Zeiss Twins (2x Distagon) ... pics added!

[LucisPictor]

EDITED!

I had the great chance to “test” two new Zeiss lenses, the Distagon T* 2.0/28 ZE and the Distagon T* 2.0/35 ZE. Zeiss sent both lenses together and they kind of look alike, so that’s why I decided to write about them in one report.



First Impression
The lenses are packed in the usual white, restrained and rather elegant boxes. After you have opened these, the first thing you see are some small documents that certify origin and quality.
Once you have taken out the lenses, you immediately realize that you hold a precious high-quality product in your hands. The lenses feel heavy and provide a fantastic first impression. Everything seems to be at the right place and the finish is equally high-class.
Do these two lenses look good? Well, this is at least discussible. They do not look like the other ZE-series lenses, but show a conical front which might remind the user of the shape of a bombshell. When the hood is mounted this shape changes and the lenses adopt the tube-look of a typical camera lens. First, I did not like the design of these Distagons, but quickly I got used to it and now think of it as rather original and inventive.
Either lens is bigger than you might expect from a 28mm or a 35mm glass, but this is due to their speed. Wide angle lenses that open up to f/2.0 are in most cases a little bigger than the average wide-angle lens.


Accessories
Both lenses only come with a stylish front and rear cap and a lens hood. But there is nothing you could miss, really.



Built & Feel
In short, the built of the lenses is excellent. The convey a fantastic feel to the user. The metal hood snaps in and the focus ring turns smoothly but not too soft, just with the perfect “velvety” resistance. The lenses are heavy and win the user’s confidence quickly. The front cap can be removed easily even when the hood is mounted. Honestly, there is nothing left to be wanted.



Optical Performance
Handling, haptics and looks of a lens are important but for most photographers the quality of a lens boils down to image quality at the end of the day. So, let’s butter our parsnips: are these lenses really as good as everybody expects them to be? Can they stand up to the high Zeiss reputation? It’s easy to answer: yes, they can.
However, that does not mean that they are perfect. I needed a while to discover any flaw in these lenses’ performances, but there is one.
The level of distortion is meaningless, sharpness and resolution are excellent, colour rendition is nice and neutral, almost any kind of aberration is reduced to more or less non-existent. Even wide open these lenses are fully usable. The bokeh is very pleasant, not too creamy but extremely good for wide-angle lenses. The 35mm lens show an even better bokeh as the 28mm, but either lens handles out-of-focus highlights very elegantly.
Anyway, rather by coincidence I have noticed one imperfection of the 2/35: this lens produces a distinct CA at high contrast edges, especially if these occur towards the border of the image. These chromatic aberrations can be reduced by post-processing and were only visible in high contrast scenarios, this is still something that I did not expect in such a high-quality Zeiss lens. If you can live with that, these lenses will be perfect companions for you, but if you are susceptible with CAs, make sure that you can “try before you buy”.

Value
This is the point where we have to ask if the lenses are “worth the money”, if they offer a good price/performance-ratio. Yes, these Zeiss lenses are expensive if you only look at the sheer number of € that you have to pay. But compared to the equivalent lenses of one of the biggest competitor of Zeiss, namely Leitz (Leica), these Distagons are rather affordable. And yes, you can find lenses that provide a very close optical performance, perhaps even with autofocus. A Canon EF 2.0/35 or a Sigma EX 1.4/30 are surely not too far away as far as optical performance is concerned, but if you are interested in these Zeiss lenses, optical performance is not the only aspect you are willing to pay money for. Anybody who enjoys a perfect built or relies on a compatible colour rendition of all his lenses or just wants to get the perhaps best coating of all lenses will have to accept and is probably willing to accept the rather high prices that Zeiss demands for these lenses. If you are looking for a combination of a very high performance, an almost unrivalled building quality and feel and a lens design that takes a similar colour character throughout the whole lens line into consideration, these Zeiss lenses are well worth the money. Lucky the guy who can afford the whole series.

Daily Use
Could I imagine to use these lenses on a daily basis? Yes, I could indeed. They are heavy but not too heavy to become a nuisance. They don’t have AF but the focus confirmation “beep” works reliably and with a little practice you are as quick as with an AF lens with the higher feeling of control. Focussing with these Distagons is a joy. With f/2.0 they are fast enough for most of the situations a “normal” photographer takes photos in and they offer a nice close-up distance which makes nice close-focus work possible.
Since I mainly use a Canon EOS 40D, I have to take the crop factor into consideration. I have enjoyed using the Distagon 2/28 a lot but I still prefer the Distagon 2/35 without being able to state a comprehensible reason, it perhaps just fits my personal way of shooting more than the 28mm.
I own a Leica Summicron-R 2.0/35 that I adapt to my EOS cams and this is one of my favourite lenses. If you ask me if I could imagine to give up the Leica Summicron for the new 2.0/35 Distagon, I would really start to think and perhaps – I have to admit – go for the new Zeiss, if it only was better at CAs!

Addition: Usage on a fullframe cam
Generally, the same experiences are valid if the lenses are used on a fullframe cam (5D). Of course, vignetting is more distinct wide open, but either Distagon serves the 5D sensor well and turns - especially with the high ISO capabilities - the 5D into a real "low light machine". Excellent!

Example shots will follow soon.
…

[trifox]

Hi Carsten,,

I am seriously interested in testing Carl Zeiss lenses.

Can you tell me, how I can get to this job?

Thank you ver much!

Trifox.

[Orio]

[LucisPictor]

OK, here are three Flickr-Sets with example shots (mostly pretty high ISO):

Zeiss Distagon 2/35

Zeiss Distagon 2/28

Christmasmarket with the Distagon 2/28

[LucisPictor]

[ChrisLilley]

Carsten, are you finding any difficulty due to field curvature in actual photographic use with these two lenses?

I ask because others have reported significant problems here, but its not clear to what extent that actually affects photographs besides architectural documentation, or shooting brick walls/test charts.

[ChrisLilley]

[poilu]

[LucisPictor]

Weird. They are all published in the same way.
You need to be a Flickr member, though.

[indianadinos]

Thanks for the samples, the 28/2 is simply stunning ...

[ChrisLilley]

[Orio]

[Orio]

Carsten, the samples look very nice, but they are very small - at least for me. I don't seem to be able to get the option for enlargements.

[poilu]

[Orio]

[LucisPictor]

Flickr seems to have had a strange error. Glad, that it works now.
I've uploaded the original size, BTW.
RAW, basic ACR, no real PP.

[TBaker]

Very nice. The colour rendition is great. In one pic you have a old Kodak in a open bag. Is that a Kodak Retina?

[ChrisLilley]

[LucisPictor]

[Orio]

First of all, thanks Carsten for the very nice samples.
Reg. the lenses:

the 35/2
hmmm the chromatic aberration in picture two is really appalling. I mean that is a lot BAD. Not just a tolerable some.
The rest of the images show nice behaviour but hardly something that would convince me to buy this lens if I already had a 35mm Canon or Nikon prime. Let alone convince me to give up my 1.4/35 for this. Because the 2/35 pictures are nice but they completely lack that "sparkle" of the 1.4/35.

the 2/28
it looks much better than the 2/35 in the bokeh department and also in the close focus department. I don't see in these samples the "3D" that my Hollywood can produce, but it might be because of the light conditions. The field curvature is difficult to evaluate from a APS-C camera, but Zeiss itself has admitted that the issue exists, so that is pretty much an established knowledge. What remains to be seen is if this field curvature might be really negative or perhaps even positive for photography. I explain myself better: when shooting macros or reproducing documents, of course you don't want it. But when shooting dimensional subjects (a statue, a person etc), it might even prove to be a plus, if handled correctly.
That would require of course careful testing before saying anything definitive on the subject.

All in all I would say "no" to the 2/35 because such CA is not acceptable in a lens of this price in my opinion.

I would instead consider the 2/28 if I didn't have the Hollywood already.
But since I have the Hollywood, well I don't see the reason to change it, as it doesn't seem to me to lack anything compared to the more modern lens.

-

[LucisPictor]

The 2/28 also shows some CA, Orio.

[Orio]

[LucisPictor]

[ChrisLilley]

[LucisPictor]