in/set-72157623489325958/
f/2.8: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jornake/4385766594/in/set-72157623489325958/
f/5.6: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jornake/4385767980/in/set-72157623489325958/

ZE35 on a 5DMKII

f/2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jornake/4385009239/in/set-72157623489325958/
f/2.8: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jornake/4385772824/in/set-72157623489325958/
f/5.6: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jornake/4385011831/in/set-72157623489325958/

Generally I like the Zeiss 28mm look more and the focal length but in these test shots that can't really be seen.

And here's a link I've posted before that has a photographer behind the ZE28 that has a style that exemplifies why I like the Z*28. Has some landscape shots in there too...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/einarsoyland/sets/72157622968058457/

But to put some things in perspective the Nikon 28/2 AIS is supposed to be a good amount of what the Zeiss 28/2 is (as far as optical prowess) at a lower price point (around $300-$400). So maybe that could be considered too? I find there's something special about the way Zeiss 28/2 renders though at close up to mid distance (from the photos I've seen online). Admittedly the lens optical strengths (as far as subject distance) seems to lend itself to reportage style shooting instead of landscapes (where the Z*35/2 would be best).

Edited on Nov 12, 2010 at 09:37 AM · View previous versions

Nov 12, 2010 at 08:03 AM

j.liam
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

Do yourself a favor and subscribe to Lloyd Chambers' exhaustive review on Zeiss lenses:

http://diglloyd.com/zf/index.html

You will learn more about every Zeiss lens than you thought possible.Well worth the expense given the cost of these optics.

I was interested initially in the 25 and 28 but after reading the reviews, decided on the 35. I subsequently had the chance to shoot the 28 too; I just never found its resolution as sharp as the 35 (perhaps deficiencies of my sample) and the vignetting/falloff + field curvature on the 28 (apparently even more so on the 25) was severe at the widest apertures and had to be accounted for too. For the 28 FL, I stumbled upon a Leica R 28 v.2; a FAR better choice IMHO if you don't absolutely need f/2. Especially good for landscapes with flatter field at f/2.8, more pleasing colors (to my eye) and stopping down from f/2.8 only buys you a touch more contrast because its frighteningly sharp wide open. On the used market it goes for about the cost of a new Zeiss 28.

Edited on Nov 12, 2010 at 09:40 AM · View previous versions

Nov 12, 2010 at 09:05 AM

AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

Dergiman wrote:
can´t help you as i never used the lenses you mention. the zeiss c/y 28/2.8 is excellent stopped down, shouldn´t break the bank. it´s great for landscape.

+1 I got my Contax 28/2.8 for under 250 euros and I feel no need whatsoever to upgrade it. The law of deminishing returns definitely sets in beyond this point for me. I feel the Olympus 28/3.5 is no match for the Contax though. You can always try one though because they're almost for free...

Nov 12, 2010 at 09:33 AM

edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

http://www.digilloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-28f2.html

Conclusions
If you were to pick one great all-around lens for shooting, you could hardly do better than the Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon. A moderate wide angle, it can be applied to everything from portraiture to landscape to documentary photography. It’s high brilliance and fast f/2 aperture make it a great lens for shooting at dusk or night also.

Nov 12, 2010 at 09:40 AM

edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

http://www.digilloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-35f2.html

The Zeiss 35mm f/2 Distagon offers bitingly-sharp image rendition, coupled with gorgeous bokeh, extremely low flare and outstanding image quality across the field. With excellent control of aberrations, performance is very satisfying when used wide-open at f/2, improving significantly at f/2.8, then a bit more until f/5.6. Your main challenge as with any top lens will be focusing perfectly so as to extract that performance on today’s high-resolution digital cameras.

Nov 12, 2010 at 09:41 AM

j.liam
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

edwardkaraa wrote:
http://www.digilloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-28f2.html

Conclusions
If you were to pick one great all-around lens for shooting, you could hardly do better than the Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon. A moderate wide angle, it can be applied to everything from portraiture to landscape to documentary photography. It’s high brilliance and fast f/2 aperture make it a great lens for shooting at dusk or night also.

However, in the full subscription review, when comparing it to the Nikkor 28/2 he concludes that while it is sharper at f/2 in the center, there are significant issues to consider re: strong field curvature and dim field illumination into the corners at f/2-2.8 with the Zeiss. This latter characteristic, along with the field curvature can be used to dramatic effect when isolating a subject but shooting more broadly spaced objects wide open presents a constant challenge, such as groups of people roughly situated along a single plane. Where I was really impressed was shooting objects close to the minimum focus distance. The CRC really acquits itself and the results were amazing.

In the end, we're really snipping at characteristics rather than flaws of a truly great lens but from my personal comparison, the 35 performed better.

Nov 12, 2010 at 09:56 AM

alpenglowing
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

I've owned all three of the Zeiss lenses mentioned here (the ZF 28, 35, and 50MP), and have loved them all in different ways. My favorite (of those three) would have to be the ZF 28mm. It is so unique with its field curvature and superb close-up performance. It excels at environmental portraits, but also makes for a great landscape lens when stopped down slightly. The ZF 35mm really is as sharp as people claim it to be. It definitely makes for a fine landscape lens. Watch out though - it can be a little too high-contrast for some people's taste. The ZF 50mm MP is my absolute favorite walk-around lens. It's sharp, relatively fast, and has the ability to focus to 1:2 magnification. What more could you want?

So, what I'm trying to get at is that you really cannot go wrong with any of these lenses. While I like the ZF 28mm + ZF 50MP combo a lot, the ZF 35mm bridges the gap nicely if you prefer to carry fewer lenses in your bag. It just depends on what you want to shoot.

Nov 12, 2010 at 11:40 AM

philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

Hrannar, I owned a 35 f:2 for about a year, and now own a 28 f:2. Both are bitingly sharp from MFD to infinity, including wide open. That is where the similarities end IMHO. Simply put, the 35 is much more of an all-rounder, easier to use, and freer from problems. The 28 does not offer countervailing benefits to balance this, except, maybe, and that is maybe, more detail when stopped down.
OTOH, the 28 suffers from purple fringing, which I rather wish it didn't, even if it can be gotten rid of in PP. It is also the least colour-saturated of my 5 ZEs, and the least contrasty. That can be useful in high-noon glare, but makes it a bit of a speciality lens.
So, yes, I have it, and I use it. But in your stead, I would buy a 35 in a heartbeat.

Nov 12, 2010 at 12:39 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

It seems to me that while most of the Z* line is optimized for infinity (certainly the 18, 21, 25, 35, 50 and 85) the 28 is designed more like a reportage lens where it excels at closer distances, even though it can still produce decent landscape photos. No wonder here as it is inspired from the Hollywood 28/2 cine lens. Horses for courses as they say.

Nov 12, 2010 at 01:35 PM

philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

Frankly, the 35 is just as good at MFD as the 28, Edward. I have pics if you need reassurance.

Nov 12, 2010 at 01:56 PM

hauxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

Thanks for the replies. I've read some about the 28 field curvature, does anyone know if it's still curved at infinity (and f/2)? It would be a big fail for me if infinity at f/2 is not planar since I woold be using the lens a lot at f/2 and infinity (or hyperfocal distance) for aurora shots. How much of an issue is the curvature at longer distances?

Nov 12, 2010 at 01:57 PM

philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

Hrannar, I have read a lot about this, but it has not come up at all in use, as far as I am conerned. That said, I almost never shoot wide open. In any case, it you are shooting at large distance, such as your aurora shots, the field curvature would need to be huge to disturb your shooting. Or am I missing something?

Nov 12, 2010 at 02:00 PM

bluetsunami
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

Nov 12, 2010 at 02:03 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

philber wrote:
Frankly, the 35 is just as good at MFD as the 28, Edward. I have pics if you need reassurance.

Haven't tried mine at MFD that often, but I believe you without reassurances Phil

Nov 12, 2010 at 02:21 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

bluetsunami wrote:
I believe it does, even at Infinity which would definitely make the 35/2 ideal since its flat field. Its pretty much gone by f/5.6 though. If you can give up a stop of light I've seen some absolutely stunning shots with the 21/2.8 Distagon and auroras.

Looking at the MTF, which are measured by Zeiss at infinity, the field curvature wave form should translate into a slight drop of resolution somewhere around 2/3 of the frame, but it should be insignificant in practical use. What is more serious is probably the bad extreme corners.

Nov 12, 2010 at 02:27 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

hauxon wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I've read some about the 28 field curvature, does anyone know if it's still curved at infinity (and f/2)? It would be a big fail for me if infinity at f/2 is not planar since I woold be using the lens a lot at f/2 and infinity (or hyperfocal distance) for aurora shots. How much of an issue is the curvature at longer distances?

Some lenses have a flat field at infinity, and curvature at close distances, the worst case being the 25/2.8. The 28/2 seems to feature the opposite case, having a flat field up close, and curvature at infinity, but nothing too extreme imho. My new Sony Zeiss 24/2 seems to be designed in a similar way.

Nov 12, 2010 at 02:29 PM

mMontag
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Zeiss 28/2 and 35/2 comparison

hauxon wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I've read some about the 28 field curvature, does anyone know if it's still curved at infinity (and f/2)? It would be a big fail for me if infinity at f/2 is not planar since I woold be using the lens a lot at f/2 and infinity (or hyperfocal distance) for aurora shots. How much of an issue is the curvature at longer distances?

I had the ZF 28/2 when it first became available - I had read at the time that that lens was highly regarded by photographers using it for night sky work - long time ago but I specifically remember because not many had the lens at that time. I did use it for moon with cloud shots several times and was very happy with the results. If I can find that old post I'll send a link.

That was one lens I really liked - sorry at times I sold it but mostly do landscape and replaced it with a 28/2.8. Any chance of being able to rent that lens?

Nov 12, 2010 at 02:33 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.