I did a quick search, and came up empty. Any thoughts on performance other than the difference in angle of view? I am hoping to find something to fit between my 21mm and 35mm primes, mainly for stopped down landscape type stuff. According to Pebble Place, I have a better chance of interference with the 28mm, but I have a happy 5D2 that hasn't given me troubles on any Contax lenses so far.
The common complaint I have heard with the 25/2.8 is lack of corner sharpness. Even if you were to crop it to 28mm it still doesn't seem as sharp in the corners. There's varying reports of contrast and that the 28/2.8 has a tiny bit more but that might be attributed to AE vs MM versions. Then there's the price difference where the 28mm is about 3/5 the price of the 25 so it's another reason people prefer it.
I have the ZF25 (leitaxed to EF) and am quite pleased with it. The lens seems to sell for somewhat less than the other wide Z? lenses and as such represents a relative bargain. Many tests of the lens show poor corner performance, but this is true only at close focus distances. Focused closer to infinity and stopped down (as is typical for landscapes) the lens shines.
I went through this same self-debate a while back - my research showed the ZF 25 to have the better IQ of the 25's and is near the same price as the Contax. I'm very happy with the Contax 28/2.8 - is has equal IQ as a ZF 28/2 that I had previous for a much less cost. Many have stated the 28/2.8 to have near 21 IQ - I believe it. As mentioned they are so close on FOV - the ZF's do have the Nikon-ish aperture / focus ring "backwards" rotation - reach infinity by turning counterclockwise. I tried to link the 16:9 website - Contax comparson - that link is dead - too bad it was a nice reference.
Thanks guys. I was leaning towards the 28mm simply because it seemed to go for less... It seemed to me however that the 25mm is closer to the middle of the focal range between 21mm and 35mm... So the ZF is an option as well. Any ideas why there is no ZE version of the 25mm?
in the olden days when I searched through forums for an answer to the same question, I got an impression that 28 was sharper, at least wide open, but 25 had more of character or maybe Zeiss look to it. I myself have sine acquired both AE and MM 28 and zf 25. I have not done comparisons yet, but the MM versions seems to be great. Now, I need to contrast it with zf 25 - when I find time and inspiration.
I did a bit of looking around the web, as there is so little on this lens...never a good sign!
Several factors combine to ensure that the Contax Distagons that are close to 'gear heads' hearts (as slrlensreview so unkindly called us ;-)) are the 21mm and the 28mm.
Cost is a little higher, FL is very close to the 28mm, performance is a little better with the 28mm (as per MTF), corners suffer more than the 28mm on full-frame, flare seems to be a problem, and modern and quite expensive equivalents exist in the ZF.2 and ZS variants of the 25mm f2.8.
Even with the possible clearance issue, I think your choice is either the 28/2.8 Contax, or the ZF 25/2 adapted, perhaps even the great new 28/2 in ZE format but getting very expensive. Roughly $300-350 in exc cond (C28/2.8) vs $1000 new (ZF 25/2.8), or a couple hundred less used. Like you I am a Contax user, and the 28mm is hard to dislike - a true classic. I use the 21mm and 35-70, and find the 28mm the perfect in-between, this is for semi-wide work at f8 or so. I doubt you will find the 28mm too long.
The new 25mm lens looks great re MTF, should be truly excellent right into the corners with the added flexibility of wider apertures for non-nature shots. Much heavier though, a common fault with many the ZE/ZF lenses.
I've never had the Contax 25 at the same time as other similar focal lengths so I've never been able to actually compare properly, but based on my experience with the 25 it seems less sharp than the Contax 28/2.8 overall. It never seemed to achieve the very high resolution that the 28/2.8 seems to have. The Contax 25 seems very similar to the much maligned Leica R 24, which in my opinion is a fine lens, but not stellar. It's interesting that the Contax 25 sells for quite a lot more than the Contax 28/2.8 on Evilbay, it's certainly not justified by performance.
Yes, John, that does seems to be the case. And for readers not familiar with the small aperture characteristics of this Distagon, this article illustrates the 28/2.8 very well, by comparing it to the OM 28/2 and Nikon's AIS 28/2.8 (close focus vsn I believe):
One more question, how does the Hollywood version of the C/Y 28mm compare to the f/2.8 version, besides being faster? Were there compromises in IQ made in order to get to f/2?
helimat wrote:
One more question, how does the Hollywood version of the C/Y 28mm compare to the f/2.8 version, besides being faster? Were there compromises in IQ made in order to get to f/2?
I would not say so, the compromise was weight and cost. I had both, but not at the same time and not on the same camera. I used the 2.8 on a crop camera where the results were nice and sharp and the color a little on the cold side. I than had the Hollywood on a FF camera and found it a great lens for various reasons : reasonably sharp even at f2, great close focus performance, very shap stopped down a little and with more natural colors than the 2.8 - but more expensive and heavy. So I would say the Hollywood can do more. If it matters to you, that's for you to decide.
The Contax 25 remains a mystery to me. Those who don't own it worry about the corner sharpness, while those who have it seem to be very happy. Even now it still commands a higher premium on the used market, there must be a reason. My experience with the ZS version was extremely positive. As mentioned above, stellar down to the extreme corners at infinity but strong field curvature at short distances. I also used the Contax 28/2.8 on a 1Ds2 and I didn't find it exceptional in the extreme corners, even though it was excellent everywhere else across the frame. It also blocked the mirror on the 5D, but not on the 1 series.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The Contax 25 remains a mystery to me. Those who don't own it worry about the corner sharpness, while those who have it seem to be very happy. Even now it still commands a higher premium on the used market, there must be a reason. My experience with the ZS version was extremely positive. As mentioned above, stellar down to the extreme corners at infinity but strong field curvature at short distances. I also used the Contax 28/2.8 on a 1Ds2 and I didn't find it exceptional in the extreme corners, even though it was excellent everywhere else across the frame. It also blocked the mirror on the 5D, but not on the 1 series....Show more →
When I was researching the current Zx 25, I ran across what seemed to be conflicting reports from users. That's one reason I never ended up buying it and went with the Sony ZA 24 instead. After subscribing to Lloyd Chambers pretty much only to see what the ZF 25 would actually offer with regard to corner performance, I'm sure I made the right decision in going with the Sony Zeiss ZA. Lloyd's main complaint with the ZF 25 is corner sharpness and he has many examples which demonstrate this deficiency. I suppose there might be variability between samples, I don't know. Seems like your ZS may have been better in the corners.
My subscription to lloyd has expired so i cant go back to the specific page but here is what he says in his mini-review with which I fully agree:
The 25/2.8 Distagon offers superb image quality at distance (it is not optimized for close-ups). Even wide open at f/2.8 image quality can hardly be criticized (near infinity).
Compared to the 28/2 Distagon, it is harder to focus accurately in dim light due to its wide angle of view and f/2.8 aperture, so for dusk shooting, the 28/2 is preferable.
The 25/2.8 Distagon is not free from color fringing (chromatic aberration), but the results are still outstanding, and Nikon shooters can completely eliminate color fringing in Nikon Capture NX2.
The 25/2.8 can focus to 6cm in front of the lens, so care must be taken not to bash the front element into a rock, as the result is impaired image quality. Close-up performance will not test well on a resolution chart due to field curvature at close range, but the results are absolutely beautiful, and can be used to great artistic effect.
Helimat, I own a 25 Contax, and a ZE 28. There are a few reasons why the 25 is less well loved. One is that it down not have this great ability at short distances that other Distagons (21, 28, 35) have. Thus a shot that takes advantage of DOF to include a foreground and background is not as easy/nice as it could be. Another one is that performance does improve with stopping down. Brainiac, who had two, said that it became a world-beater when stopped down to 8.0, and I concur. But 8.0 is not always doable/preferable.
As to the absence of a ZE25, Zeiss announced that they we pulling their 25 (ZF, ZK mount) "pending redesign", reason for which, also, no ZE version of the old design would be released. They then re-released the ZF design for some reason. Maybe their redesign is taking more time than planned...
Hope this helps.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The Contax 25 remains a mystery to me. Those who don't own it worry about the corner sharpness, while those who have it seem to be very happy. Even now it still commands a higher premium on the used market, there must be a reason. My experience with the ZS version was extremely positive. As mentioned above, stellar down to the extreme corners at infinity but strong field curvature at short distances. I also used the Contax 28/2.8 on a 1Ds2 and I didn't find it exceptional in the extreme corners, even though it was excellent everywhere else across the frame. It also blocked the mirror on the 5D, but not on the 1 series....Show more →
+1 From what I've heard and a few sample's I've seen, the Contax 25 is close to the 28/2.8.
My Contax 28/2.8
- works on my 5D without any problems
- is truly exceptional even into the extreme corners
- sucks in the corners for close-ups, but central sharpness is incredible even at f/2.8
For the last reason I would like to have the Hollywood or ZE version some time.
I don't really get why the Contax 25 is so highly priced; maybe it's just because it's FL is shorter (UWA's are almost always more expensive) and a bit more exotic than the ubiquitous 28mm.
My subscription to lloyd has expired so i cant go back to the specific page but here is what he says in his mini-review with which I fully agree:
The 25/2.8 Distagon offers superb image quality at distance (it is not optimized for close-ups). Even wide open at f/2.8 image quality can hardly be criticized (near infinity).
Compared to the 28/2 Distagon, it is harder to focus accurately in dim light due to its wide angle of view and f/2.8 aperture, so for dusk shooting, the 28/2 is preferable.
The 25/2.8 Distagon is not free from color fringing (chromatic aberration), but the results are still outstanding, and Nikon shooters can completely eliminate color fringing in Nikon Capture NX2.
The 25/2.8 can focus to 6cm in front of the lens, so care must be taken not to bash the front element into a rock, as the result is impaired image quality. Close-up performance will not test well on a resolution chart due to field curvature at close range, but the results are absolutely beautiful, and can be used to great artistic effect....Show more →
Well Edward, seems you are right. I've gone back and reread what Lloyd wrote and I overstated things above. HIs mild criticism is mostly for lateral chromatic aberration that can affect corner sharpness but beyond that, he pretty much loves the lens. I probably was remembering what I actually saw in a few of his crops rather then what he wrote.
Wow, thanks for all of your responses. Looks like I will have to ponder this some more. The Hollywood certainly seems enticing, but for one in decent condition it is approaching ZE 28/2 prices. The 25 may be good stopped down, which is what I plan on using it for, and the focal length may suit me more. It seems the 28/2.8 offers the most value however, and is a lot smaller than the Hollywood. The extra speed of the Hollywood would certainly have it's positives, but I previously had the Nikon 28/2 and didn't take advantage of that much the short time it was around. That and 25mm may be too close a focal length to the TS-E 24/3.5 II I would like to have one day. Choices, choices....
It seemed to me however that the 25mm is closer to the middle of the focal range between 21mm and 35mm... So the ZF is an option as well. Any ideas why there is no ZE version of the 25mm?
Looks like I will have to ponder this some more. The Hollywood certainly seems enticing, but for one in decent condition it is approaching ZE 28/2 prices. The 25 may be good stopped down, which is what I plan on using it for, and the focal length may suit me more. It seems the 28/2.8 offers the most value however, and is a lot smaller than the Hollywood. The extra speed of the Hollywood would certainly have it's positives, but I previously had the Nikon 28/2 and didn't take advantage of that much the short time it was around. That and 25mm may be too close a focal length to the TS-E 24/3.5 II I would like to have one day. 
Choices, choices....