[Fontan]

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.

Don't be sorry, since most of what you say around here sound pure BS also.

[Emacs]

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?

macro means poor infinity, poor bokeh, poor skintones
macro means insanely increased contrast which I prefer to avoid in most cases

[Emacs]

Don't be sorry, since most of what you say around here sound pure BS also.

No, it's my shooting expirience.
I don't like portrait lenses which don't hide skin inperfections.

[Emacs]

Rendering and colors, not to mention the user experience, i.e. build quality, MF feel, etc. are all noticeably different.

I don't find CZ build quality to be any better than one of FA Ltds. And both are inferior to VL lenses in this regard IMO.
I don't particularly like MF feel of CZ too. I strongly prefer one of A50/1.2, A* 85, A* 135 (A lenses I've tried). BTW, my 77Ltd isn't felt in MF much worse than zeisses.

[DogLover]

macro means poor infinity, poor bokeh, poor skintones
macro means insanely increased contrast which I prefer to avoid in most cases

OK, now I know that you don't know what you're talking about. Go to zeissimages.com,use the search feature to view images from either the 50/2 or the 100/2. None of what you've said is even remotely true.

I don't find CZ build quality to be any better than one of FA Ltds. And both are inferior to VL lenses in this regard IMO.
I don't particularly like MF feel of CZ too. I strongly prefer one of A50/1.2, A* 85, A* 135 (A lenses I've tried). BTW, my 77Ltd isn't felt in MF much worse than zeisses.

Did Mr. Zeiss kick your dog or something? You would have to have some kind of agenda to say any of these things. I tried to have a civil discourse with you, despite your reputation, but you have gone off the deep end now. All of these statements are so patently untrue that they cannot be chalked up to a difference of opinion. I'm no longer sure that you've ever even held a ZK lens.

[Sperdynamite]

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.

Well they're made of all metal, extremely high quality, and known for the coatings...just like Zeiss lenses. Except on Pentax you can use the Limiteds in AF since it's so damn hard to manually focus on the K-5. Obviously there are some differences but pretty impractical ones in my opinions, especially since the image quality is the same either way, and you can use wider angle lenses for less money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Zeiss lenses. Contax G1 owner here, and former Hasselblad owner. They make top notch optics, and I've often thought a Nikon FM and a ZF optic would be a really awesome way to shoot film. But for a long time I contemplated buying a ZK 50mm 1.4, and in the end I decided against it after trying it for the n'th time, because I had no way of precisely focusing. My eyes are good, I'm only 27, but I could-not adjust the focal plane with any precision in the K-5 viewfinder.

When the FF Pentax comes out maybe I'll change my tune.

[Emacs]

Did Mr. Zeiss kick your dog or something? You would have to have some kind of agenda to say any of these things. I tried to have a civil discourse with you, despite your reputation, but you have gone off the deep end now. All of these statements are so patently untrue that they cannot be chalked up to a difference of opinion. I'm no longer sure that you've ever even held a ZK lens.

LOL
Man, I wouldn't say anything if I didn't have one. But since I own the 21 and tried others (28/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, Alpha 135/1.8), I have some attitude.
21 ZK isn't worth its price (it must be used with FF), 28/2 is excellent, but I slightly prefer the 31Ltd (love its color rendition more), 50/1.4 is just not good enough, 85 too. The alpha 135/1.8 is supposed to be excellent performer and it really is … as universal lens. It's way too sharp for portraits even wide open IMO, so I prefer canon 135L.

And, in the last, I don't understand what is the target audience of these lenses? Pros? They usually need AF. Hobbyists? I'm a hobbyist and the T* 21 was enough for me: I won't buy any CZ SLR lens anymore. They are not simply worth their bulk and weight

[Emacs]

OK, now I know that you don't know what you're talking about. Go to zeissimages.com,use the search feature to view images from either the 50/2 or the 100/2. None of what you've said is even remotely true.

1) Judging on PP samples isnt' a very good idea (wrong one, actually)
2) Saw it. Don't like portraits taken with it. It's just no more than a very sharp lens with very typical CZ colors.

[Frogfish]

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.

Yes I have this as well .. but it's not as good overall as the 31 Ltd though it's fantastic as a landscape lens (which is why I bought it). Not only that it is an absolute bargain !

If I was the OP I'd swap the 31 Ltd for the 28/2.8 and a Sigma 30/1.4 (low DoF, low light, portrait demon) to cover everything there is to cover around that FL for around the same price. I couldn't be happier with those two.

[interested_observer]

Yes I have this as well .. but it's not as good overall as the 31 Ltd though it's fantastic as a landscape lens (which is why I bought it). Not only that it is an absolute bargain !

If I was the OP I'd swap the 31 Ltd for the 28/2.8 and a Sigma 30/1.4 (low DoF, low light, portrait demon) to cover everything there is to cover around that FL for around the same price. I couldn't be happier with those two.

Morning Frog,

I guess I should have qualified my statement. I seldom go below f4, and use the tripod a lot while taking pictures of stuff that doesn't move - at least doesn't move a lot, while wanting deep DoF. I will say that I miss all the EXIF meta data identification within the image that comes with the Pentax lenses. The last time I was up in Sedona, I actually screwed up a couple of frames by turning the focus the wrong way (the CZ focus is backwards from the Pentax glass) - it was dark (as in reallllllly dark) and I could not see anything through the viewfinder anyway.

It's fortunate that I have both the 31 and the 28 - a bit redundant, but they are both very fine pieces of glass. I do have a problem selecting between the two. I get differences of character between the two, which I expected and wanted. The CZ even after the cost of the mount, is less than the Sigma and obviously substantially less than the 31 Ltd. Both of them are also fine lenses also - each in their own right.

The whole thing here - and it was for me, you can acquire some extremely fine optical glass for - not free, but a very reasonable price, considering everything. If you in the deep grips of LBA and lusting after the 31 Ltd - but the checkbook (wife, kids, house, and everything else) will not permit - and you can tolerate a manual lens - then go the Contax CZ route. You just simply can't go wrong.

[DogLover]

Except on Pentax you can use the Limiteds in AF since it's so damn hard to manually focus on the K-5.

There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but two things changed all that.

1) A magnifying eyepiece - go with the highest magnification that is acceptable to you. Some people are bothered by the slight vignetting in the VF, but I am not one of those people. I have the Tenpa 1.36 and swear by it. It will vignette the VF somewhat, so you may have to make a concerted effort to see the info line, but it's totally worth it to me. Go with less magnification if this bothers you.

And more importantly,

2) A Canon S-type focus screen. I had a Katzeye before, and those are certainly better than stock, but this S-type screen is a game-changer. You can easily determine focus even with very shallow DoF's. It also meters much more accurately than the Katzeye. Search here for more info about these. They make MFing not only possible, but a pleasure.

[eleventhirteen83]

I am interested in this S-type focus screen. Did you get it from Focusing Screen ?
If you did, how fast was the overall transaction and can this screen completely substitute the usage of Live view on K-5 when shooting manual Zeiss?
I always have to double check on a live view mode in K-5 when I shoot Zeiss below 2.8 to make sure that the right thing got focused.

Thank you.

[DogLover]

I am interested in this S-type focus screen. Did you get it from Focusing Screen ?
If you did, how fast was the overall transaction and can this screen completely substitute the usage of Live view on K-5 when shooting manual Zeiss?
I always have to double check on a live view mode in K-5 when I shoot Zeiss below 2.8 to make sure that the right thing got focused.

Thank you.

Yes, I did get it from them. Transaction/shipping was extremely fast. Mine was delivered in 5 days, which included a weekend. You may have to email them as the S-types aren't always listed as being available.

I would say that yes, it can completely substitute for LV use, or at the very least greatly reduce your dependence on it. Obviously, if you're doing super-critical macro work or anything requiring a tripod, then checking with LV is no big deal. The key, of course, is getting it calibrated correctly. Most users report that the .2 shim is the correct one with the K5, but mine required .15 I had some actual Pentax shims, so I used those as they are metal, but fs.com includes some plastic ones.

I would really urge you to try it. When I first installed mine I was downright giddy with the capabilities of it.

[eleventhirteen83]

Any reason why I should avoid the Pentax ME-60 Plain Matte Focusing Screen 38581 B&H Photo Video, genuine Pentax Matte Screen for K-7?
I assume the K-7 screen works on K-5 as well.

[DogLover]

Any reason why I should avoid the Pentax ME-60 Plain Matte Focusing Screen 38581 B&H Photo Video, genuine Pentax Matte Screen for K-7?
I assume the K-7 screen works on K-5 as well.

It doesn't offer any advantage. It's just the stock screen without any markings on it. Definitely not the same as the Canon s-type.