Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2.8 lens

Sean - SPECIAL NOTE!!!: When I clicked on "Add/View Comments" this took me to a page where I had to click on "Add A Comment," this got me to a page with the healdine "What kind of Comment?." When I clicked on the hypertext link that said "Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2.8 lens" this took me back to the lens review page instead of allowing me to add a comment. I had to click on the "Add a Persistant Comment" hypertext link in order to be able to add any comment whatsoever. You might want to check this out. I use system 7.1.2 on a PowerMac 6100/60. I've heard an older system like mine might give problems, however my intuition tells me its not the case w/ this hypertext link navigation problem as this problem only happens on this page.

I have used the Contax 28mm f/2.8 for about 13 years. One of my shots ("The Wizard" at the New York Rennaissance festival appeared in an earlier Shutterbug article called "A Rennaissance of Colors" in October?, 1992? - the picture I claim, the article title was someone else's editorial change - was taken w/ this 28mm Contax lens). I have gone through more camera/lens systems than most people have fingers. I have (almost) nothing bad to say about this lens. If I remember correctly, a test that I did w/ this lens about 10 years ago showed that it needed to be stopped down to around f/5.6 or f/8 to cancel out light falloff (the test, w/c I don't think I have/kept any more, was of a blue sky). Why don't you use it wide-open? One of the most beautiful aspects of this lens besides its sizzling in focus quality when stopped down, is its beautiful creamy "bokeh" (I am probably mis-spelling this word/term but I don't care) out of focus quality, w/c reords a lot of the b.g. environment in a recognizable but deliciously soft and creamy/smooth pasty way when used wide open - almost like a "dream effect" or like the old lenses on view cameras of the last century w/ their smooth tonality (i.e. Julia Margaret Cameron) but even this description fails to do it justice (yes I'm very biased about this lens's out of focus look/quality and wished Contax made a 24mm f/2 or f/1.4 lens like Canon does with their 24mm f/1.4 L lens because I like that focal length even better!). Leicas tend to have a lot of tonal and hue separation, an almost 3-d quality where as the Zeiss lenses tend to have sizzling contrast and great edge contrast, not as 3-d as Leicas in tonal spread but still very surreally punchy in their own way - I have owned/used the Leica Elmarit R 28mm f/2.8 lens when I owned that system. I love this Contax lens and use it as my "main people lens" for its wide, but not too distorting angle of view. If I want distortion I'll go to my Zeiss 16mm f/2.8 Distagon fisheye (also a lens w/ sizzling contrast). Yes it is a true wide angle, with the flexibility, if used with care, to be a "normal lens" - I have taken many portraits with very little distortion with it. I'm sorry to hear that I can't use the lens with a filter and a hood w/o getting vignetting as I like to use B+W's version of a skylight 1B on the lens to warm things up a little (very necessary w/ Kodachrome, not so necessary w/ the Fuji films). Cheap (for a Contax), light weight, sharp and contrasty w/ a beautiful out of focus look, the only bad part about this lens is that its not a 25mm. A lens for "everywhere." As for my e-mail address/name, I didn't choose it lightly/as a joke - I respect quality and you'll find it in this metal barrel, precision made, optically excellent lens.

"Yes it is a true wide angle, with the flexibility, if used with care, to be a "normal lens" - I have taken many portraits with very little distortion with it. I'm sorry to hear that I can't use the lens with a filter and a hood w/o getting vignetting as I like to use B+W's version of a skylight 1B on the lens to warm things up a little (very necessary w/ Kodachrome, not so necessary w/ the Fuji films)."

Let me make one thing perfectly clear (as President Nixon and Dan Akroyd used to say), the above comment refers to my 28mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Distagon lens and not my 16mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Distagon fisheye lens. Though, believe it or not I use both lenses as "normal"/portrait lenses, the 16mm fisheye, as its name implies, has significant barrel distortion - but even here I am able to get minimum distortion on my human subjects, if I so desire, if I simply keep the subject's face parallel to the camera, in the center of the frame, and don't go too close (because people's faces turn into "planetoids" with thislens if used too close). As for the definition of "too close" - I still haven't figured out that yet since for me there is no such thing as "too close," I'll go as close to people's faces as I need to even if I have to (kindly, and w/ their permission) shove my lens up their nose to get a good shot (anybody ever see "Fantasitic Voyage" or "Inner Space" w/ Martin Short?, well for me the fisheye is a needle to inject myself into somebody elses life/bloodstream to come up w/ new, and appropriately used, vantage points)!

Ooops!, I couldn't help myself. Its hard not to talk/write about this Contax fisheye and its uses even though this is a comments page for the 28mm f/2.8 Contax. Pardon my enthusiasm!

Well, its been over two years now from my last postings and all I've got to say is that I still agree with my previous self's postings on this page about the 28mm Zeiss Distagon for the Contax SLR. Superb creamy bokeh (very smooth blurriness yet with discernable detail in the out of focus areas), razor sharpness, etc. The only other lenses that might exceded the contrast and tonality of this lens are the two Leica Ms (28mm f/2.8 and f/2 asph), the Leica R 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit, the Contax 28mm f/2.8 Distagon G series lens for the G1/G2 rangefinder Contax cameras. And the only lenses that I've seen that come close to my Distagon's contrast/bokeh are the 28-70mm f/2.8 EOS L lens (at 28mm, of course) and my 24-50mm f/4 Maxxum zoom which is too sharp for words and whose contrast and general optical quality is so good (not to mention the flexibility of the zoom range and its AF capability) that it makes it very hard for me to decide between this zoom and my Distagon but I usually (but not always end up using the 24-50mm for for fast changing people/event photojournalism and my 28mm Zeiss Distagon for more fine art/controlled/posed people photography and some "environmental portraiture" (for examples in print from some of the lenses I've just mentioned see the Pro-Lighting book "PORTRAITS" - "Mourning Flowers" is with the 28mm Zeiss Distagon, "Strange Trinity" is with the 28-70mm Canon EOS f/2.8 L zoom at about 28mm (even though the caption mistakenly says it was taken with a 20mm lens) and "Wallflower" was taken with the 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit Leica R lens (I believe an older 2 cam lens that I had converted to 3 cams).

Some of these and other shots are on my web site:

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

The only thing that could cause me to part with my Zeiss 28mm would be theft, an accidental loss or if I could one day afford an N1 with a 24-85mm Zeiss N mount AF zoom. Yummy.... But for now I think I'll continue to take photos with my 28mm Zeiss that makes my eyes open wide and say ahhh at the sizzling contrast, surrealistic color and wonderful creamy smooth bokeh.

P.S. and completely unrelated... The 21st century begins on January 1st, 2001 A.D. at 12 A.M. and not on January 1st 2000 A.D. AT 12 A.M. All the lemmings/mass populace and the shamelessly spouting newsmedia have been mistakenly reporting and believing we're in the 21st century for the past year (especially the newspeople should know better!). Its the perfect commentary on the 20th century... people in the 20th century are (soon to be were) in so much of a rush to be in a new century/millenium that they decided to mindlessly and brain washedly celebrate the non-event one whole year early. I guess the year 2001 doesn't have much allure for most people and can only be found in Stanley Kubrick film titles... Weeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!! Its the 21st century ----------------> AGAIN! What does this have to do with the 28mm Zeiss Distagon? Nothing! However I feel I am entitled to at least one rant a millenium and I neglected to make my rant about 1000 years ago (I was busy predicting that Nostradamus would predict the coming of the Leika and Fujichrome RDP III - well, except for a slight mis-spelling of the word Leica (which comes from the land of "Hisler") he did quite well with some of his predictions. To tie things up, I "predict I will continue to use and enjoy this lens's excellent optical qualities well into the 21st century until there is no more film made (and photography goes completely digital) or until William Shatner refuses to do any more Priceline.com commercials... As Shatner says "Promise... margerine (which also has creamy smooth bokeh too)" ;-)

The 28mm Zeiss (like all AE/MM Zeiss lenses) can be put onto Canon EOS cameras via an adaptor ring (stop-down metering, no AF obviously). As such it's a great "normal" lens for digital cameras with a magnifying factor, such as the Canon 10D/1D/300D/D60/D30.

The lens + adaptor will cost about what you'd pay for a Canon 28 f/1.8 -- but it's sharper. You can make up the price difference by finding a good 50 f/1.4 CZ later -- or the 21mm, which put's Canon's 20mm to shame.

I too have discovered what a wonderful lens this Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2.8 is. I use it with the CameraQuest adapter on a Canon EOS 1Ds and LOVE its performance. The Canon 28/1.8 had WAY too much CA for me and I 'traded' it for a Sigma EX DG Aspherical (phew!) 28/1.8, which was about as sharp as the Canon but had much less CA. After reading about the Zeiss, I tried one and WOW! MUCH sharper than the Canon or Sigma 1.8s and the Canon 16-35, and a bit sharper overall than the Canon 24-70 at 28. It's rather cooly balanced so I use a HOYA 81B on it all the time. Well worth the fully manual operation.

I own this lens since '99, I used it in several different condition and I have no doubt - it's a very very nice lens. Very sharp, well corrected, bright colors, robust - it's the perfect companion for travel or reportage pictures. Probably the best lens I own. Time ago I made some comparison with the Yashica ML 28/2.8 (it has been written to be a nice lens) and the Zeiss clearly beats the Yashica.