Is Contax 28/2 really worth?

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

So decide yourself, is it a total dog or not?

no-X · Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:19 am Post subject:

Please decide yourself. My purchase depends on your decision Very Happy

trifox · Expire: 2014-05-29

no experience with 2/28 --- I was trying to get 2/28 I was outbid -- auction ended on 206 GBP which is PERFECT price for 2/28
no matter...that's life

no-x I'll give you some examples of Contax 2.8/28 MM version on EOS 30D body if you wish...

let me know -

I have to develop them -- some of them are in CR2 raw format...

tf

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

no-X · Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject:

No. I'm not a collector, I'm trying to find some lenses, which will satisfy me in terms of low CA and sharpness. So I'm buing lenses, which are considered to be good, than I try them and if I'm not satisfied, I sell them (I already sold more lenses, than I currently own). Of course, the more expensive ones are hard to sell without loss, so I keep them, until the right occasion.

The reason of more 35mm lenses was the test - I hoped it could help not only to me, but to other users, too. I planned similar test of 50mm, but now I see it has no sense.

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

no-X · Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject:

I used each lens at least for one afternoon (as I remember, I posted here real world pictures taken by Tak 35/2, S-M-C 35/3.5, CZJ 35/2.4, Vivitar 28/2.8, 28/1.9, 35/1.9 nad many others) , but always found out, that it's results corresponds to the tests. I simply dislike CA and any lens, which embodies it, can't make me happy...

Anyway, back to topic - are there any hi-res samples taken by the Zeiss 25/2.8? I can't find any Sad

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

F16SUNSHINE · Expire: 2011-11-18

I think that I remember some you took at a street Theater performance that are very nice.
Maybe I remember incorrectly.
That whole series was really great.

no-X · Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject:

F16SUNSHINE · Expire: 2011-11-18

here is the thread I remember

http://forum.mflenses.com/brixellum-2008-part-five-the-theatre-t8197.html

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

good memory Andy! Smile

Yes there are some Distagon 25 pictures in there, mixed with others - when you browse the full sizes you will find the indication of what lens below each picture.

F16SUNSHINE · Expire: 2011-11-18

Memorable pictures Wink

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

thanks

Seeing them again has reminded me of what I love most in the 25 (aside from the terrific sharpness); that is, the fact that on the 5D it gets really wide but still detailed (much more detailed than my 20mm and 18mm lenses) and when you stop down enough, and when you enlarge big in replay, WHOOOMP you have the whole world there in virtually infinite focus and (depending on camera resolution) also virtually infinite detail. Shocked

BobDodds · Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 87

Andy, thanks for the compliments. I wonder how many would like C/Y to Sigma conversions?

M42 conversions would be best. Only the 50's have too large of glass for M42. Possibly the CZ 35/1.4, too.

Andy, I just have Zuiko 21/2 and 50/1.2, nothing in between. Those are ED glass. I have not heard or seen the 24 and 28 and 35 as being as great, but then all of the Zuikos can give a rich color if everything is right. I think CZ is easier to shoot. I think Zuiko needs skillful lighting to achieve the "Japanese Leica" result, but there is a lot of value for the money as far as rich color in not so great Zuikos. As far as really pro saturated 3D results Orio would like, as with CZ only a few Zuiko lenses really get there and then Zeiss are easier to shoot. If I want to get the most from life I should probably just shoot the CZ 28/2 and 35/1.4 but I will fool around a little more anyway. Zuikos also have creamy bokeh.

I think CZ 28/2.8 Distagon is extremely sharp and finely graded in color but these 28/2 Hollywood Distagon examples are even better in sharpness and then they have graceful decay of focus that looks sharp when it's not. Very cinematic indeed. I have one but I haven't adapted it yet.

I was elsewhere looking at modern lenses. Just as I thought, circular bokeh, noisy bokeh, garish skin texture. Old manual lenses only! New lenses can work but it is so much easier, more productive, with lenses like those we are talking about.

BobDodds · Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 87

Somehow these high MTF lenses are kinder to skin than modern lenses. Perhaps it is the modern aim for contrast rather than resolution that causes a certain garish result quite often with skin texture where skin is not baby soft and perfect. It's a mystery how sharp manual lenses can be and still be kinder to people.

http://forum.mflenses.com/brixellum-2008-part-five-the-theatre-t8197.html

So that is CZ 25mm Distagon, allegedly not as sharp in MTF(in one sample?), but the classic Zeiss appearance of sharp is there, and quite a lot of subtle gradations of tone on skin, too, but kind to skin.

Spherical lenses tend to be better for bokeh, except for Rodagon aspherical. There is another mystery.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

no-X · Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject:

Thanks! Could I ask you for a crop of right upper corner of this picture, please?

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

My Distagon 25s are the MM version.
(yes I have a spare - important lens) Wink

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Other 100% details around the frame:

centre-top:

top left corner:

right edge:

And that's Carl Zeiss at wide angle, gentlemen.
Not exactly like Canon L zooms, eh ?

no-X · Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject:

Thank you for helping me with my decision Wink