This lens is quite nice. It has some properties which are good and not so good. The field curvature is extreme. Focus aquisition and recomposition is not easy due to field curvature. Therefore it creates a stunning 3D pop. Writing / Chromes ring in the front can reflect into image when using certain filters. Colours are well balancened I try to get hands on this one too, I have some spare coins left.
Your video clip is gorgeous. I heard before that the Zeiss 28, f2 has pop, but seeing it in your video is a totally other experience. I went and bought it on eBay right now 🤷♀️ Can you recommend an aperture sweet spot? What aperture did you use in your video clip.
I see the answer you got was more open than the lens max. Most lenses are best at f8, but Zeiss best starts between 1 and 2 stops down. I think 5.6 is amazing on this, and f4 still gets a little vignetting but sharp until the furthest corners. I use this lens up close in low light and have no issues at 2.8-4. F2 has a lot of vignette, then so what if it’s a little soft in the corners. I’d much rather have a good lens design than the modern lenses which rely on in-camera or post corrections. I shoot the 25f2 ZE for architectural, etc., when the field curvature will show. Similarly I wouldn’t use the ZE21 for straightness as it has quite obvious mustache distortion (landscape quality microcontrast though), but the ZE15 is about as curvilinearly corrected as a Hasselblad SWC.
@@magiccarpetrider4594 What is fascinating about the SWC is the straight lines in the images compared to the very curved approximate viewfinder preview.
Just bought the 100mm makro planar lens, and I have the sigma 24 and 50. I absolutely hate the sigma manual focus. So over it. I’m pretty sure I’m jumping over and buying the 28 and 50 Zeiss lenses and selling my sigmas.
Ok, anyone compared this to a Leica Q? I’m a huge Zeiss 28 fan, also owning the 15, 21, 25, (28), 50MP, 50 milvus, 100MP and 135 milvus- working on a Canon R these days with easy focus peaking. I’ve often had a near-pocket 28 with me, now a Fuji xt2 with the 18mm, and wondering if I want the Q. I’d have to sell the Zeiss 28 to come a little closer to the price of admission. Anyone?
Leica Q 28mm 1.7 is nice but it renders differently from 28mm f2. Distortion and characteristic of zeiss are important to you or not? For me, shooting video and b&w photo with 28mm f2 are the strength of its. Leica 28mm would be more clinical in term of sharpness and aberration.
Time has a story. Bought a Q and M246. Loved them, sold them. Now I’ve got a M10M and M10R, 21 SEM, 24 Elmar, 28 and 50 Summilux’s and 90 Apo Summicron (and all the Canon R5/R and 8 Zeiss primes). I had the 25 Zeiss-M and traded it back in a week.
I've only tested it on the Viltrox, aperture control from the camera works perfectly. There is also an aperture switch on the Viltrox but the position of it is too fiddly.
Nice. I own several contax lenses. I like the 35 1.4 very much. What sensor size you use, mft x2 crop factor? I'm in Madrid and I'd like to meet and shoot something.
@@CarterCreativeContent yea i have a couple ZF including 35/2. Just got 28/2 ze for $300 but had no idea it does not have aperture control. However it will work just fine with Metabones V on my Sony