[les3547]

I just got a copy of the Carl Zeiss 100mm f 2.0 Planar T* lens, and I am super impressed with it. It is yielding better images than some of my lens that cost three or four times as much!

Now since this is the club for Zeiss users and experts, please tell me what my next Zeiss lens should be, something between 35mm and 85mm, not interested in long telephotos. I should note that I already have medium format lenses CZJ 80, 120, and 180, and that I am not interested in telephotos or super wide lenses. Other than that, myt only criteria is image quality.

If this request provokes discussion, that is fine too.

You might notice some hesitation of members to offer opinions, I know for me it's because lens choice is intimately tied to personal taste and therefore it is hard to know what to recommend to others. With that in mind I can say I have tried just about every Zeiss lens made in PK mount, plus others that were Leitax adapted, and have formed some opinions.

One is that while color, micro contrast, solid sharpness and build are more or less consistent in modern Zeiss lenses, there are nonetheless several "looks" people admire (or dislike). For example, there are lenses that are mega sharp, like the 21/2.8 and the macros, and those that render edges more gently like a Leitaxed 135/2. Some reviewers, like this one, say the 28/2 "suffers' from field curvature and downgrade it for that, but for others like this reviewer that trait is actually sought after because its “cinematic” character can be used to make a centered subject jump out in 3-D fashion (personally I agree with Ming Thein).

For me a softer edge rendering (acutance) is my preference, which is why the 135/2 and 25/2 were my all time favorite Zeiss lenses, and it is also why I sold my Zeiss 21/2.8 and macro 50. Yet I ended up selling the 135 and 25 too because of other priorities I have in terms of size/weight, and the focal lengths at which I typically shoot. The 135 is truly a masterpiece with high resolution without razor edges, rich color, beautiful bokeh, and no distortion. But it’s bigger and heavier than I want to carry. The 25/2 is fairly hefty too, but the main reason I gave that one up is because I shoot mostly above 50mm.

Still, IMHO, everyone needs a fast 35 prime in their kit, which is why I’ve kept my 35/2, and even that I’ve had up for sale several times, but so far have withdrawn. It is not as compact as I want, but I can’t find anything that fits my priorities as well except for a Leica 35/2 I’d have to Leitax and pay dearly for. I have a Leica 35-70 zoom, which is the best zoom I’ve ever tried (and it’s particularly good at 35mm, and relatively lightweight), but it is just f4. So for now I’m keeping Zeiss 35 (and actually for a Zeiss the 35/2 is relatively compact). One other Zeiss I’m keeping for my “true” wide angle is the Contax 28/2.8 (as wide as I ever shoot). That little thing is a close-focusing beauty, and quite the bargain for mint copies on Ebay.

All the rest of my lenses are compact gems. After Leica I’ve found the Voigtlanders are well suited to my priorities. I had a chance to test the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 against the CV 58/1.4. Opened up until F4 where they equaled out, the Voigtlander trounced the Zeiss resolution-wise (though, to be accurate, I thought the Zeiss slightly bested the CV in terms of micro contrast from F4 onward). Voigtlander’s 75 is a tiny color-rich lens that thinks it's a Leica, and the relatively compact CV 125, while exquisitely sharp doing macro, actually renders a lot like the Zeiss 135 at further distances. Now, if the 135 were the same size, I might choose it over the CV125 for its slightly better color; but then, the 125’s close-focusing ability makes it capable of smoother bokeh than the 135/2 despite being a half stop slower and 10mm shorter in FL . . . i.e., it's a bit of a toss up when it comes to IQ alone.

So, after all that what Zeiss would I recommend that would fit into your parameters? The 35/2 of course! Unless, that is, you don’t mind a bulkier and pricier option, which would be to Leitax a ZF.2 Zeiss 35/1.4. I’ve not tried it but the shots I’ve seen are impressive.

[Coiseam]

I just got a copy of the Carl Zeiss 100mm f 2.0 Planar T* lens, and I am super impressed with it. It is yielding better images than some of my lens that cost three or four times as much!

Now since this is the club for Zeiss users and experts, please tell me what my next Zeiss lens should be, something between 35mm and 85mm, not interested in long telephotos. I should note that I already have medium format lenses CZJ 80, 120, and 180, and that I am not interested in telephotos or super wide lenses. Other than that, myt only criteria is image quality.

If this request provokes discussion, that is fine too.

I own Zeiss 28 2, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4. Hard to give an advice, both 3 are just different. I adore 50 1.4, it's rather soft wide open, but colours and rendering are fantastic.

[ivanvernon]

You might notice some hesitation of members to offer opinions, I know for me it's because lens choice is intimately tied to personal taste and therefore it is hard to know what to recommend to others. With that in mind I can say I have tried just about every Zeiss lens made in PK mount, plus others that were Leitax adapted, and have formed some opinions.

One is that while color, micro contrast, solid sharpness and build are more or less consistent in modern Zeiss lenses, there are nonetheless several "looks" people admire (or dislike). For example, there are lenses that are mega sharp, like the 21/2.8 and the macros, and those that render edges more gently like a Leitaxed 135/2. Some reviewers, like this one, say the 28/2 "suffers' from field curvature and downgrade it for that, but for others like this reviewer that trait is actually sought after because its “cinematic” character can be used to make a centered subject jump out in 3-D fashion (personally I agree with Ming Thein).

For me a softer edge rendering (acutance) is my preference, which is why the 135/2 and 25/2 were my all time favorite Zeiss lenses, and it is also why I sold my Zeiss 21/2.8 and macro 50. Yet I ended up selling the 135 and 25 too because of other priorities I have in terms of size/weight, and the focal lengths at which I typically shoot. The 135 is truly a masterpiece with high resolution without razor edges, rich color, beautiful bokeh, and no distortion. But it’s bigger and heavier than I want to carry. The 25/2 is fairly hefty too, but the main reason I gave that one up is because I shoot mostly above 50mm.

Still, IMHO, everyone needs a fast 35 prime in their kit, which is why I’ve kept my 35/2, and even that I’ve had up for sale several times, but so far have withdrawn. It is not as compact as I want, but I can’t find anything that fits my priorities as well except for a Leica 35/2 I’d have to Leitax and pay dearly for. I have a Leica 35-70 zoom, which is the best zoom I’ve ever tried (and it’s particularly good at 35mm, and relatively lightweight), but it is just f4. So for now I’m keeping Zeiss 35 (and actually for a Zeiss the 35/2 is relatively compact). One other Zeiss I’m keeping for my “true” wide angle is the Contax 28/2.8 (as wide as I ever shoot). That little thing is a close-focusing beauty, and quite the bargain for mint copies on Ebay.

All the rest of my lenses are compact gems. After Leica I’ve found the Voigtlanders are well suited to my priorities. I had a chance to test the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 against the CV 58/1.4. Opened up until F4 where they equaled out, the Voigtlander trounced the Zeiss resolution-wise (though, to be accurate, I thought the Zeiss slightly bested the CV in terms of micro contrast from F4 onward). Voigtlander’s 75 is a tiny color-rich lens that thinks it's a Leica, and the relatively compact CV 125, while exquisitely sharp doing macro, actually renders a lot like the Zeiss 135 at further distances. Now, if the 135 were the same size, I might choose it over the CV125 for its slightly better color; but then, the 125’s close-focusing ability makes it capable of smoother bokeh than the 135/2 despite being a half stop slower and 10mm shorter in FL . . . i.e., it's a bit of a toss up when it comes to IQ alone.

So, after all that what Zeiss would I recommend that would fit into your parameters? The 35/2 of course! Unless, that is, you don’t mind a bulkier and pricier option, which would be to Leitax a ZF.2 Zeiss 35/1.4. I’ve not tried it but the shots I’ve seen are impressive.

Thank you very, very much for your well-reasoned, well-qualified, and careful explanation of your views about the various Zeiss lenses. Your comments come across as the distillation of many years of photography, thought, and consideration. I will read this over and over, but of course still do not know the best lens to buy, so perhaps it will be the 35/2 or the 135/2.

[les3547]

. . . perhaps it will be the 35/2 or the 135/2.

Well, I would have recommended the 135 if your original post hadn't said "something between 35mm and 85mm." I loved its IQ and focal length but I could not seem to steady it without a tripod. I was after a med. telephoto I also could use walking around. Things are quite different with the CV 125 because of how it perfectly balances with my K-1. That's not to suggest the 35/2 isn't brilliant. Its reputation as one of the best Zeiss lenses ever is well deserved, and the ability to focus within a foot of a subject plus its high resolution at F2 makes the 35/2 a fantastic wide bokeh tool.

[ivanvernon]

Well, I would have recommended the 135 if your original post hadn't said "something between 35mm and 85mm." I loved its IQ and focal length but I could not seem to steady it without a tripod. I was after a med. telephoto I also could use walking around. Things are quite different with the CV 125 because of how it perfectly balances with my K-1. That's not to suggest the 35/2 isn't brilliant. Its reputation as one of the best Zeiss lenses ever is well deserved, and the ability to focus within a foot of a subject plus its high resolution at F2 makes the 35/2 a fantastic wide bokeh tool.

Your comments and other review comments that I have read about the 135/2 remind me of the Pentax 77 which prioritizes rendering over sharpness to glorious effect--not that I know much about the 77, my wife having stolen it from me several years ago and adamantly refuses to let me retrieve her "magic" lens. I am also on the track of an "as is" 35/1.4 with scratched front glass and no mount but ready for leitexing. I am the worst kind of photographer, one who collects quality lenses and does not use them enough. Once I began collecting Pentax 67 lenses, I had to have them all--except the 35 fisheye and a couple in the 400-800 range. Therefore it is not unusual that I should have specified a specific focal length range, only to become immediately enamored of a lens of a focal length xtotally outside that range!

[Coiseam]

Zeiss Distagon 28 2 ZK, f16, Pentax K-5 IIs

[ivanvernon]

I just won a Zeiss T* 50mm f 1.4 Planar lens for one-third of usual prices . . . but it is coming in with an unknown (to seller) Leitax mount conversion kit installed. I will either search out the appropriate adapter to use the lens on the K-1 or install a K-mount Leitax conversion kit on it to replace the existing one. Most likely I will probably start out with an adapter when I figure out which Leitax kit is installed, and then perhaps later spend the big bucks to remove the existing Leitax kit and install a Pentax Leitax kit in its place for a permanent conversion if the adapter approach does not work well.

Does anyone recognize the mount that is on it now? Any thoughts or ideas gratefully appreciated. Here is the eBay listing with photos:



Carl Zeiss T* 50mm f/1.4 Planar Lens w/ Leitax Adapter | eBay


Read more at: Your latest acquisition - PentaxForums.com

[les3547]

I just won a Zeiss T* 50mm f 1.4 Planar lens for one-third of usual prices . . . but it is coming in with an unknown (to seller) Leitax mount conversion kit installed. I will either search out the appropriate adapter to use the lens on the K-1 or install a K-mount Leitax conversion kit on it to replace the existing one. Most likely I will probably start out with an adapter when I figure out which Leitax kit is installed, and then perhaps later spend the big bucks to remove the existing Leitax kit and install a Pentax Leitax kit in its place for a permanent conversion if the adapter approach does not work well.

Does anyone recognize the mount that is on it now? Any thoughts or ideas gratefully appreciated. Here is the eBay listing with photos:



Carl Zeiss T* 50mm f/1.4 Planar Lens w/ Leitax Adapter | eBay


Read more at: Your latest acquisition - PentaxForums.com

You can email David Llado at Leitax and send along a picture of the mount, he can tell you. Do you know the lens you bought is a Contax lens? I ask because of what you said about it being 1/3 the price, but the price you paid is about right considering it's Leitaxed. It is a still a nice lens, but if you are disappointed at least the seller offers 30 free returns (I've taken advantage of that a couple of time trying out lenses).

[ivanvernon]

You can email David Llado at Leitax and send along a picture of the mount, he can tell you. Do you know the lens you bought is a Contax lens? I ask because of what you said about it being 1/3 the price, but the price you paid is about right considering it's Leitaxed. It is a still a nice lens, but if you are disappointed at least the seller offers 30 free returns (I've taken advantage of that a couple of time trying out lenses).

Thanks for your great advice, and I have already contacted David Llado.

[ivanvernon]

Here are a few random shots with the K-1 and Carl Zeiss 100mm f 2.0 Planar macro T*

[Tas]

K1 with the Distagon T* 2/35 ZK



Tas

[Tas]

Another image captured around the same time as the above with the K1 and the Distagon 2/35mm. A Dad turned up pushing an empty pram and two daughters who he sat down on a bench in front of the artist. They sat there quietly for a couple of minutes then nest thing you know it's Flashdance all over again.



Tas

[Neuse River Sailor]

Here are a few random shots with the K-1 and Carl Zeiss 100mm f 2.0 Planar macro T*

Quite a pile of firewood there, looks like mulberry. We snagged a couple of mulberry rounds, milled them out and used them for inlay in a cedar box. Since it has nothing to do with Carl Zeiss lenses, I won't post a picture here, but if anyone would like to see what a beautiful wood mulberry is for cabinetmaking, check this out:

https://www.woodshop.neuseriversailors.com/cedar_mulberry_box_20180813_DSCF4265.jpg

Another:

https://www.woodshop.neuseriversailors.com/mulberry_box_20180616.jpg

[ivanvernon]

Quite a pile of firewood there, looks like mulberry. We snagged a couple of mulberry rounds, milled them out and used them for inlay in a cedar box. Since it has nothing to do with Carl Zeiss lenses, I won't post a picture here, but if anyone would like to see what a beautiful wood mulberry is for cabinetmaking, check this out:

https://www.woodshop.neuseriversailors.com/cedar_mulberry_box_20180813_DSCF4265.jpg

Another:

https://www.woodshop.neuseriversailors.com/mulberry_box_20180616.jpg

I checked out your beautiful woodwork--very nice indeed. Our yellow wood, however, is of a kind variously called Osage Orange or Bois d'Arc. This is a native American tree renowned for its toughness, hardness, durability, and longevity. It was used by American Indians for bows, and is a great firewood because of its high heat content.

[Neuse River Sailor]

Our yellow wood, however, is of a kind variously called Osage Orange or Bois d'Arc.

I've heard of Osage Orange, that it is fine cabinetmaking wood, but have never seen or used it. Turns out it is in the same family as mulberry, Maclura. One of the best things about Pentax Forums is seeing pictures of things that would be unusual in my stretch of the woods, like big stacks of Osage Orange ready for the stove.