Zeiss ZF 28/f2 vs. 35/f2 - Please help me decide

[MarkusA]

I really love the colours and rendering of the Zeiss lenses. Therefore, I would like to add the ZF 28/f2 or 35/f2 to my lens line-up (which includes the ZF 100/f2 as the only Zeiss so far). But I can't decide.

The lens will be used on a D300 (with Katz eye focusing screen) for street photography, environmental portraits, landscape (incl. panos) and close distance shots with shallow DOF.

Which lens would you recommend and why? Sample shots (DX or FX) would be highly appreciated.

 

[markus71]

Tough question... For me, it would depend mostly on the focal length. I prefer wider lenses - in film days, I never had much use for 50, but for a 35mm lens. So I would vote for the 28/2, but probably consider the 25, too.
--
---------------------
http://www.flickr.com/prime-shots

 

[MWeston]

The 28 is more expensive and has a curved field of focus that falls away from the photographer as one moves to the left or right of the frame. I've never seen a complaint about the 35 except for color fringing on high-contrast areas, a very minor trait, and as far as I know, it has a fairly flat field of focus. I bought the 35.

More importantly, I prefer 35 as a "normal" lens- just a subjective judgment.

By the way, if you can afford a Zeiss lens, you might as well pay for access to
http://diglloyd.com/prem/index.html

His reviews are excellent, and he covers the whole Zeiss line.

 

[ddk]

I really love the colours and rendering of the Zeiss lenses.
Therefore, I would like to add the ZF 28/f2 or 35/f2 to my lens
line-up (which includes the ZF 100/f2 as the only Zeiss so far). But
I can't decide.

The lens will be used on a D300 (with Katz eye focusing screen) for
street photography, environmental portraits, landscape (incl. panos)
and close distance shots with shallow DOF.

Which lens would you recommend and why? Sample shots (DX or FX) would
be highly appreciated.

I have both, the 28mm would be great for street and some enviro portraits and landscapes but panos could be problematic because of its curvature, which by the way is what makes it very endearing to some including me. The 35mm is simply fantastic with gorgeous rendering, maybe a better overall choice for general purpose photography than the more specialized 28mm. I wouldn't sweat it much now, just pick one up and I'm sure you'll get the other soon after anyway.
--
--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk

 

[XIX]

on a d300, I'd go with the 28mm actually. its gotten good reviews. and i'd think 28mm isn't a popular focal length for landscapes usually. But it costs quite a bit more than the 35mm.

I'm actually in a similar dilemma, was wondering if i should get the 28mm or 25mm for enviro shots. I like to get up real close sometimes for those close range shots and that's where the 25mm looks more attractive, but diglloyd's reviews seem to favour the 28mm.

Would really appreciate anyone's opinion on these two lenses.

I currently have the 50 makro and am in love with it. So plans are for a wide-ish lens 25mm/28mm for street photog, and other uses similar to those listed by the OP, and getting a 20mm voigtlander for the wide end of things.

Sorry for hijacking the thread!

 

[Zachawry]

I have both, the 28mm would be great for street and some enviro
portraits and landscapes but panos could be problematic because of
its curvature, which by the way is what makes it very endearing to
some including me.

Would you mind sharing some shots that you think uses the 28's field curvature to creative effect? I've wondered about this for a long time.

Thanks!
--
Kyoto, Japan
http://www.kotodama.net

 

[ddk]

I have both, the 28mm would be great for street and some enviro
portraits and landscapes but panos could be problematic because of
its curvature, which by the way is what makes it very endearing to
some including me.

Would you mind sharing some shots that you think uses the 28's field
curvature to creative effect? I've wondered about this for a long
time.

Thanks!
--
Kyoto, Japan
http://www.kotodama.net

Its a look rather than anything that you're aware of. In a typical environmental portrait (which I don't shoot) you can use this lens to get more three dimensionality and give prominence to your central subject. The following are a few of my samples, they contain nudity hence the links rather than the images. The effect that I like is the way things fall off and oof areas as you get away from the center which is extremely sharp. For me it adds more dimension to an image that my end up looking flat with a different type of lens. These three would have looked very different with a flat lens of the same focal length.

In the first one look at the way the body seems to curve as you move away from the center, this adds a lot of elegance to this image. In the middle one it adds to the mood, the way the chest stands out and brings out the nudity even the when it s the face that's really in focus. And the 3rd one, do you see how the two models seem to be on a different plane than the child, that's the little extra depth introduced by the curvature of the lens. Of course these images are all vertical so effect of the curvature is happening at the top and bottom of the images instead of the sides.

I don't claim to always know how I'm using this curvature in advance but I sure know that the results wont be ordinary.

http://www.pbase.com/ddk/image/112362854/original

http://www.pbase.com/ddk/image/109824913/original

http://www.pbase.com/ddk/image/97360327/original
--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk

 

[MarkusA]

Tough question... For me, it would depend mostly on the focal length.
I prefer wider lenses - in film days, I never had much use for 50,
but for a 35mm lens. So I would vote for the 28/2, but probably
consider the 25, too.
--
---------------------
http://www.flickr.com/prime-shots

--
Hi Markus,

thanks for your advice. It is not easy to choose the "right" focal lenth primes, especially if I consider that my next camera might be FX.

Are you still happy with the Voigtländer 20/f3.5 on the D300?

So long

Markus

 

[MarkusA]

on a d300, I'd go with the 28mm actually. its gotten good reviews.
and i'd think 28mm isn't a popular focal length for landscapes
usually. But it costs quite a bit more than the 35mm.

Yes the price of the 28mm is actually a bit on the high side compared to the 35mm.

I'm actually in a similar dilemma, was wondering if i should get the
28mm or 25mm for enviro shots. I like to get up real close sometimes
for those close range shots and that's where the 25mm looks more
attractive, but diglloyd's reviews seem to favour the 28mm.

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, the 25mm can focus a lot closer than the 28mm. On the other hand, the 28mm uses a floating elements design. Therefore IQ up-close might be better.

Would really appreciate anyone's opinion on these two lenses.

I currently have the 50 makro and am in love with it.

Interesting. Do you use it on DX or FX? How do you like the 50/f2 for medium range work (e.g. portraits)? How hard is it to focus the lens in that range?

So plans are
for a wide-ish lens 25mm/28mm for street photog, and other uses
similar to those listed by the OP, and getting a 20mm voigtlander for
the wide end of things.

Sorry for hijacking the thread!

Don't worry. Thanks for your reply

 

[MarkusA]

I've never seen a complaint about the 35 except for color
fringing on high-contrast areas, a very minor trait, and as far as I
know, it has a fairly flat field of focus.

Yes, the reviews of the 35/f2 are all very positive.

By the way, if you can afford a Zeiss lens, you might as well pay for
access to
http://diglloyd.com/prem/index.html

His reviews are excellent, and he covers the whole Zeiss line.

I might do that. Thank you.

 

[MarkusA]

I have both, the 28mm would be great for street and some enviro
portraits and landscapes but panos could be problematic because of
its curvature, which by the way is what makes it very endearing to
some including me.

Hi David, do you get field curvature even when you stop the lens down or only wide open?

The 35mm is simply fantastic with gorgeous
rendering, maybe a better overall choice for general purpose
photography than the more specialized 28mm. I wouldn't sweat it much
now, just pick one up and I'm sure you'll get the other soon after
anyway.

Your last sentence made me smile. On the one hand, given the price of these lenses, even one of the two is a major investment for me. On the other hand, you might be right, cause these lenses are kind of addictive.

 

[MarkusA]

Nice work. I can see what you mean with exploiting the field curvature of the 28mm for artistic purposes.

 

[alain durand]

Your last sentence made me smile. On the one hand, given the price of
these lenses, even one of the two is a major investment for me. On
the other hand, you might be right, cause these lenses are kind of
addictive.

Yes they are... I wanted a new set a lenses for my D3x, I started with the ZF 100 + ZF 35, and I quickly added the ZF 50 f/1.4 and then the ZF 50 f/2 makro. The colors, the 3-D effect and the way the out of focus areas are rendered is very addictive.

This one with the 50mm makro:



This one with the 35mm

• Alain.

 

[mcq67]

a few weeks ago:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=31792665

I also emailed Digilloyd (as I subscribe to his his Zeiss review) and asked him what he thought. The advice I received from Lloyd, was to get the Zeiss 28/2 and the Voigtlander 40/2 (right away or later).

I am still waiting to see what I am going to do. I have been practicing with my Zeiss 100/2. I can't say enough good things about my Zeiss. AWESOME! I am anxious to make my decision an start shooting.

I love shooting with my Zeiss prime, and how it makes me think. I get a great sense of accomplishment when I take a picture that I am really happy with.

Whatever you decide, make your purchase and don't look back! Let me know what you decide!

Jay

 

[MarkusA]

Hi Alain,

thanks for the sample shots. Besides great sharpness and contrast they show one thing I really love about the Zeiss lenses. In nature shots the greens are much nicer (more satturated) than what I can achieve with my Nikon lenses.

After buying the 50/f2, do you still use the 50/1.4 all that much? How hard is it to focus the 50/f2 at medium and longer distances?

Regards

Markus

 

[MarkusA]

a few weeks ago:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=31792665

Thanks for the hint. I must have missed the thread.

I also emailed Digilloyd (as I subscribe to his his Zeiss review) and
asked him what he thought. The advice I received from Lloyd, was to
get the Zeiss 28/2 and the Voigtlander 40/2 (right away or later).

This is interesting. I read a couple of times that the 35/f2 is Loyds favourite ZF lens.

I am still waiting to see what I am going to do. I have been
practicing with my Zeiss 100/2. I can't say enough good things about
my Zeiss. AWESOME! I am anxious to make my decision an start
shooting.

I love shooting with my Zeiss prime, and how it makes me think. I
get a great sense of accomplishment when I take a picture that I am
really happy with.

I agree with all you say. I would love to try my 100/f2 on an FX-camera. Focusing is propably easier than with the D300 and the focal length is perfect for portraits on FX.

Whatever you decide, make your purchase and don't look back! Let me
know what you decide!

I will.

Jay

--

 

[Phobos 790]

I have my new 35mm ZF paired with the 14-24mm. I think that's the best possible combination used on D300/D700 through 35mm.

 

[markus71]

Hi,

yes, it is tough, but no, at the end, it isn't. In the last years, I tried several lenses - bought them used, had it for a while, and eventually sold it again. Have to add that I am following HCB's approach to work with a single lens as an extension of my eyes, because I strongly believe that this improves my photography.

I tried 20, 24, 25 (the Zeiss, which is a 25.8mm actually), 28, 35, 40. At the end, I returned to the 24mm (DX!). It is the perfect focal length for me . I already travelled to Czech and Switzerland with just this lens, and, I can tell you, I got better shots than a friend with his 18-200. But to be honest, I would be a Leica shooter if I could afford it, and if the M system would offer a good solution for macro.
--
---------------------
http://www.flickr.com/prime-shots

 

[FM2]

It does NOT actually matter whether you get the 28 or 35 ..... because I am pretty sure that you will eventually get BOTH !!!

I have a 24-70 but once I got my 35/2 some weeks ago, that ZF 35 is now welded onto my D3. I am planning to get a ZF100 soon after I have saved up enough $$$.

In advance, enjoy.

FM2

 

[ddk]

Hi Markus,

MarkusA wrote:
Hi David, do you get field curvature even when you stop the lens down
or only wide open?

It depends on what you're shooting, let's face it unless you're reproducing something flat like a painting you wouldn't notice the curvature at all. I never test any of my lenses with brick walls, I use them in an actual shoot and then look at the results, if I like the rendering, bokeh and general IQ of the lens then I keep it and learn to use it better, otherwise it lands on ebay. Honestly, while I noticed the special character of the 28mm ZF when I first bought it, I had no idea that it was due to glass curvature until I read Lloyd's review of the lens, I just liked what it did.

IMO, often there's too much tech talk here from people who don't really understand anything about the nature of things and think that only flat, contrasty, extra sharp and/or must have Nikon on it can be used otherwise the shutter wont click! If you like the general characteristics of Zeiss glass and don't mind mf, then you'll be happy with any/all of them, otherwise if you prefer af and don't find that Zeiss or any other 3rd party brand enhances your images in any meaningful way, then you might as well stick with Nikon.

david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk