My lens dilemma. 28mm - which one, the Zeiss Biogon T* 2,8/28 ZM?

[UnionCityBlues]

Hello.

 

So, I have a couple of Leica lenses, three actually, which I use on the a7R.

 

The 35mm f1.4 I have, gives horrendous artefacts at f1.4 and calms down after that. Some vignetting throughout the aperture range.

 

I also have the Carl Zeiss f2, which I have an adaptor for which seems to give as good-a result as the Leica, so that's what's attached most of the time, both lenses being physically about the same with the Leica hood attached.

 

 

 

The real dilemma is the 28mm f2.8 Leica lens which is almost unusable do to dreadful pink / colour shift across the image. It must go.

 

So, which 28mm lens to go for?

 

The obvious choice would be the Sony E mount f2.8 lens.

 

I am being drawn to the Zeiss Biogon T* 2,8/28 ZM. However, I have never tried it.

 

Can anyone shed any light upon this lens for me please?

 

I am open to other suggestions too.

 

Adaptors:  both the Novoflex Leica and Nikon Sony E adaptors, so in theory, this opens up other Zeiss ZF lenses, but am I correct is saying these lenses are physically bigger than the ZM Leica variants?

 

Lastly, being new here, is there any software that corrects some of the errors in the Leica 28 and even the 35 that i should be aware of?

 

Thank you in advance.

 

 

[addicted2light]

Ok, I'll try to answer in some kind of order.

 

1) yes, there are at least two softwares (both of them free) that can correct the color shift of the 28mm. In both cases you will have to generate a profile for your lens, but this generally involves just shooting a blank piece of white paper or a clear overcast sky (completely overcast, i.e. a "blank" sky, not one where you can spot the clouds):

   

    > CornerFix

     http://sourceforge.net/projects/cornerfix/

   

     > Lightroom "DNG Flat field" plugin

     http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroomplugins/

 

 

2) the Sony 28/2 looks like a steal at that price, and it is AF and one full stop faster than the Leica; you could just buy one and returning for a refund should you not like it (assuming you bought it from Amazon, B&H etc.)

 

3) Biogon optical schemes are well known to perform rather poorly on digital sensors, for example the excellent (on film) Contax G 28/2.8 looks horrible on the A7 serie sensors (smearing, color shifts)

 

4) Zeiss ZF lenses are way bigger than the ZM variant; they are made for Nikon DSLR, and I think (I don't have the actual sizes at hand) they are even bigger than Contax glass (their "dad", so to speak)

[Guest all8]

I have also the Leica 28mm f2.8 and since it works not so well ... I ordered a Batis 25mm in July ... and I'm still waiting for that one!

 

The Batis 25mm might be the best E-mount alternative, the Sony 28mm is more affordable, and the new Milvus range seems quite reasonable ... it might end up being the best option of all.

 

Then there are all the adapted lenses, some good, some not. My take, if its important to you then get the real deal, otherwise be realistic with expectations ... an adapted $30-3000 lens might work better than the Leica 28mm, but the Sony 28mm is probably better again ... and also the recent offerings from Zeiss. Its a $3000 camera after all ... 

[Gilgenberg]

i have also the Leica 28mm 2.8 on A7 and corners and sides are soft and have color cast

 

very good is the Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 MDII ..... i like it very much

 

i think all lenses that are build for SLR´s with Mirrors are working great on A7

 

i would go for a new Sony Lens that are designed for the A7

the FE 28mm f2, or Zeiss Batis, or Zeiss Milvus, maybe wait for the new Loxia

 

but as told the Minolta MD 28mm 2.8 is a great and very cheap Lens ....I payed 13Euro for a new one!!!!

 

maybe my copy is very good 

[UnionCityBlues]

I confess to not having heard of the Loxia, but 1hr after posting my question, I too think this might well be an absolute gem from accounts.

[Gilgenberg]

the new Loxia could be a 21mm 2.8

and Milvus is also 21mm

[Golem]

i have also the Leica 28mm 2.8 on A7 and corners and sides are soft and have

color cast

 

very good is the Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 MDII ..... i like it very much

 

i think all lenses that are build for SLR´s with Mirrors are working great on A7

 

i would go for a new Sony Lens that are designed for the A7

the FE 28mm f2, or Zeiss Batis, or Zeiss Milvus, maybe wait for the new Loxia

 

but as told the Minolta MD 28mm 2.8 is a great and very cheap Lens ....

You've nailed the general idea. SLR lenses, aka retrofocus wideangles.

They shrink the gathered wideangle scene somewhere within the collection

of forward lens elements, and then the rear elements "parallelize" [not a

very scientific description, but functional] the bundle of rays that constitute

the image, and "stream" it back to the sensor from a longer distance than

the focal length would suggest.

 

Thus the ray bundle hits the sensor more squarely on, greatly reducing

the angular image delivery to the corners, which is what screws up the

image corners and edges when using lenses that gather and project their

image closer to the sensor.

 

I use nothing but Nikon mount retrofocus for my wide lenses. They are

not perfection for digital, but they have no serious problems.

 

`

[pfogle]

Love my Sony 28mm f2. Absolutely would not hesitate to use it on a paid gig.

 

IMO comparing lenses in microscopic detail is a waste of time and resources (though it makes a nice hobby). I've never, in 40 years working, had a picture rejected because of poor image quality from the glass.

 

Had lots rejected cos I messed up

[Golem]

In ZeisSpeak, "Distagon" means "Retrofocus"

["Dist" = "Distance" ... from film/sensor].

 

A Biogon is the opposite of a Distagon. Bad.

 

Hasselblad offered two choices for lenses of

about 39mm. The 40 Distagon was mammoth

and it mounted on the normal Blad SLR, the

same as the other Blad SLR lenses.

 

OTOH the 38 Biogon was very compact and

sat so close to the film that it could not be

fitted onto the Blad SLR body. The Distagon

has a regular bayonet rear end to fit it onto

the SLR body. The Biogon has a square rear

end that fits it directly onto a standard Blad

film back, completely bypassing the SLR body.

 

Consider the Zeiss 50 Distagon for A7 series

Sonys. Historically, a 50mm normal lens for a

24x36mm frame was never a retrofocus, even

when the 24x36 camera was an SLR. But for

the Sony 24x36 camera, with its shallow body,

the very idea of a retrofocus normal lens could

at first glance seem absurd. But them Klevver

Krautz at Zeiss wanted to offer the utmost IQ,

price no object, so they used the Distagon's

looooong rear focus to get the image forming

light rays more perpendicular to the sensor.

Why for ? Cuz thaz how digital sensors like it :-)

 

 

`

[pfogle]

In ZeisSpeak, "Distagon" means "Retrofocus"

["Dist" = "Distance" ... from film/sensor].

 

A Biogon is the opposite of a Distagon. Bad.

 

Hasselblad offered two choices for lenses of

about 39mm. The 40 Distagon was mammoth

and it mounted on the normal Blad SLR, the

same as the other Blad SLR lenses.

 

OTOH the 38 Biogon was very compact and

sat so close to the film that it could not be

fitted onto the Blad SLR body. The Distagon

has a regular bayonet rear end to fit it onto

the SLR body. The Biogon has a square rear

end that fits it directly onto a standard Blad

film back, completely bypassing the SLR body.

 

Consider the Zeiss 50 Distagon for A7 series

Sonys. Historically, a 50mm normal lens for a

24x36mm frame was never a retrofocus, even

when the 24x36 camera was an SLR. But for

the Sony 24x36 camera, with its shallow body,

the very idea of a retrofocus normal lens could

at first glance seem absurd. But them Klevver

Krautz at Zeiss wanted to offer the utmost IQ,

price no object, so they used the Distagon's

looooong rear focus to get the image forming

light rays more perpendicular to the sensor.

Why for ? Cuz thaz how digital sensors like it :-)

 

 

`

This is interesting and makes sense. The downside, I guess, is that the lenses are less symmetric, and so probably a bit harder to correct. Retro-focus was definitely a downer in the film era - lenses were heavier, had more distortion often. Now digital has changed everything! I used to think a 21mm biogon was magic from heaven!

[Michael_j]

I have the Zeiss ZM Biogon 28mm f2.8. I use it as my standard lens on my Leica M8 (1.3x crop) and it is excellent. I have used it on the Sony A7 and as far as I can remember it is fine but I can't identify any pictures I took with it as no EXIF data is recorded and I don't keep notes. It's quite light and compact and I use it with a close focus adaptor.

 

I could take some pics with it on the A7 if you want to see examples but not today as we have quite thick fog.

[JimmyD]

UnionCityBlues:

 

I have both the Sony 28mm f2 and the Zeiss Batis 25 f2. Like pfogle said, the Sony 28mm is great and at $500US is IMHO the best lens value out there for the A7 series cameras. The remarkable Batis is better overall optically and is the best wide angle for the A7 series period, but is a lot more expensive, and 95% of the time the choice between the two lenses is probably focal length and portability. Loxia 35mm f2 different charater but also fantastic, and now we all new the new Loxia is in fact 21mm f2.8. Lots of great choices now.

[pjpo98]

If you have been using a 28mm on 1.3x, then why are you not looking for a 35mm? The small but pricey and excellent Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 should be your huckleberry. But then if you are coming from Leica, it is cheap.

[JimmyD]

Union City Blues has the full frame A7R; it was Michael_j who has a 1.3 crop camera (Lecia M8) . . .

 

Not cheap, but if you are used to manual focus the Loxia 35 f/2 produces great colors and has a more classical rendering (less clinical) that the Sony/Zeiss 35mm f/28.