aizan
Veteran
i think it'll be a great deal at street price, and f2.8 isn't a deal breaker. look at all the people using 50/2 and 28/2.8.
with all these c lenses, wouldn't it be great to have a compact version of the zi, too?
with all these c lenses, wouldn't it be great to have a compact version of the zi, too?
back alley
IMAGES
might look good on my r4a too!!
back alley
IMAGES
i have to get away from this computer...
first i get all excited at a less expensive 35/1.4 and now i'm thinking about a slower 35/2.8...it's crazy making time!
first i get all excited at a less expensive 35/1.4 and now i'm thinking about a slower 35/2.8...it's crazy making time!
Ororaro
Well-known
I don't really get this lens.
But what bugs me much more is the extremely close ressemblence between CV and Zeiss lenses. I'd have a hard time buying a Zeiss lens if I had to, really.
But what bugs me much more is the extremely close ressemblence between CV and Zeiss lenses. I'd have a hard time buying a Zeiss lens if I had to, really.
back alley
IMAGES
good thing zeiss isn't counting on you ned.
stands to reason that cv is learning some things from zeiss and that zeiss is making use of the cost cutting measures learned from cv.
you might back off but many will take advantage of great lenses at prices they can afford and justify.
joe
stands to reason that cv is learning some things from zeiss and that zeiss is making use of the cost cutting measures learned from cv.
you might back off but many will take advantage of great lenses at prices they can afford and justify.
joe
back alley
IMAGES
doesn't leica have the emarit line of lenses at 2.8 and a new line of summarits at 2.5?
maybe zeiss will soon offer a 50 and an 85 at 2.8 also...
maybe zeiss will soon offer a 50 and an 85 at 2.8 also...
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Just look at the images. The new C lens is a lot shorter than the 35/2. The length in the press release is "Dimensions (with caps)", which is a very unusual measure. I suggest we leave Zeiss to clear up their mess on this one.
Avotius
Some guy
Looks like people are not overly interested in this lens. I say the idea of a compact lens is nice, but this lens better have one hell of a party piece, otherwise there is not a lot of value in this one, but who knows, zeiss lenses are pretty damn good.
telenous
Well-known
There we were daydreaming about a 28 f/2 and even a 35 f/1.4 lens in that other thread and Zeiss comes up with a 35 f/2.8? Good for them but, as far as I am concerned, what a counterclimax. What next? A 25 f/4 C lens? Come on, Zeiss. The time is ripe for a replacement of the now discontinued Ultron 28 f1.9. The question is how you do it if you are as committed to non-aspheric technology as Zeiss seems to be.
Last edited:
jaap
Jaap
Zeiss is far from any committed to non aspheric designs. My 35mm f1.4 a design from decades ago has an aspheric element ! It is just that most of the zeiss design don,t need a aspheric element. I'm sure that a 28mm f2.0 can be done without a asphere.
nzeeman
Well-known
i calculated sizes from photos of lens according to filter diameter. lens will protrude from camera 31mm-33mm according to calculations. I think thats pretty small. so it is compact.
Last edited:
telenous
Well-known
I know. I basically meant, and should have said to be clear, that Zeiss is somewhat committed to non-aspheric technology, judging from what they have now on offer in their ZM line - and even there they use aspherics for their 15 f/2.8, so who knows. If they can make a relatively compact, for focal length and speed, 28 f/2 lens with or without resort to aspherics, well, you can bet I will be checking with my piggy bank. Lets see.
Last edited:
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
joachim,
I was thinking the same thing. I imagine they have a typo in their press release. I suspect that lens is in the 34-38mm long range.
italy74
Well-known
How much shorter could be a 28 F/2 asph compared to a non asph. one? Are 1-2 mm that important, after all, or is it more than half a cm ?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Zeiss seems to feel that Aspherical elements are not necessary in most cases. They do bring a whole new set of problems, a tendency to flare, expensive to make and nominal, if any improvements in resolution in "normal" focal lengths.
Aspherical elements have become a bit of a catchphrase with Leica and it is also a marketing gimmick. I have the 50f1,4 Asph and it is a stupendous lens as is the 75f2 Summicron Apo Asph. I have had 21/2.8 Asph, too big and rather clumsy and the ZM 21/2.8 is just as good, without flare problems. The same thing goes for the 24f2.8 Asph. - very good lens but it was always left behind because its size and performance wise the ZM 25/2,8 is its equal. The 35/1,4 Aspherical (first version) was very good, but way too much money and the 2nd version had severe flare problems (i tried two of them and both could "opaque" out an image if you were unlucky).
The 35/2 Asph is extremely sharp and contrasty and I like the size, though it is heavy compared to the version IV.
The 90f2 Apo Asph was a good lens, but it was inconsistent in its performance. Aperture and distance would affect the performance and it could be very good or mediocre, depending.
I have very little experience with the 28f2.8 Asph, but the few shots I have taken with it looks good.
My favourite "pack" at the moment is the ZM C-Biogon 21mm f4.5 (most likely the best 21 ever!), the 35/2 Biogon ZM and/or the 35/1,4 VC and the 50f1.5 C-Sonnar.
I have played with the 85mm f2.0 ZM, but I found it big and rather clumsy to use and my feeling is that the 75f2 Summicron is a better lens.
However, a C-Sonnar 85f2.8 would be a nice complement to the pack.
Keep in mind that I shoot only black/white and if you are shooting color the results will probably be different!
Aspherical elements have become a bit of a catchphrase with Leica and it is also a marketing gimmick. I have the 50f1,4 Asph and it is a stupendous lens as is the 75f2 Summicron Apo Asph. I have had 21/2.8 Asph, too big and rather clumsy and the ZM 21/2.8 is just as good, without flare problems. The same thing goes for the 24f2.8 Asph. - very good lens but it was always left behind because its size and performance wise the ZM 25/2,8 is its equal. The 35/1,4 Aspherical (first version) was very good, but way too much money and the 2nd version had severe flare problems (i tried two of them and both could "opaque" out an image if you were unlucky).
The 35/2 Asph is extremely sharp and contrasty and I like the size, though it is heavy compared to the version IV.
The 90f2 Apo Asph was a good lens, but it was inconsistent in its performance. Aperture and distance would affect the performance and it could be very good or mediocre, depending.
I have very little experience with the 28f2.8 Asph, but the few shots I have taken with it looks good.
My favourite "pack" at the moment is the ZM C-Biogon 21mm f4.5 (most likely the best 21 ever!), the 35/2 Biogon ZM and/or the 35/1,4 VC and the 50f1.5 C-Sonnar.
I have played with the 85mm f2.0 ZM, but I found it big and rather clumsy to use and my feeling is that the 75f2 Summicron is a better lens.
However, a C-Sonnar 85f2.8 would be a nice complement to the pack.
Keep in mind that I shoot only black/white and if you are shooting color the results will probably be different!
fuwen
Well-known
I try to compare my 35f2 with the 35/2.8 diagram shown on Zeiss website. I believe the front portion of the 35/2.8 (in front of the lens mount) is at least 8mm shorter than the 35/2.
Last edited:
thomasw_
Well-known
I'd really like to see the ZM line include a 85/2,8 compact and a 28/2. I'd be very interested in a f2 28mm focal length lens for use this spring/summer; any hope of that, Zeiss? Tom, do you have any inside zeiss-info or a black M2 you want to toss my way? I am not picky; i will take either 
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
ZM C-Biogon 21mm f4.5, Very Tempting
ZM C-Biogon 21mm f4.5, Very Tempting
Tom,
Great to hear that you like the ZM C-Biogon 21mm f4.5 so much, I was looking at that lens and giving it some serious thought. I have the ZM 25mm and c-sonnar 50mm and have been quite pleased.
Is there a particular aspect of the 21mm that really makes it shine or is it just the entire package?
Take care,
Kent
ZM C-Biogon 21mm f4.5, Very Tempting
Tom,
Great to hear that you like the ZM C-Biogon 21mm f4.5 so much, I was looking at that lens and giving it some serious thought. I have the ZM 25mm and c-sonnar 50mm and have been quite pleased.
Is there a particular aspect of the 21mm that really makes it shine or is it just the entire package?
Take care,
Kent
BNF
Established
I calculated between $650-$700USD too before even reading the thread!
To my mind, the lower the better as at $700, I'm going to just go for the Biogon 2.0.
back alley
IMAGES
there is only a small difference in price between the 21 2.8 and the 4.5 version though.