Zeiss 28/2, anyone seen it?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by oskar_ojala, Nov 2, 2007.

  1. I just noticed that the Zeiss 28/2.0 is now available for the Nikon F mount.
    Anyone seen it or anything about it other than the blurb at Zeiss site? I'm just
    curious how it compares with the Nikkor 28/2.0, since the latter seems to get
    more legendary for each passing year. Interestingly though, this Zeiss lens
    offers a new alternative to a discontinued classic whereas some of the other
    Zeiss lenses offered alternatives to still produced classics.
     
  2. I bought my AIS Nikkor 28mm f2.0 in like new condition for $260 used. I am sure that the Zeiss is marginally better optically, might be tough to see. But the Zeiss will not be made as well as the classic Nikkor.
    You will just be paying a lot more for the Zeiss lens.

    If you want to get a Zeiss wide angle lens look at the 25mm lens instead.
     
  3. I think EP-kamera has one. If you want to compare it with my Nikkor 28/2 maybe Esko will let us take a few shots.
     
  4. I have not seen any tests yet. Robert White has it on his website but at 625 GBP excl. VAt, the price is too high for me. I have the 100 and the 85 and these are excellently built, in no way inferior to a classic Nikon lens. Image quality is superb. A Nikon 28 2.0 might be more interesting if the price is around 260 US$ (especially now that the dollar is so cheap as long as you live in europe).
     
  5. I have not tried the Zeiss lens. But, I have owned two of the Nikkor 28mm f/2's. Both of my Nikkors' had low contrast, were slightly soft, and had what I would describe as muted colors. I send one of them in to a Nikon repair center and was told that there was nothing wrong with it. I have owned dozens of Nikkors over the last 25 years and consider those two 28mm f/2s as clear disappointments. I now use a Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 and an old (Ai'd) Nikkkor 28mm f/3.5. The f2.8 is better in EVERY WAY than the f/2s. I use the f/3.5 for stacked macros and digital infrareds. By the way, I shoot Fuji S3s.
     
  6. Both the Ai-S 28/2 and the Ai-S 28/2.8 are excellent lenses. My 28/2 is excellent in sharpness even at wide apertures. The low contrast look is typical of manual focus lenses compared to autofocus Nikkors, but I would not consider it a problem.

    The 28/2 has less CA wide open than my 35/2D AF Nikkor and is much easier to manual focus. Stopped down the 35 may have a bit crisper color. But against the light the 35 easily develops nasty ghosts.

    I don't have a 28/2.8 Ai-S for direct reference but my memory of it is fond. It's just that I need the f/2 aperture, and having no issues with the performance of the 28/2, I haven't tried to re-acquire the 28/2.8.
     
  7. I'd expect the ZF 28/2 to have clearly better color transmission and contrast than the Nikon;
    Maybe a little sharper wide open, but maybe inferior to the Nikon at small(f/11,f/16)
    apertures. I'd
    put the construction quality of the ZF lenses I've handled as about par with Nikon Ai, which is
    to say somewhat shoddy, definitely below Leica R or Zeiss/Contax.
     
  8. I have used both contax slr lenses (28, 35, 50, 85 and 135) and Leica R lenses (35, 80, 90, 100mm apo macro and 135) and I dare to state that the Zeiss ZF lenses are way better built than the Kyocera Zeiss lenses for Contax and are built in the same quality as Leica R lenses.
     
  9. Ilkka, if Esko has one then it would be kinda interesting to have a quick test, wouldn't it? we could also compare construction quality. I only use Zeiss on Hasselblad and there the construction quality leaves nothing to be desired (and so does the image quality). Nikon AI(S) lenses are really well built, but some are showing the signs of age and heavy use.
     
  10. Frank didn't you buy an Zeiss ZF 100mm Macro a while back> if so can you tell us what the selective focus is all about. Nikon has DC to selectively blur front or back of image, what does the Zeiss do?

    Also, can you give an impression of the 100mm lens , what did they get from their Arriflex partnership in Cine lenses that was brought over to 35mm primes.
     
  11. I think the "selective focus" is just an expression about the very precise and long focus throw of the 100mm makro planar. It has nothing to do with the Nikon DC lenses (as it would be rather useless for macro purposses). I have no experience about the "arri"cinelenses so I can not comment on that. It will have something to do with the mechanics.

    Links to some photos I made with this lens:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/asialover/1748695829/
    at f/2
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/asialover/1689800658/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/asialover/1660130636/
    at f/2
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/asialover/1652479563/
    at f/2
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/asialover/1577993104/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/asialover/1579947524/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/asialover/1507952530/
     
  12. I see that the Zeiss is great for in your face close-ups. Frank, how is the bokeh and contrast in a head and shoulders portrait where you want the background OOF.

    My interest would be less for macro and more for portrait and on a crop dslr for the 150mm effective length indoors and theatre. (I use my old Pentax LX equiped with magnifier finders for macro.)
     

Share This Page