Zeiss Distagon 35mm f2.8 Rollei vs C/Y

[asterinex]

I have the opportunity to buy a Zeiss Distagon 35mm 2.8 for Rollei QMB. I think I have read it is the same lens as the Voightlander Skopar.
I currently have the Distagon 35/2.8 for the Contax/Yashica Mount which I personally find a bit dissapointing. I like my flek more.
Is the Zeiss Distagon 35mm 2.8 for Rollei QMB better/different ? Anyone experience with this lens. It is also cheaper. So selling the C/Y version would give me some extra money.

[ManualFocus-G]

I'm surprised that you prefer the Flek to the C/Y Distagon, my Distagon is far better than the Flek (contrast, corner sharpness, pop).

I'm afraid I haven't tried the Rollei version though.

[shapencolour]

I got 35/2.8 Distagon C/Y MM,Distagon 35/2.8 HFT for Rollei,Flek 35/2.4 MC m42 and Flek zebra 35/2.8 in Exa mount.

The first two are very good with similar IQ and C/Y has the edge IMO.Flek 35/2.4 MC has poorer IQ (contrast,sharpness and colour rendition) and Flek Zebra is the last due to old coatings (poor flare resistance,low contrast and flat colours).

Your Distagon 35/2.8 is not HFT,so should be less contrasty/more flare prone and should have a tad more CA versus the C/Y 35/2.8,but ...beauty is in the eye of the wiever.

BTW:all those refer to A7/NEX5N/NEX7

[Aanything]

I have a non-hft distagon 2.8/35, and I like it really much.
Better than the flektogon 2.8/35 if you ask me, almost under every aspect (and I like the flektogon a lot), but I don't know how it compares to the c/y version: it'd be interesting knowing that from someone who owned both.

[Attila]

I think need a bit luck , my Distagon with QBM was lesser than any Flektogon what I had.

[Tedat]

[memetph]

Is your version of the Distagon 35/2.8 a HFT version ?
Have you tried it with your A7 ?
I am considering it in my search for a 35mm for my A7.
At the present time I have a Chinon 35/2.8 which is weak till f.5.6 ( vignette and corners unshapness). This lens is good from 5.6 and is not subject to much flare.
I am looking for something more consistant in FF and from f3.5 f4.
In my short list are currently:
Rollei Distagon
SMC 3.5
SMC M 2.8
Fujinon W 3.5

Thanks

[Tedat]

never had a 35mm HFT Distagon.. I had the Color-Skoparex (same but different coating) and was very happy with it also on the A7. I only sold it to a friend because I got a Contax version extremly cheap now.

[duckrider]

[asterinex]

Thx for your replies.
I cannot understand you all dislike the Flek. I would choose the Flek over the Distagon anytime.
Mine has more contrast than C/Y and I really love the rendering. The Distagon is good, but nothing special. One of the poorest in the C/Y line up.

[iangreenhalgh1]

You must have a bad copy of the Distagon.

My favourite 35mms are mostlyu ones that can be had cheap:

Meyer Primagon 4.5/35
Konica Hexanon EE 2.8/35
Canon FL 2.5/35

You can find those three for 30-50eu easily.

The best 35 I have though is undoubtedly the Zeiss Opton Biogon 2.8/35 for Contax. I expect the more modern version for the Contax G is even better and outperforms the Distagons and Fleks in 35mm.

[duckrider]

[Tedat]

I was born in EAST Germany and still like the Distagon more than Flek.. I don't care about brand or where it comes from, I let the performance decide.

If the Flek is more contrasty then the CY Distagon, something must be wrong with the Distagon.. if Flek is better in corners and this also wide open.. something is wrong with your Distagon. Thats my personal experience.. not more, not less. Oh and I never said I dislike the Flek.. only that I prefer the Distagon no matter if it's CY or QBM. I can't understand why so many think it's one of the poorest at the Contax line.

[hinnerker]

The Problem with Flek is the spread for factory models.. i did have many copys in hand... some are excellent others very bad.
The way the front element was centered often leads to misalignment of the lens over the time and frustrating results.

Fleks often do need service/overhaul to get their best results. One of the reasons, why the user-experiences with this lens are so different.

IMHO Zeiss Oberkochen has a better quality control... not neccesary the better lenses.

I did have 5 or 6 copies of the Distagon 2.8/35mm... they are sharp, but nothing special... so did sell the lenses (Flek and Distagons) after compairing them against Leica Elmarit 2.8/35mm E55 Version.

Cheers
Henry

[asterinex]

Maybe I have a good copy of the flek.
If someone is interested, here some pics taken with the Flek
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=55297660@N04&q=flektogon

[Attila]

I like too in general western made Zeiss lenses, but to say only western Zeiss are real Zeiss very silly note, sadly Germany did split after war, Jena factory had different opportunity and different market, people were same and never forget Zeiss was born in Jena not somewhere else. Easier to supply consistent high quality on high price than on lower etc . Fight between German factories was pretty sad chapter of Zeiss history, I wish it would never happen. Nastiest part was how Jena factory did end... sold Carl Zeiss Jena on cheap Japanese lenses and very intelligent manager from West did destroy Jena factory (prototypes , factory pieces was hammered).

[memetph]

[calvin83]

As a collector, I will prefer the Angulon 2.8/35 over the Distagon or Elmarit.

[duckrider]

[anscochrome]

The 35mm F 2.8 Distagon C/Y is so horrendously poor, I used it to shoot several published book covers:

[16:9]

Your problem here is sample variation. I've had several Fleks, a late HTF Rollei and two C/Y Distagons, and they did vary. However, as a general trend, I have to say I favoured the Flektogons for uniform field sharpness. There was no meaningful difference overall between the differently-mounted Distagons - but adaptation of the QBM mount for Canon was a big headache.

And (barrel distortion aside), all were outperformed by the CY 35-70mm. Which in turn isn't as good as the latest Samyang.

At the risk of the ultimate unforgivable heresy, none of them quite hold a candle to the current Sigma prime . . .

By 'good', I largely mean sharp and suitable for full-frame resolution. All the Zeiss lenses have the trademark colour purity not matched by the Samyang or Sigma. But soggy corners - no.

[memetph]

The legacy mf lenses were only suitable with Canon 5 and 6 d in FF format.
Many opinions are actually based on cropped sensors.
Now we have in addiition the more affordable A7. It is high time that people indicates the sensor used before giving any judgement.
There is so much difference in term of sharpness in the corners and the borders, fall off , distortion and flare that good lenses become mediocre and sometimes really bad.

[Tedat]

[calvin83]

Resolution:
Distagon<Samyang<Sigma

Market price for a new copy:
Samyang<Sigma<Distagon

Conclusion:
Forget about the crappy Zeiss Distagon.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I'll stick with my ancient Biogon 2.8/35, it's made of solid chromed brass and has already lasted 60 years, whereas these modern plastic Sigmas and Samyangs will be doing well to last 6 years of frequent use.