Zeiss Distagon 25mm vs Zeiss 28mm

leong

Active Member
Its probably a question that has been asked a thousand times before.

I currently have an Aria without any lenses whatsoever. For a start, I am looking at getting a wide angled lens and have narrowed this down to the 25m and the 28mm. Problem is that I can't figure out which to get. Short of the obvious reasons like cost and sharpness which favours the 28mm and controlled distortion and wider field of view which favours the 25mm, are there any other reasons for getting either lens? Is there a fallacy with regards to the statement I made above?

I would like to hear about your experiences about both lenses, if you have tried both of just either one of them. Share with us what you like or dislike about the lenses.
 
J

jgban

According to Zeiss charts, the 25mm is actually 25.9mm and the 28 is 28.5. I have tried to see how significant the difference in field of view is comparing the 25 to my 28 f:2 (which is actually 28.8) and, just looking through the viewfinder) the images are very, very close. (I mean I did not "notice" a difference). I cannot comment on differences in optical quality between the 25 and the 28 2.8, but (according to Zeiss charts) the 28 mm 2.8 seems superior on every account.
Of course this may be the reason the 25mm has been discontinued...
Juan
 

paulcontax

Well-Known Member
> I am very happy with the 2.8/28 which is a really great lens ! I'm using Pentax- and Canon-lenses too but the Zeiss Distagon is far better than any other 28mm I tried ! Sharpness, colours, contrast... just everything is really great ! This was the lens that made me a Contax-/Zeiss-user ! The difference to other brands with the 50/135mm-lenses are not that abvious as with the 28 Distagon.

Paul
 

europanorama

Well-Known Member
I am very happy with the 2.8/28 which is a really great lens ! I'm using Pentax- and Canon-lenses too but the Zeiss Distagon is far better than any other 28mm I tried ! Sharpness, colours, contrast... just everything is really great !

woould be nice if somebody could compare the best nikon or even leica 28 with the zeiss.
 

leong

Active Member
I have been looking at the MTF charts for both lens for quite some time now, and it seems to tell me to get the 28/2.8 instead of the 25/2.8.

Does the 3mm difference make a lot of difference your pictures? In terms of framing something maybe about 5 metres away, how many steps back do I need to take to match the field of view of the 25/2.8?
 

crocus63

Well-Known Member
I have been very happy with my 28/2.8 MM. I have compared it with friends Nikon and Tokina, and they are in now way close as far as I'm concerned.

As for the 3mm difference, I have compared 21, 24, and 28. The 24 is only marginally different than the 28, so 25 will be even less. I only have to take 3 steps back instead of paying for 25mm CZ. The 28 is also a bargain as far as 28's go.

Regards, Gary
 

leong

Active Member
Many thanks for the helpful replies. Is there something about the 25/2.8 that you get that cannot be replicated with the 28/2.8 and vice versa? It seems that there are a lot of good comments about the 25/2.8, but nothing that is specific when I did more research on the internet.

Also, does anybody know if there is a difference in the performance between the German made and Japan made 25/2.8?
 

pkipnis

Well-Known Member
>I chose the 25/2.8 over the 28/2.0 because of it's size for travel. Mine has been all around the world and the images are exc. I uellentse my 35/1.4 as my "normal lens" so there is a good break between them and my 18/4 which is my wide angle. Hope that
 

molte

Member
Gary, forget the MTF stuff and get the 28. It is much cheaper, a little bit= lighter and better, and the field of view is almost the same for all pract= ical purposes. Most of us would not be able to tell the difference in the q= uality of the output. That actually goes for the angle of view too. If you = really want a difference get the 21.
 

europanorama

Well-Known Member
my 35/1.4 as my "normal lens" so there is a good break between them and my 18/4 which is my wide angle. i started also with the 35/1.4 25 years ago and did a lot of work without having an other lens. at 2.0 it is already excellent, high resolution/sharpness, low light fall off(compaired to other brands). later i bought the 85/1.4. for travelling the 85/2.8 is a better choice.

i have also 18mm and 28 and 45mm. 45mm, 85 and 28 would be a good choice for travelling, maybe with two bodies(3 lenses). >
 

europanorama

Well-Known Member
>Gary, forget the MTF stuff and get the 28. It is much cheaper, a >little bit= lighter and better, and the field of view is almost the >same for all pract= ical purposes. Most of us would not be able to >tell the difference in the q= uality of the output. That actually goes >for the angle of view too. If you = really want a difference get the >21.
 
J

jwalton

Gary

Get the 28 is good advice - it's much cheaper. But, I had the 28 and didn't like it, in simple, but thoroughly non-scientific terms, I didn't take good pictures with it. I didn't think that the sharpness was particularly wonderful (despite what the MTF might say) and I was so often after just that bit more width, especially I guess when I was focusing on something close and wanting the horizon in as well, for instance.

I did get a (very battered) West German 25 which has been the most used lens in my collection (out of 50 1.4, 85 1.4 and 135 2.8). I'm trying to wean myself off it a bit though and get back to using the old 50 but that's another story.

I'm afraid that I can't give you a good reason to buy the 25 over the 28, I can only repeat that I make better pictures with it.

John
 

dirk

CI-Founder
Gary,

I think an important point is what you expect the lens to do. Beside of any technical difference or slightly better/worse performances, I sold my 28mm to use the 25mm as the only wide angle lens because of the different impression of the photos.

Take a shot of the same subject with the 28mm and the 25mm. You will get with the 25mm a more 3-dimensional effect than you can have with the 28mm. It is in my opinion really a big step from this point of view to go from 28 to 25.

Surprisingly you will not see the same wow-effect going from 25 to 21. You just get more on the picture. But this is something that has nothing to do with image quality, it is an impression you can only have, if you have used both at the same time. And only for that effect, I would highly recommend the 25mm and not the 28mm.

But again, it depends on your shooting style and subjects.

Dirk
 
O

ou1954

>Posted by John Walton on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 6:26 pm: > >Gary > >Get the 28 is good advice - it's much cheaper. But, I had the 28 and >didn't like it, in simple, but thoroughly non-scientific terms, I >didn't take good pictures with it. I didn't think that the sharpness >was particularly wonderful (despite what the MTF might say) and I was >so often after just that bit more width, especially I guess when I was >focusing on something close and wanting the horizon in as well, for >instance. > >I did get a (very battered) West German 25 which has been the most >used lens in my collection (out of 50 1.4, 85 1.4 and 135 2.8). I'm >trying to wean myself off it a bit though and get back to using the >old 50 but that's another story. > >I'm afraid that I can't give you a good reason to buy the 25 over the >28, I can only repeat that I make better pictures with it. > >John

When I first bought my RTS new, I made a conscious decision to buy a German 25 and a Japanese 50 and Zoom. I thought it was a reasonable compromise which would give me the best quality/price ratio. So far I haven't been disappointed, but it's hard to find a nice lens shade for the 25. The stock ones provide little protection. My hand works fine when the sun is involved, but it's hard to get it out of the picture.
 
J

jwalton

Dirk

I'm very interested in what you say because it seems to mirror my feelings of the two lenses. I confess that when you set up this site a year ago I had been searching the web trying to find like minded sould who rated the 25 over the 28 as much as I did, only to be shocked to find that all the "technical" talk praised the 28 and rubbished the 25.

Unfortunately I never did a direct comparison and it is entirely possible that much of the difference is psychological - I didn't like the 28 and immediately thought that the 25 was the answer, so, as a result, my pictures improved - a placebo effect or something.

I am, however, intrigued by your comments that the 25 gives more of a 3D effect, and that there isn't so much of a "wow" jump to the 21. Could you expand on those comments a bit perhaps, and, maybe for the more technically minded users out there, expand on what it is technically that makes the two lenses so very different?

Thanks
John
 
V

vdipiet

I use the 25mm distagon made in West Germany (AE)version. This lens was my fathers and I am very glad he bought it! He was very careful, being a workingman with limited financial resources, and therefore read up on and researched which Zeiss lens was best for him before he purchased a high ticket item such as this. This lens is in my opinion superb -- perhaps the 28mm is even more superb, I don't know. All I can say is "thanks Dad!", the 25 Distagon has done fine by me, the images are rendered tack sharp and with stupendous color saturation. I think in the end, despite charts and graphs the best lens is what works for you -- the 25 Distagon works for me. Cheers to all. Vincent
 

jeff

Active Member
>>I think in the end, despite charts and graphs the best lens is what works for you -- the 25 Distagon works for me. Cheers to all. Vincent<<

The 25 really works for me too. Jeff
 

dirk

CI-Founder
John, this is difficult to describe technically. I am not an expert, I only shoot for fun as a hobby photographer.

I did not compare yet the MTF charts between 25mm and 28mm, because the 25mm gave me that advantage I did not get with the 28mm. I have used both at the same time. The difference in image quality was for me basically not existing. But I was shooting 90% of that time handheld.

The only difference I saw was this 3-D effect of the 25mm. When I compared then the 21mm from my G system with the 25mm C/Y, I just did not see a similar step in 3-D effect as it was the case from 28mm to 25mm. The 21mm 3-D effect was the same as the 25mm, just more details on the image.

Additionally it is more difficult (for me) to use the 21mm. You have to concentrate more on how you use it. And I did often not want to have so many details on one image.

I ended up using mostly 25mm and 85mm in aratio of 60%/40%. But my shooting style goes also more and more away from wideangle towards small tele now up to 200mm. I use now the N-System with 24-85 zoom and 70-200 zoom. Rraely something else.

So I use 25mm now in the zoom a lot less then 3 years ago as a FFL. In most cases only landscape or dramatic effects. I use now more the 40-50mm range and everything over 50mm is done 98% by the N70-200 zoom, since it is better in image quality in the range of 70-85 compared with the N24-85 (except for portraits).

Dirk
 

leong

Active Member
This is going to be a little off topic.

What kind of good alternatives are there for the 25mm? I have come across the Yashica 24mm, the Sigma 24mm and the Cosina 24mm. Has anybody tried any of these lenses and either of the Distagon 25mm and Distagon 28mm? How do they compare?
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
I have just bought a beautiful 25mm second hand and so far have used it for three films. It is great. The angle of view is amazing. It is very sharp. You can stand in a crowd of people in a city centre taking pictures.People do not realize that they are included.I think that it is more dramatic than the 28mm
John
 
Top