If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
I have the 25 and like it although I rarely use it. In fact I haven't used it for ages probably because I also have the 28 in the G system.
I have read rather disparaging remarks about the 28 but I have never noticed any problems. I haven't noticed any particular special 3D effects though.
HI Geraint, do you have any s&le pictures or links/urls which would show this 3D "effect" you speak of? isn't it just unsharp corners due to not so good flatness of field (interpreting
Zeiss MTF data sheet)? So maybe if you have an object like an U-ring, like a banana such a lens would be cool(?). (like the old Minolta MD Rokkor 2.8/24 VFC ?) --rainer
yes, I have a totally different impression of images made with the 25/2.8 and 28/2.8 lens. The latter one is for me more a "normal" wideangle. Same image made with the 25/2.8 gave me always a totally different look although just 3mm difference.
On the other hand, the impression of this 3D effect was not so much bigger with a Zeiss G21/2.8 compared to the 25/2.8. But this is a very personal feeling when looking at slides.
I think you should take some testshots with both to make up your own mind. As far as I rememeber, the 28/2.8 is optically superior according to the specs. But i am talking only about the impression the images gave me, so no science
this is impossibly to say at least for a non-native speaker
For me the 25mm gives an image of i.e. a landscape a 3D effect. I have the feeling I can put my arm "through" the slide to touch the mountains at the background. (Fuji Velvia 50).
But I would not count on my own preferences. It depends on your own expectations. If you ahve never used a 24 or 25mm, it will be a different experience to an 28mm. But it can also be possible that you will like the 28mm more.
would it be possible that you post a low res scanned (velvia) slide on this thread for illustration which would should a little bit the signature of this lens?
just because the old.photodo.com rating of: 3,4 (according to their special rating system for 2D Targets (!) says this is one of the worst lenses in the contax yashica system ever.
I asked myself the same question last summer and took a quick landscape shot using 2.8/25 @5.6 and 2/28 @5.6. Here we go:
Here are the crops of left upper corner (this is IBM lab working on new hard drives as rumor says):
The film used was Velvia PVP-100, camera RTS III. Scanned by Minolta 5400 Elite II using absolutely the same settings. No photoshop processing whatsoever except converting to jpg.
Honestly, I don't see any difference besides perspective and sharpness. Am I doing something wrong?
Thanks for those Sergei,
I don't know. It's interesting. Maybe the 25 does have more of Dirk's "arm through the picture" factor but I suspect that it is because there is s little more foreground in the 25 picture because of the slightly wider angle.
I think that the blow up of the 28 is slightly sharper than the 25 though, particularly the tower and the structure to its left.
Fascinating Sergei ,thanks for the shots , I see the depth , but is it due to the composition of the 25mm lens shot ?. No I think Dirk has a point about the 3D look . I am not really worried about the slightly better shareness of the 28mm .
No, unfortunately not at all anymore. The only reason is time. I just have no time anymore for a lot of stuff outside of my job and the photo-portal. Very few time for my family at the moment.
So my shooting is more or less restricted on familiy snapshots at the moment. Ny family is spreaded over 2 continents and because of this a DSLR and some P&S are saving me a lot of time incl. the convenience to send it all over the world within seconds.
But it is for sure NOT the same pleasure as looking at slides. Life is unfair...
Do not worry, I keep my analogue Contax equipment of course. And as soon as I have more time, I will use it also more. So this is not a decision to switch to digital completely. It is (unfortunatley) a break I had to make. But after that break, I will definnitely use analogue again
And each time, when I take my Contax stuff in my hands, a big smile comes over my face. Forget the handling of a Canon, Nikon or Sony. Contax is real pleasure for me, digital is for me only an alternive I have to use in certain circumstances.
Yes I agree although I use Nikon D2X every day looking through the viewfinder of the Contax MA or rts is a ureka moment every time and still shoot on them for personal pictures such as family snaps . You still cannot beat getting the prints back from the lab compared to a load of pictures on the computor hard drive which never get printed . But work demands digital these days .
Actually I prefer the look of the images from my NDigital for all its problems such as slow buffer,battery usage,only usable to 100 ASA , no Raw viewing, shutter lag ,lower resolution, etc . Too scarey to use it for a job.