Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

zeiss zm 25/2.8 vs zm 28/2.8 vs contax G 28/2.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 8:15 pm    Post subject: zeiss zm 25/2.8 vs zm 28/2.8 vs contax G 28/2.8 Reply with quote
does anyone know how these lenses compare in sharpness, color and distortion?
thanks
tony


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The ZM Biogon 25 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, there just can not be competition with it in the sharpness department, a look at it's MTF curves will make your jaw drop on the floor.
Distortion wise, there are very few lenses that are better than the G Biogon 28. One of those few is the ZM Biogon 2/35.
The ZM Biogon 25 distortion is moderate, but still about double that of the G Biogon 28
Colour wise, they are both Zeiss lenses with T* coating, this means that their colouring is perfectly controlled. Of course you will get perfect consistency only between lenses of the same line
(G lenses with G lenses, ZM lenses with ZM lenses), but Zeiss philosophy has not changed, so you can be sure that the colours will be very similar to undistinguishable.
I mean, of all possible issues of a lens, colour is really the last ever to worry about with T* lenses.


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thank you orio. so it seems the zm 28/2.8 is the 'worse' of the three...


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
thank you orio. so it seems the zm 28/2.8 is the 'worse' of the three...


Yes.
Well, not that it's a bad lens at all...


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I didn't try the ZM Biogons but I'm very sure that the G-Biogon will optically fulfill all your needs Wink
It's optically one of the best lenses every made. Very sharp, very good colors, very good contrast and very low distortion.
And it's usually cheaper than the ZM Biogons. But the ZM has an M-Mount - the G version not - The M-version will be much easier to focus of course and you can use it on modern M-cameras.


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
yeah FS, i think youre right, but youve correctly identified the issue. film vs digital vs cost vs performance vs jeez! my intuition, backed by yor and orio's discernment, is the G is the way to go. my problem is i cant get that to work on my m mount film cams! oh well, i think the best bet for me is to go with the G! now i guess i have to buy a freaking G1...scheisse!


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, how does the old 2.8/35 Biogon/Jupiter-12 compare to these modern Biogons?

Just wondering, and I know you always give honest appraisals.


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Orio, how does the old 2.8/35 Biogon/Jupiter-12 compare to these modern Biogons?
Just wondering, and I know you always give honest appraisals.


I never tried the old Biogon, but I love my Jupiter-12
It's a completely different lens from modern Zeiss however
just the same as old time Zeiss lenses are different from modern Zeiss.
Until the 60s Zeiss' main concern was the perfect planarity and uniform performance, giving up peak performance
in favour of consistency through out the frame.
From the 70s onwards, pushed by the commercial success of Japanese lenses, Zeiss changed course and started to
put sharpness and microcontrast first, accepting in change some weakness of performance in the corners especially wide open.
The philosophy can be seen in practice by looking at the MTFs of the Contax SLR lenses, which in most part show that typical "bell" shaped curve at the end of the graph.
The MTFs of Contarex lenses instead show lenses with inferior peak performance but higher consistency and average performance.
The Jupiter-12 has a magical bokeh and renders beautifully on film.
Modern Zeiss produce images that are much more contemporary looking.


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thankyou, that makes sense.

My J-12 arrived today (thanks Attila!) Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Sadly it rained all day Sad Sad Mad Mad

But as soon as weather allows I will be shooting it on my Kiev-II Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Fingers crossed it's a cracker, it's a silver 1960s one (67 I think, my memory is awful) and in great shape.

It's probably the only Biogon type I'll ever be able to afford. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
The Jupiter-12 has a magical bokeh and renders beautifully on film.


That's interesting. I can't say I've ever seen a picture using the Jupiter where I was impressed with the oof quality. Looks to be rather average to me, nothing particularly unique. Would you care to define "magical" here Orio? Sorry I don't mean to derail the conversion from the modern zm and g lenses, it's just the first time I've seen mention of the Jupiter 12's bokeh.


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only reason I don't use my Jupiter-12 much is because my copy only mounts on the prewar Contax/Kiev
it is unmountable on M-bayonet cameras because even with the adapter in between, it still bangs against the curtains.
You will love yours, I am sure.


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:

That's interesting. I can't say I've ever seen a picture using the Jupiter where I was impressed with the oof quality. Looks to be rather average to me, nothing particularly unique. Would you care to define "magical" here Orio? Sorry I don't mean to derail the conversion from the modern zm and g lenses, it's just the first time I've seen mention of the Jupiter 12's bokeh.


Well, it's magical for me Very Happy because I love the tri-dimensionality it creates.
Probably for a Leica-minded user the bokeh of the J-12 sucks, because it does not melt into the background potage that Leicists approve.
Here's a few of my J-12 photos, taken with the Kiev-IV:









Last edited by Orio on Wed May 09, 2012 11:40 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very impressive shots Orio, I just pray my J-12 performs like that!

It's still raining heavy here, but as soon as I can, I'm testing mine out with a roll of Fomapan 100.


PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like #2 a great deal Orio. The dimensionality is fantastic. Still, I guess the bokeh doesn't entirely work for me. It's actually a little too smooth, too benign. It would be perfect for some subjects but it's just not for me. Confused Thanks so much for your input.


PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio

Those are awesome


patrickh
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1