[georgweb]

Kevin/Ibam,
that lens don't look too bad, I'd love to have such a quality wide prime.

Here's yet another try to conform to the topic, Zeiss on Pentax and bokeh. Still no ZK though.

That's Hinman's football lens, don't tell him how great it is :-)

Best, Georg (the other)

---

Last edited by georgweb; 11-19-2008 at 09:12 AM.

[thePiRaTE!!]

Kevin/Ibam,
that lens don't look too bad, I'd love to have such a quality wide prime.

Here's yet another try to conform to the topic, Zeiss on Pentax and bokeh. Still no ZK though...

haha, no problem Georg, its seems the ZK would be a lonely club by itself afterall. Might as well open it up to everything Zeiss/Pentax I think. btw, is that the 180? Interesting shot.

Here's a couple from my copy of the Zeiss ZK 25mm f2.8

Close up (shot at f3.5)


and landscape (shot at f8)

Hooray! Glad to see another 25 in the field. Nice contrast and sharpness, processing is very punchy too. Do you think you'll get a lot of mileage out of your 25? One thing I noted with this guy is that it definately has sweet spots, but it has more than one. A lot of lenses do one thing well and are limited to certain roles. Stopped down, this one does wide angle with the best of them yet can do quasi-macro to high levels from any aperture, multi-talented.

[georgweb]

Kelly the Pirate! said:
Might as well open it up to everything Zeiss/Pentax I think.

There is already one thread about Zeiss M42 lenses on Pentax. You could ask for dedicated bokeh shots in order to satisfy your lust for extreme bokeh :-)

Kelly the Pirate! wrote:
Btw, is that the 180? Interesting shot.

Thanks, yep that's the one. Very inconspicuous lens, front cap on the hood is only 112mm :-)


And here is one last shot (how many times did I say this) from that lens which is often referred to as the reference for 'normal' bokeh.

Zeiss CZJ Sonnar 2.8/180 1Q Zebra on K100D. No crop, highlights only

Keep showing your stuff, very animating!
Georg (the other)

[lbam]

I think I'll certainly got a lot of millage out of the 25mm. I found the DA 35 macro limited was a great alround lens for the street stuff I like to shoot, and the 25mm gives me a little more width with only a slight loss in close up ability (distance wise).
In terms of sharpness, well I used a larger monitor to view some of my 25mm shots this morning and they were easily capable of being blown up to 36x24" in my opinion, so I think the lens has great resolving power. At f8 it's sharp and very contrasty.
My pics on here have obviously been tampered with, and their small size doesn't do the original files justice, so it's hard to believe perhaps unless you seem them LARGE.
Having said this I should do the same with some of my other lenses as the 25mm is not my only quality glass...

I'm keeping the lens for sure, I love it.

[augustmoon]

After getting the Voigtlander Nokton 58, and then thus deciding to forge ahead with a set of Zeiss primes (already decided on the 100 Makro)

I want to deceide between the two, forgive me, but as these lenses aren't readily available anywhere locally, it makes it tough to try them out.

It's also hard to trust even the specs when the 25mm is listed as having a 7.5 inch minimum focusing distance, but that is incorrect, so hard to know what other specs are or are not correct about either.

So, anyway would appreciate feedback from others who have tried one or the other (doubt both?) or have done more research than I about these two lenses.


Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon T*

Zeiss 25mm f/2.8

I know Kelly has the 25mm and seems very happy with it.

Looking for a lens that I can use close up (not macro, just wanna get in close) I want to get good distance between the subject and background, (at least closer than the FA43 and FA31) some flowers, some nature, some around the streets.

Also curious as how either of theses lenses render detail at infinity, as that would be part of the usage, in some landscape or nature scenes that have landscape detail in the background sometimes. As I would be selling off the FA31 and DA35 to justify adding this lens into the mix.

[lbam]

Lol, I had similar thoughts...

I wanted to choose between the ZK 28mm and 31mm limited...

I used copy of the ZK 25mm came up on ebay so I grabbed it.


I think the 28mm is known to be a little sharper across the whole frame on a full frame camera compared to the 25mm when aperture is wide open, but less of an issue with an aps-c camera (K20D), and obviously is an f2 rather than f2.8
The 28mm also incorporates a floating lens element unlike the 25mm, supposedly giving better focus at both ends of the scale (wide or infinity), I'm not complaining about mine right now!
The 28mm is probably more expensive because of this increased complexity and the reputation of it's Contax forbears (check them out for around $3700 on ebay lol), or the Zeiss 28mm f2 "hollywood"... it's been on the market less time too.
Now I think this is WAY too extreme... it's probably reputation and demand way exceeding supply.
I also haven't found one single site that's compared either the 25mm or 28mm directly against the 31mm on the same body.
Exception being Kelly... please link me if you know one..

I don't even want to fully believe the 25mm always renders better than the DA35mm yet, until I get round to doing some kind of shoot out (I think my time is best spent doing other things right now).
All I can say is we're lucky to have the choices we have, keep up the good work Pentax with the 31mm, and DA35mm and Contax with the "Zeiss" ZK's.

Here's a great review site that I'm not sure many people use...

Home - Digital SLR Lens and Camera Reviews

Each time I go there I add one more vote for tests on Pentax lenses (see caption on right of home page), if we all do the same maybe the guy will buy or borrow a K20D and do some Pentax limited lens tests

He also does a few lens shoot outs too... sadly none including Pentax glass as (I assume) it's not so easily placed on a Canon body.



Rant over..

[lbam]

Georg, you keep reminding me.. I really should compare my $40 (M42)Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f2.4 against the DA 35mm also... but I keep finding other things to do (like taking pictures), other than opening up the Flektogon to attempt again to release it's sticky aperture blades.

It's better than it used to be after the first attempt, but still not perfect.

[thePiRaTE!!]

After getting the Voigtlander Nokton 58, and then thus deciding to forge ahead with a set of Zeiss primes (already decided on the 100 Makro)

I want to deceide between the two, forgive me, but as these lenses aren't readily available anywhere locally, it makes it tough to try them out.

It's also hard to trust even the specs when the 25mm is listed as having a 7.5 inch minimum focusing distance, but that is incorrect, so hard to know what other specs are or are not correct about either.

So, anyway would appreciate feedback from others who have tried one or the other (doubt both?) or have done more research than I about these two lenses.


Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon T*

Zeiss 25mm f/2.8

I know Kelly has the 25mm and seems very happy with it.

Looking for a lens that I can use close up (not macro, just wanna get in close) I want to get good distance between the subject and background, (at least closer than the FA43 and FA31) some flowers, some nature, some around the streets.

Also curious as how either of theses lenses render detail at infinity, as that would be part of the usage, in some landscape or nature scenes that have landscape detail in the background sometimes. As I would be selling off the FA31 and DA35 to justify adding this lens into the mix.

I tried the 28/2 for only about 20 minutes in and around the local camera store and really liked it. I liked it too much for being almost identical to the 25 in many respects. The 28 is like the straight A brother to an alternative, artistic slacker that is the 25. As Kevin mentioned, there is a corrective floating element in the 28 to help flatten the field at closer focus distances, so you can close focus pretty well with the 28 with nice clean results, though not as close as the 25. The 25 skipped this element apparently which gives it certain super powers and weaknesses. It focuses to 0.17m (from the sensor plane) basically an inch and a half from the end of the extended outer element. It has a magnification of 1:2.3 life scale, which is more macro than many advertised macro lenses (and only .3 farther than the makro planars at 1:2). Its super you can do this, and as is always the case with the 25, it is very sharp even wide open in the center of the frame. The closer you get to minimum distance, the less the corners hold and the more distortion takes over. Its the trade off of the lack of floating element as I understand it.

It is a fine landscape lens, though at infinity I find sharpness is noteably improved by stopping down. I shot the 31 and 25 from fully open to f11 and scrutnized what I saw. The 31 is sharper faster on the aperture scale at infinity and is better in low light. The closer in you get to your subject, the better the 25 became until it was sharper at equal apertures to the 31 at the 31s mfd (0.45m). The 31 is very normal. Very good, but very normal. The 25 is a mad scientist. It does things no other lens will do (and for reasons, lol.) Zeiss took a risk with this one, did something different. Its unique, and still very sharp. The 28 is the same ride but with the seat belt on, though I would have chewed off my arm for the 25 to be f2 also.

[augustmoon]

Lol, I had similar thoughts...

I wanted to choose between the ZK 28mm and 31mm limited...

I used copy of the ZK 25mm came up on ebay so I grabbed it.

I think the 28mm is known to be a little sharper across the whole frame on a full frame camera compared to the 25mm when aperture is wide open, but less of an issue with an aps-c camera (K20D), and obviously is an f2 rather than f2.8
The 28mm also incorporates a floating lens element unlike the 25mm, supposedly giving better focus at both ends of the scale (wide or infinity), I'm not complaining about mine right now!
The 28mm is probably more expensive because of this increased complexity and the reputation of it's Contax forbears (check them out for around $3700 on ebay lol), or the Zeiss 28mm f2 "hollywood"... it's been on the market less time too.
Now I think this is WAY too extreme... it's probably reputation and demand way exceeding supply.
I also haven't found one single site that's compared either the 25mm or 28mm directly against the 31mm on the same body.
Exception being Kelly... please link me if you know one..

I don't even want to fully believe the 25mm always renders better than the DA35mm yet, until I get round to doing some kind of shoot out (I think my time is best spent doing other things right now).
All I can say is we're lucky to have the choices we have, keep up the good work Pentax with the 31mm, and DA35mm and Contax with the "Zeiss" ZK's.

Here's a great review site that I'm not sure many people use...

Home - Digital SLR Lens and Camera Reviews

Each time I go there I add one more vote for tests on Pentax lenses (see caption on right of home page), if we all do the same maybe the guy will buy or borrow a K20D and do some Pentax limited lens tests

He also does a few lens shoot outs too... sadly none including Pentax glass as (I assume) it's not so easily placed on a Canon body.

Rant over..

Thank you for the great reply... I don't mind having all the lenses I have and adding some more, I just keep hoping I will find one super lens (regardless of price) that replaces 2 or 3 or 4, but that's my hang-up... Thanks for explaining the difference of the floating element.

Thanks for the link, that is a good review site, if only they had more Pentax K, but I voted anyhow.

I tried the 28/2 for only about 20 minutes in and around the local camera store and really liked it. I liked it too much for being almost identical to the 25 in many respects. The 28 is like the straight A brother to an alternative, artistic slacker that is the 25. As Kevin mentioned, there is a corrective floating element in the 28 to help flatten the field at closer focus distances, so you can close focus pretty well with the 28 with nice clean results, though not as close as the 25. The 25 skipped this element apparently which gives it certain super powers and weaknesses. It focuses to 0.17m (from the sensor plane) basically an inch and a half from the end of the extended outer element. It has a magnification of 1:2.3 life scale, which is more macro than many advertised macro lenses (and only .3 farther than the makro planars at 1:2). Its super you can do this, and as is always the case with the 25, it is very sharp even wide open in the center of the frame. The closer you get to minimum distance, the less the corners hold and the more distortion takes over. Its the trade off of the lack of floating element as I understand it.

It is a fine landscape lens, though at infinity I find sharpness is noteably improved by stopping down. I shot the 31 and 25 from fully open to f11 and scrutnized what I saw. The 31 is sharper faster on the aperture scale at infinity and is better in low light. The closer in you get to your subject, the better the 25 became until it was sharper at equal apertures to the 31 at the 31s mfd (0.45m). The 31 is very normal. Very good, but very normal. The 25 is a mad scientist. It does things no other lens will do (and for reasons, lol.) Zeiss took a risk with this one, did something different. Its unique, and still very sharp. The 28 is the same ride but with the seat belt on, though I would have chewed off my arm for the 25 to be f2 also.

Thanks for the detailed and informative reply! I guess I was hoping for the artistic slacker who can get straight A's when prodded. Clinical and sharp stopped down at 8 to 11, slightly unique at 5.6 and mad artsy open to f4. Kinda like a wider and more extreme version of the FA43 I have.

I wouldn't be using this lens as a macro, so close focusing does not need to be sharp corner to corner, so I doubt the floating element will enhance what I want to do with it. I like some artsy character wide open and close up, as long as the center is clean. But then hoping for critical sharpness at infinity around 8 to 11 for some landscape stuff.

I was looking at some of your recent work with the Zeiss 25, and what I saw resembles more of what I want to get back into with the perspective between the subject and background, its isolation, the bokeh. Except along time ago I used to do it with 4x5 and 8x10 cameras.

Hmmmm.... I have the Zeiss 100 Makro on the way, so just to decide between the 25 and 28.... (cant get both because i still have yet to get the 60-250) Thanks!

[FDM]

Unfortunately I haven't been following this forum for a while. It was a very pleasant surprise to find this excellent thread when I returned, with many great photos taken with Zeiss glass.
I started using Zeiss with a Contax 167MT, back in the times of 35mm film. Then I turned to digital and got a K10D. More recently, thanks to Leitax converters, I've been able to adapt some old Zeisses to Pentax K mount and I it has been wonderful being able to use these lenses again!

I wonder if there are other former Zeiss C/Y mount users reading this?

--
My photography blog: Exposing pixels

[thePiRaTE!!]

Unfortunately I haven't been following this forum for a while. It was a very pleasant surprise to find this excellent thread when I returned, with many great photos taken with Zeiss glass.
I started using Zeiss with a Contax 167MT, back in the times of 35mm film. Then I turned to digital and got a K10D. More recently, thanks to Leitax converters, I've been able to adapt some old Zeisses to Pentax K mount and I it has been wonderful being able to use these lenses again!

I wonder if there are other former Zeiss C/Y mount users reading this?

--
My photography blog: Exposing pixels

Hi there. In your blog the Sonnar appears to be a great performer, and perhaps others here will find your 25mm Distagon pics informative as well. It would be interesting to hear of your experience implementing the adapters. Was it fairly straight forward to install the kits? FWIW, I have a 75/1.5 Biotar in Contax mount on the way to me as we speak, and a homemade adapter for the mount to K also coming from a generous soul at MFlenses. Mild surgery will be involved on my part to restore infinity, I'll be looking forward to sharing results.

[FDM]

It would be interesting to hear of your experience implementing the adapters. Was it fairly straight forward to install the kits?

Switching the bayonets is relatively simple. My only problem was in removing the original bayonet screws, which were tightly glued in some cases. Everything else went smoothly. So now I am the proud owner of four converted Zeiss-Contax lenses: Distagon 25/2.8, Planar 50/1.4, Sonnar 85/2.8 and Sonnar 135/2.8.

Note that the replacement bayonets are available for most MM versions, but only for the AE version of the Planar 50/1.7 and the Japanese AE version of the Sonnar 85/2.8.
As I mention a couple of times in the blog, my only disappointment was that my good old Planar 85/1.4 could not be converted...

[hinman]

This is my most proud Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 in Pentacon 6 mount and I got 2 copies from Adi in PF marketplace with a M42 adapter. I call it my Zebra Football lens.

Dimensions:

• weight: 1100g or 2.42lb
• filter: 95mm
• lens cap: 119mm after lens hood

Any Pentaxian owning this lens, please share your moments. This lens make me taller when I carry it around. It is a proud lens with rich history in 1930's when the Nazi used it with an adapter for telescope use in Olympic game. It is made in Germany.

Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 (m42)



Test Pictures with many in f/2.8
but I forget which one


#1



#2



#3



#4



#5

Due to its weight and dimensions, this is probably the most difficult m42 lens that I have tried in hand-holding.

[augustmoon]

Unfortunately I haven't been following this forum for a while. It was a very pleasant surprise to find this excellent thread when I returned, with many great photos taken with Zeiss glass.
I started using Zeiss with a Contax 167MT, back in the times of 35mm film. Then I turned to digital and got a K10D. More recently, thanks to Leitax converters, I've been able to adapt some old Zeisses to Pentax K mount and I it has been wonderful being able to use these lenses again!

I wonder if there are other former Zeiss C/Y mount users reading this?

--
My photography blog: Exposing pixels

Interesting reading your blog.... OK, now I have to try this with an old Leica Lens (Elmarit 35) I'm afraid this is going to open a new can of worms here, and perhaps a new Leica lens or CY, MM threads....

Thanks for the info on the bayonet kits

[FDM]

Interesting reading your blog.... OK, now I have to try this with an old Leica Lens (Elmarit 35) I'm afraid this is going to open a new can of worms here, and perhaps a new Leica lens or CY, MM threads....

I think you should open that can! I would love to have an old Leica to put in front of my K10D! Unfortunately, Leicas seem to be expensive even in the used market, while many C/Y Zeisses are quite affordable. Now, whether a Zeiss is equivalent to a Leica, that's a whole other can of worms...