CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

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.

Zeiss 28-70, Zeiss 85/1.4 or Zeiss Contax 28-80?

G

Guest

I currently have a 28-70 and am thinking of getting an 85 1.4. However, an alternative could be a 28-80. I have never tried either the 85 or 28-80. I know the 85 is an exceptional lense.

I am not over impressed with the 28-70, particularly at 28, it has very noticable barreling. I recently read a review of the 28-80 on photogaphyreview.com which stated it wasn`t much better than the 28-70, is this true?

I shoot almost exclusively travel photography. I want the extra length for better portrait shots. I like the idea of the 85 1.4 because it is fast and I never use a flash, but it would be an extra lense to carry with me.

To give you a complete picture, I primarily use an Aria with an RTS II as backup. Lenses: 28-70 (used most), 50 f1.4, 21 f2.8, 80-200 f4 and I have just ordered a 300 f4 for a big wildlife project I will be undertaking in the summer (the Pantanal, Brazil, for upto 2 months).

ANy thought, experiences appreciated.
 
G

Guest

This is so much a matter of personal preference...This is what comes to mind:
1. The main advantage of the 85 1.4 is that it is 3 stops faster than the 28-85 at 85 (which is F:3.3 at 28 and F:4 at 85).
2. The 28-85 is twice the price of the 28-70, and everybody agrees it is better. However, if what bothers you is the distortion at 28mm, I am not sure there is much of a difference between the two (there is not, according to the Zeiss literature available in this forum). I have not compared them side to side.
3. It really boils down to prefering to carry one lens or two. If you don't mind carrying two lenses, the 28-70 + 85 1.4 gives you the flexibility of available light shooting. If you don't use much apertures between 1.4 and 2.8, the 28-85 is the logical choice.
I can never tell which lens took which picture after the fact, so I cannot be very opinionated. One thing I have to say is that if you try a portrait at 1.4 and focus at the eyes, the tip of the nose will be out of focus (it has happenned to me). So the big advantage of the prime is not so much for routine portrait, but for special situations.
I am sure this does not help, but you asked.

Juan
 
G

Guest

This website:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Lists the 28-85 (at 28mm) as having 3% distortion
and the 28-70 (at 28mm) as having 4% distortion
<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">• 28-85 is very large and heavy -- the 28mm is one of the less expensive zeiss lenses and is highly regarded. Perhaps it would be a better option?

Last but least you should try the 300f4 before you leave on your trip. No first hand experience but many people I have heard express less than glowing comments on this lens.
 
G

Guest

Hum should have mentioned that the same site reports the 28mm prime as having 2% distrotion.
 
G

Guest

Distortion on both VS28-XX is pretty identical in the wide end and clearly visible. The main advantages of the 28-85 would be much better sharpness and color contrast (it comes closer to your D21).

The 300 F4 is reported not be a very good lens and from a few shots I saw made with it I can say both sharpness and color reproduction are surprisingly bad for a Zeiss. On the other hand the VS 100-300 is really excellent, but you loose even another f-stop. If you need to get a bright lens, you probably should try the tamron? 300 f2.8 instead.

Mike
 
G

Guest

I agree with Michael, my experiences were identical regarding both lens pairs.

The 4/300 is not as good as Tamron 2.8/300 at same aperture. Contrast and sharpnes is better with Tamron but colour rendition was a little better with Tele-Tessar. I sold the TT 300 and am happy with the 2.8/300.

Dieter
 
G

Guest

> > The 300 F4 is reported not be a very good lens and from a few shots I saw made with it I can say both sharpness and color reproduction are surprisingly bad for a Zeiss. On the other hand the VS 100-300 is really excellent, but you loose even another f-stop. If you need to get a bright lens, you probably should try the tamron? 300 f2.8 instead. <<

As Iv'e said before, I found the 300 f4 to be quite soft as well. I use both the VS 100-300 which id great and the Tamron 300 2.8, which is quite sharp too. Just my experience. Others like their TT 300 f4, and find it fine. Just what I found. Jeff
 
G

Guest

>Hello - as far as I remember the start of this, it was about photographing birds! A 300 mm is for most wildlife shooting at the very-very-very low end of usefull focal lengths. Of course the 4/300 is still relatively easy to travel - everything above is really bulky and heavy... But this argument is -forgive me - like looking for the lost key close to the streetlight, because it is brighter there... So consider the 2,8/300 (the Sigma is nearly same quality and relatively lightweight) more under the aspect that with a good TC you still get a reasonable 5,6/600mm!!
 
G

Guest

FYI, I spoke to Carl Zeiss Oberkochen about a few zoom lenses and they stated that the 28-85 was the best standard zoom for Contax Cameras (also better then the 35-70 for the G system and the two zooms for the N system).
 
Top