Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 Distagon T*

How good is this lens ? Right now they are going for about 300 bucks on eBay.

<p>You sure about 300? is that the current bid price without a reserve?<br>

A new one goes for about 1,000.</p>

<p>Here is the photo.net article on it written <strong>12 years ago!</strong><br>

<strong>(The bold was to emphasize amazement on the longevity of this site)<br /></strong><br>

http://www.photo.net/equipment/contax/28-2.8</p>

 

<p>There is an active Buy It Now for $299US listing on eBay (shipping is extra cost). The seller is in Warsaw, Poland.</p>

<p>http://cgi.ebay.com/CARL-ZEISS-DISTAGON-T-28mm-f-2-8-28-CONTAX-/370389398854?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item563cedb546</p>

<p>Why would you buy a lens with a name you can't spell or pronounce correctly. What's wrong with the <strong>autofocus</strong> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12096-USA/Canon_2505A002_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html">ef 28/1.8?</a></p>

<p>The Contax 28 2.8 is one of the best 28mm primes made for SLRs. The Canon 28 1.8 is very poor in comparison. I use a 28 2.8 with an AF confirm chip on my T1i, and it is significantly better than my tamron 17-50 at 28mm and f2.8. Here is an f2.8 point blank portrait with the C/Y 28 2.8.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10774294-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Stephen, we can't see it.<br>

Why is the canon very poor in your opinion?</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of 35mm film using Contax bodies, so for me the choice of 28mm lenses was easy. The Contax 28 2.8 works on all of my 35mm and digital bodies and cost less than the Canon 28 1.8. Looking at tests the canon 28 1.8 is much worse than the Contax 28 1.8, and comparing the Contax and my Tamron 17-50 at 28 mm the Contax is simply better. At 5.6 or higher it is a toss up, and the Tamron is a lot easier to use. </p>

<p>I would love it if Canon updated the 28mm lens. Nikon has the 35 1.8 DX lens, and a fast, compact, and sharp 28mm Canon lens would be great.</p>

<p>On photodo the Canon 28 1.8 gets a 3.2 (good but not great), and the Contax 28 2.8 gets a 4.3 (very few lenses score this high). The Contax is optically simply better then the Canon, and it costs less. It lacks autofocus and it needs an adapter, however. </p>

<p>If I was going to get a 28mm AF lens and I wanted to spend $450, I would (and did) get the Tamron 17-50. It covers 28mm better than the Canon and gets a larger zoom range as well.</p>

<p>For a quick comparison:<br>

Canon 28 1.8<br>

<a href="http://slrlensreview.com/web/canon-slr-lenses-39/wide-angle-slr-lenses-114/86-canon-ef-28mm-f18-usm-lens-review.html">http://slrlensreview.com/web/canon-slr-lenses-39/wide-angle-slr-lenses-114/86-canon-ef-28mm-f18-usm-lens-review.html</a></p>

<p>Contax 28 2.8<br>

<a href="http://slrlensreview.com/web/carl-zeiss-slr-lenses-51/wide-angle-slr-lenses-93/370-carl-zeiss-distagon-t-28mm-f28-cy-lens-review.html">http://slrlensreview.com/web/carl-zeiss-slr-lenses-51/wide-angle-slr-lenses-93/370-carl-zeiss-distagon-t-28mm-f28-cy-lens-review.html</a></p>

<p>Tamron 17-50<br>

<a href="http://slrlensreview.com/web/tamron-slr-lenses-53/wide-angle-zoom-slr-lenses-99/268-tamron-sp-af-17-50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-ld-asph-if-lens-review.html">http://slrlensreview.com/web/tamron-slr-lenses-53/wide-angle-zoom-slr-lenses-99/268-tamron-sp-af-17-50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-ld-asph-if-lens-review.html</a></p>

<p>While the Zeiss 21mm is astounding, shocking in comparison to the Canon ultra wides, the Zeiss-Contax 28mm is not demonstrably better than the Canon 28 2.8. It is beautifully made, I love the expanded focusing and depth of field scales, but I don't bother carrying it after making the comparisons. I've owned 3, so I don't think it's possible that the results are due to "bad copies". </p>