[eleventhirteen83]

I am looking to purchase one Zeiss lens in the focal length range of 28 to 35mm.
These two excellent lenses came across and now I have to make decision.
I had 31mm limited lens till now and the new Zeiss will replace the 31mm limited (I know it was really tough decision).
Any suggestions or insights in these two lenses?

Thank you.

[Fontan]

I am looking to purchase one Zeiss lens in the focal length range of 28 to 35mm.
These two excellent lenses came across and now I have to make decision.
I had 31mm limited lens till now and the new Zeiss will replace the 31mm limited (I know it was really tough decision).
Any suggestions or insights in these two lenses?

Thank you.

I say you go with 35/2. HaHa. It is sitting on my desk with your name on it!!!

[eleventhirteen83]

Will I get a discount for a returning customer?

[dunerunner]

I have the 35/2 and love it. Can't speak about the 28 as I only know what I have heard from others which is excellent. I own the 25/2.8 and really like it too, it's close foucusing abilities make it kind of unique for a moderate wide lens. To me it would boil down to do you want the wider angle of the 28 and any price difference. It's all good

[DogLover]

I've only ever read of one person that didn't like the 35, (and it may have been Fontan, who posted above and is apparently selling his) so I'd discount that as an outlier. I've got the 28 and prefer it over the FA31. I've read that the 35 is a little easier to focus, but I don't find the 28 hard, either. All the ZK's are quite good, just pick the FL that appeals most to you. The 35 is a bit cheaper, too.

[Fontan]

I've only ever read of one person that didn't like the 35, (and it may have been Fontan, who posted above and is apparently selling his) so I'd discount that as an outlier. I've got the 28 and prefer it over the FA31. I've read that the 35 is a little easier to focus, but I don't find the 28 hard, either. All the ZK's are quite good, just pick the FL that appeals most to you. The 35 is a bit cheaper, too.

Hey, hey, hey I only bad mouth K-5, which I think was an embarrassment. :ugh:

Zeiss glasses are to me superior at just about every focal length (except in long long tells) that Pentax offers or used to offer, and this includes FA ltds and FA*'s and A*'s.

[DogLover]

Hey, hey, hey I only bad mouth K-5, which I think was an embarrassment. :ugh:

Zeiss glasses are to me superior at just about every focal length (except in long long tells) that Pentax offers or used to offer, and this includes FA ltds and FA*'s and A*'s.

Well, I said "may have" been you. I don't remember who it was, but it wasn't that long ago.

[Emacs]

Zeiss glasses are to me superior at just about every focal length

It's very doubtful statement. Actually for me it sounds like a pure BS, sorry
I only saw clear advantage at WA (18, 21)
I don't think the 25 f2.8 is better than FA* 24 (a friend of mine has a very good copy which is sharp at infinity from f4 across the frame).
For me the 31Ltd is better than 28 f2: I tried the CZ, I prefer the 31Ltd.
IMO CZ 50 just doesn't worth it's price. I will choose A 50 f1.2 without a doubt, as well as I prefer A* 85, FA* 85 and 77Ltd over the CZ 85 ZK. The latter is weak portrait performer. IMO they are the weakest with samyang 85 nowdays within other 85 f1.4s
Well, the CZ 100 is slightly better than DFA 100.
Pentax doesn't have 135 nowdays, but I don't find the alpha CZ 135 to be good portrait performer again. For example, I will choose canon's 135L every time.

[eleventhirteen83]

I have Zeiss 50mm 1.4 and got it at a pretty reasonable price (Similar to used FA43mm Limited). Albeit the Zeiss probably weights twice more than the 43, it is one stop faster and has really unique bokeh. I am moving away from auto focus lenses to complete manual focus lenses. Yes it takes about 4 times longer to shoot in MF than AF lenses (1. focus manually 2. Open Live View (4X) to check it. 3. shoot) but I do not feel like a robot when I take pictures.

I will be trying out the 35mm Zeiss from Fontan and will update you guys once I have my hands on it.

[DogLover]

It's very doubtful statement. Actually for me it sounds like a pure BS, sorry
I only saw clear advantage at WA (18, 21)
I don't think the 25 f2.8 is better than FA* 24 (a friend of mine has a very good copy which is sharp at infinity from f4 across the frame).
For me the 31Ltd is better than 28 f2: I tried the CZ, I prefer the 31Ltd.
IMO CZ 50 just doesn't worth it's price. I will choose A 50 f1.2 without a doubt, as well as I prefer A* 85, FA* 85 and 77Ltd over the CZ 85 ZK. The latter is weak portrait performer. IMO they are the weakest with samyang 85 nowdays within other 85 f1.4s
Well, the CZ 100 is slightly better than DFA 100.
Pentax doesn't have 135 nowdays, but I don't find the alpha CZ 135 to be good portrait performer again. For example, I will choose canon's 135L every time.

Well, as they say, opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one, and most of 'em stink. There are 2 ZK 50's, though, and it's hard to believe you would choose the A50/1.2 over the ZK 50/2, unless ultimate thin DoF was paramount. There's not a huge difference between the ZK 28/2 and the FA31. I prefer the former, you prefer the latter. No biggie. I've never tried the ZK 85 but I'm pleased enough with the FA77 that I don't feel any need to do so. I would say that the qualities that most people so admire with the ZK's are just not ones that float your particular boat.

[Emacs]

and it's hard to believe you would choose the A50/1.2 over the ZK 50/2…

I would not pay anything for any macro. I'm not interested in it at all. So, I would really choose A50/1.2 over zk 50/2

[interested_observer]

I have the 28/f2.8 as a Contax CZ and swapped the mounts. Its an excellent lens. All manual and as excellent as the 31 Ltd.

[DogLover]

I would not pay anything for any macro. I'm not interested in it at all. So, I would really choose A50/1.2 over zk 50/2

Hasn't anything to do with any macro capability (which isn't all that great, tbh). The 50/2 is just the better lens, with considerably less distortion than the 1.4 You're aware that macro lenses can be used for shots other than macro, right?

[Sperdynamite]

The problem with the ZM line on Pentax is the Pentax's own Limited's pretty much cover the range, and are just about as good in every case. If I had a FF Canikon it would be a no-brainer. The Zeiss lenses are their "limiteds." If we want an all metal, beautifully unique optic with great multi coatings I look no further than lenses like the 31, 15, 21, 43, 35, or 70/77. Any of the Limited's offer the Zeiss experience at Pentax prices.

However I CAN tell you that when I used a Zeiss 28mm f2 on a NIkon D700 it was pretty glorious. I liked it better than any 28 I've used. It was wonderful. However I liked Zeiss so much it made sense to switch to Pentax to get the same experience as ZF lenses with the Limited's on Pentax.

[DogLover]

The problem with the ZM line on Pentax is the Pentax's own Limited's pretty much cover the range, and are just about as good in every case. If I had a FF Canikon it would be a no-brainer. The Zeiss lenses are their "limiteds." If we want an all metal, beautifully unique optic with great multi coatings I look no further than lenses like the 31, 15, 21, 43, 35, or 70/77. Any of the Limited's offer the Zeiss experience at Pentax prices.

However I CAN tell you that when I used a Zeiss 28mm f2 on a NIkon D700 it was pretty glorious. I liked it better than any 28 I've used. It was wonderful. However I liked Zeiss so much it made sense to switch to Pentax to get the same experience as ZF lenses with the Limited's on Pentax.

Well, they are ZK on Pentax. I have all the FA Ltds plus the DA15. They are wonderful but I assure you that they do not offer the "Zeiss experience" Rendering and colors, not to mention the user experience, i.e. build quality, MF feel, etc. are all noticeably different.