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

A big problem: Zeiss 35/1.4 or 28/2???
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:55 pm    Post subject: A big problem: Zeiss 35/1.4 or 28/2??? Reply with quote
Hello everyone.


Thats it, i have this big problem arround my head...

I want to complete my contax zeiss collection along this summer, and I'm searching a Distagon Laughing


Actually, I have the 40D, but I hope change it for a 5DII the next year... and this is one point more in my touble.


Distagon 28/2
A superb lens... nobody dudes about the lens quality, and the 28mm it's a perfect focal for medium landscapes. The problem...hit's the 5DII mirror focusing to infinity...
Arround the 800$ in perfect conditions


Distagon 35/1.4
Faster than the Hollywood, but a bit longer focal too... Posibly, the best lens ever in 35mm...and this sounds very good Laughing
Not perfect for medium landscpaes, but I can use it.
No problem with the 5DII mirror.
"Same" price than the Hollywood


The wide angle will not a big problem, cause when I going to buy the 5DII, I will buy a wide wide angle lens(Nikkor 15mm??) and I have the AF Canon 17-40L at this time... (soma cash for the nikkor Laughing )



Please, show me the light in the end of this tunnel!! Laughing Laughing



Thank you and regards!


PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If the main use of your Contax Distagons will be the 5DMkII, I would advice against the 2/28 unless you have the guts to shave the mirror of your brand new camera.
Fact is you can use the lens with the 5DMkII but not at infinity. Or better said, you can use it at infinity but with Live View only.

It is up to you if you want to live with this limitation.
There is people who buys the Hollywood mainly for the short DOF in the closeups.
IF this is the case then it's OK but you will have to have another 28mm that you can use at infinity (such as the Distagon 2.8/2Cool

If instead you plan to use the Hollywood at infinity for landscapes and such, it can be a frustration to always have to turn lens focus/turn liveview on/focus to infinity/shoot/turn lens focus again/turn liveview off.
I mean you can do it a couple of times, but if you are out for half a day it can become frustrating.

An (expensive) alternative could be the ZF Distagon 2/28 - newer model (but we don't know how it compares with the Contax lens because the optical design is different) and no mirror problem since it's build for Nikon register distance.

The panorama would be different if you plan to shoot film also, with Contax cameras.
In that case, my advice is to collect and use both Laughing and find a workaround lens for the 5DMkII at 28mm

In case you wonder, yes, I am using my Contax lenses with film a lot lately, and supremely enjoying it! I can afford it now that Contax cameras have affordable prices compared to when they were new and I was younger...


PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for your answer Orio, always very accurate Wink


I read the problem with the Hollywood some weeks ago, and for this reason the 35/1.4 is walking around my head...

At the moment, the use it's for the DSLR only, but in the future I want buy a Contax body (RTS, I guess) and shot in B&W film...and reveal it in my own house.


Thinkin' in the mirror problem, it's possible that the better option would be buy the 35/1.4 and another lens to the 15-35mm range, like a nikkor 24 or 28mm...or the Distagon 25 ( yes, I discard the 21mm and their 1500€ Laughing Laughing )
However, I know myself...and finally I will buy the Hollwood, but in this summer the better option would be the 35mm... i think Rolling Eyes


Any advice with the 35mm??



Thanks!


PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chiti wrote:
Thanks for your answer Orio, always very accurate Wink
I read the problem with the Hollywood some weeks ago, and for this reason the 35/1.4 is walking around my head...
At the moment, the use it's for the DSLR only, but in the future I want buy a Contax body (RTS, I guess) and shot in B&W film...and reveal it in my own house.
Thinkin' in the mirror problem, it's possible that the better option would be buy the 35/1.4 and another lens to the 15-35mm range, like a nikkor 24 or 28mm...or the Distagon 25 ( yes, I discard the 21mm and their 1500€ Laughing Laughing )
However, I know myself...and finally I will buy the Hollwood, but in this summer the better option would be the 35mm... i think Rolling Eyes
Any advice with the 35mm??
Thanks!


The 1.4/35 is a lens that you will never regret to buy.
In case you should not like it, you can always resell it and get all your money back - and actually, for what is the current trend, you will probably get back MORE money than what you will spend on it, as this lens, which was quite common until a couple of years ago, is now becoming more and more difficult to find.

As for 28mm, there are several options that you can try. Olympus and Nikkor both made excellent 28mm lenses. The aforementioned Distagon 2.8/28 is excellent quality and more affordable than the Hollywood. The best quality-performance ratio is probably with the Yashica ML 2.8/28, which performs almost like the Distagon of the same speed, costing much less. Besides, I am selling one, if you are interested.

The Distagon 25 is another lens that I recommend, although there are different opinions about it.

For both the Distagon 2.8/28 and 2.8/25 the MM version is recommended
(and in general, if you plan to use the lenses with a Contax camera too, all MM versions are preferable)

As for what to choose ultimately it depends much on your shooting preferences. Personally the 35mm focal lenght is my favourite, so I never hesitate when there is a 35mm lens that I like and can afford.
But only you can decide if you really prefer a 35mm lens or a 28mm one or a 25mm one.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you again for the answer.


Definetly, I will buy the 35/1.4


For the moment, i will keep the 40D and the Canon 17-40L, that has a very good performance, it's a great lens...but AF Laughing
When I bougth the 5DII (the 2010 summer...maybe the 5DIII?? Smile ) I will keep the 17-40L a few months, to do some cash to buy the Nikkor 15mm and one intermediate focal lens...like the Distagon 28/2.8, 25/2.8 (MM... like you said, I reed that the MM have little better performance) or the Yashica 28mm, but at the moment i need some money to buy the 35...and one Canon 100-400L (the auto focus dark side Rolling Eyes hehehe)


Best Regards


PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chiti wrote:
(MM... like you said, I reed that the MM have little better performance)


Let me specify: not all MM lenses have better performance. Some give the same performance as the AE.
The AE have the advantage that they usually come cheaper than the MM.
The MM have the advantage that they can be shot in full automation mode with the Contax cameras that support it.

The lenses that are known (officially confirmed by Zeiss) to give improved optical quality in MM version are:

Distagon 2.8/25
Distagon 2.8/28
Sonnar 2.8/135

The lenses that are rumoured to offer improved optical performance as MM but are NOT confirmed, are:

Distagon 1.4/35
Planar 1.4/85


PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Heheh, thanks, but I have reading this information yet, the better performance for the lenses that you said....I think that I read it in this same forum Laughing Laughing



Regards


PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's also most important to consider which FL you get on best with in full frame.
Now that I have the 2/28 I find it is not wide enough for me.
I use a 35 as my normal lens rather than a 50.
For a dramatic difference when desired a 24 is my choice.

I'm not saying it should be your way also but, keep it in mind.
For me I would trade my Hollywood for a 1.4/35 in a heartbeat.

Leica used to promote the concept of lenses carried in a kit 1.4 increments.
For me I never found this spacing wide enough. Each must choose his own I suppose.

Cheers
Andy


PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Andy Wink


I see that the 35mm will be in my house in a few months Very Happy



Thank you and regards to the Contax Zeiss masters Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:

Leica used to promote the concept of lenses carried in a kit 1.4 increments.
For me I never found this spacing wide enough. Each must choose his own I suppose.
Cheers
Andy


The concept of spacing has some reason. For instance if you have a 50mm lens with you, a 28mm lens is more useful than a 35mm
If instead you have a 35mm lens, a 24mm lens is more useful than a 28mm

However, in my practical uses I have found that all focal lenghts are needed if you don't use zooms. The choice really depends on the location. An example: in the streets where I go shooting the Carnevale, the perfect wide angle for ensemble shots is the 35mm. A 28mm is too wide for the size of the streets and makes you lose the focus on the action.
In the streets where I did shoot the Palio recently, even a 35mm was often too wide. Except for the largest street (the one where I took most of the night shots), the other streets really called for a 50mm focal lenght for the ensemble shots.
And of course there are places where you need a 28mm to make a good ensemble shot, theaters where you need a 24mm to make an ensemble shot, and so on. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
F16SUNSHINE wrote:

Leica used to promote the concept of lenses carried in a kit 1.4 increments.
For me I never found this spacing wide enough. Each must choose his own I suppose.
Cheers
Andy


The concept of spacing has some reason. For instance if you have a 50mm lens with you, a 28mm lens is more useful than a 35mm
If instead you have a 35mm lens, a 24mm lens is more useful than a 28mm

However, in my practical uses I have found that all focal lenghts are needed if you don't use zooms. The choice really depends on the location. An example: in the streets where I go shooting the Carnevale, the perfect wide angle for ensemble shots is the 35mm. A 28mm is too wide for the size of the streets and makes you lose the focus on the action.
In the streets where I did shoot the Palio recently, even a 35mm was often too wide. Except for the largest street (the one where I took most of the night shots), the other streets really called for a 50mm focal lenght for the ensemble shots.
And of course there are places where you need a 28mm to make a good ensemble shot, theaters where you need a 24mm to make an ensemble shot, and so on. Smile


Or use a TLR or a folder with a fixed normal focal and use it at its better Laughing

Jokes apart Orio is very right.

But not so a joke.... I found out that having a normal focal is not limiting me but actually learning me to move my ass in a more meaningful way. I remember a great photographer (forgot his name), when asked by a student which wide angle lens he preferred, answered: "two steps back".


PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
I remember a great photographer (forgot his name), when asked by a student which wide angle lens he preferred, answered: "two steps back".


Ernst Haas said "The best zoom lens is your legs." Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've used the 2/28 with x0D bodies and recently i managed to get my hands on an 1.4/35, both of the lenses are really heavy. The quality of both is exceptional but i must say that i like more the 35mm fov in crop cameras. I think the 35mm has a bit more 3D effect than the one i could see from the hollywood, but near minimal focus distance @f2 i think the hollywood had a better character, somehow smoother bokeh and extremely sharp. I would recommend you to try both focal lengths (maybe some cheap zuikos?) to identify which fl suits better for you, since the zeiss 2.8/28 seems to be also highly regarded (and way cheaper). The 1.4/35 is just amazing, but under certain conditions you don't need that fast aperture lenses...
Greetings!


PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Poncho Wink

The 1.4 can be important for me, because this extra stop will help me in concerts, shooting in a very dark places like a Jazz club.


When I change to FF, i will need something wider than the 35mm... after reading a lot, the SUPER expensive (but perfect!! quality) Distagon 21mm do jingles in my mind...



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