Are these CZ lenses unfairly overlooked

[pansies]

Hi Paul. Thanks for your suggestion .Since I posted my request I have been looking at the list of lenses, and had made a note of the following
25 35 50 85 135.Having said that I have read various reports as to the quality of the final image from some of the Zeiss lenses, although to me they all produce good results, but seemingly some are better than others, I dont know. Having said that have you had any experience with the N1 there again I am back to the zoom lenses, just can't make up my mind. Thanks once again.
Ken.

 

[jsmisc]

How about the 35-70? I haven't tried it but I have read good reports for it. Although it is a limited range I believe it is quite small and light and very sharp. I have the 28 - 85 and it is pretty large and heavy. It goes fine on the RX but the combination is quite hefty. It also takes 82mm filters which are expensive, especially the polariser.
I used to have the 50 f1.7 and it is very good but I swopped it for the f1.4 for the extra stop. But the lens is bigger and heavier.
John

 

[djg]

The 35-70 is an awesome lens, as good if not better than many primes. I hesitate to use it because I have all these primes, but every time I use it I just say, wow, this is a zoom??? Look at that corner sharpness!

Add the usual Zeiss contrast, color and lack of flare, and the small size and lightness, and you can't go wrong with this zoom. The 3.4 f-stop is really only a half f-stop from 2.8, and it's uniform throughout the zoom range.

Oh, yeah, it has a great macro setting too, though it's at the 35mm end so you need to get real close.

 

[gunteach]

You know, if you really wanted to put together a general purpose lightweight system for your RX, maybe start with the 50/1.7 since it is reasonably fast and dirt cheap. Keep it for your low light lens, and add that macro converter Paul was talking about to give you the equivalent of a 100 f/3.5 macro (I use this set-up and am very happy with the results). Then take a look at the Zeiss 28-70 zoom, also very light and compact. Finally, if you need something longer, you might look at the 80-200 CZ zoom, or maybe just a 135/2.8 depending on how long you feel you need to go. I have all of these lenses personally (except the 28-70 which I sold and sort of wish I had kept). The 28-70 macro function is on the 70mm end by the way, and it is a two-touch zoom.

I also have the 28-85 zoom, and I believe you are going to find this one too large and heavy if weight is a consideration, although it is a great lens.

Regards,

Tom

 

[wang]

35-70 is definitely superior to 28-70, although they are both from Zeiss. 35-70 has a very good 35, it could be even better than 35 2.8. The design of 35-70 is a lot more complicated than other zooms. Unlike others which normally extends linearly on zooming, this lens extends only a little bit first, followed by a big increase in length.

Nonlinear extension of the zoom lens seem to be a phenomenon more often seem in Zeiss than other manufacturers. My Sony 828 has a lens which retracts first and then followed by extension when you go from 28mm to 200mm. I find this quite amazing.

 

[albert4321]

My Contax 645 45-90 zoom also retracts a little first and then follows by extension.

 

[grumpoid]

Hi,
A suggestion for a simple light and multi purpose system for the RX : 28/2.8, 60/2.8C macro and the 100/3.5. I use the 60/2.8C macro although I know Zeiss fans prefer the S version.
Cheers Steve.

 

[Jman13]

I like my 85 Sonnar better than the 85 Planar, even though they are similarly sharp in the overlapping range. The Sonnar just gives me that little extra color and contrast pop. One of the most complete lenses I've ever used...it's essentially without flaw at any aperture. The only 'flaw' is the rather conservative max aperture and the longish MFD.