Mathieu18 wrote:I don't think thinks smeared as much on the A7 (which I have) vs the A7R. Saw that the G28 fared better as well. All that said, yea we can take the G35 off the list. Still not sold on passing on the C/Y for half the price of the FE. I enjoy MF, and actually shooting close focus shallow DOF, I think it's quicker to MF and recompose rather than trying to move the focal point around.Oh, I thought it was the other way around - less on the A7R.C/Y - the only source I know for solid reviews that include those old CY lenses is slrlensreview.com. I had never considered the 35mm.

Mathieu18 wrote:Not opposed to FE lenses, but CY 2.8 is about half the price of FE 2.8 and I don't need MF. Also really enjoy the drawing at least of the Planar 50 1.7. Does the FE draw similarly being Zeiss design? Same pop and color? Seems to be mixed reviews in that regard. Had the Zeiss 24 1.8 on an A6000 and it was excellent, but I wouldn't say it had the same Zeiss character as the Planar does.https://www.flickr.com/groups/sel35f28z/pool/there you go.I've owned the 24 1.8 for my a6000 as well and the drawing is very similar. I do like my FE 55 1.8 better but the 35 2.8 is an amazing lens and is TINY. it makes your camera almost pocketable in a jacket. Which can be very very handy at times. I've used it for concerts and events where they didn't allow dslrs that way.

Mathieu18 wrote:Someone has one with a nick in the outer edge for $475 right now! I had been looking at the G 35 f/2 but considering that's nearly the same price it did give a moment of pause.juvx wrote:Mathieu18 wrote:Best bet for a Zeiss 35 that I can afford (the Distagon 1.4 is off the table.)Looking at the C/Y f/2.8, the G f/2 or possibly the FE f/2.8 Looking for the best color and microcontrast, all three are sharp enough for my needs (landscape and street, but not printing large so all will be fine.)I don't really care much about AF, but unless the G f/2 is significantly better I'd probably take AF over the f/2. C/Y seems to be the least expensive by almost half.Already have a C/Y adapter for a Planar 50 1.7 and have a Metabones G adapter on it's way with a G 90.I see these lenses come up in discussion, but they're usually mentioned as "decent, but not the best of this series, blah blah blah..." but it's the focal length I like and never see comparisons of the various models.Any input appreciated.The 35mm 2.8 is an amazing little lens. I loved mine. Good autofocus too.You can find it used for 500$-550$Great price... id jump on that.

Mathieu18 wrote:Thanks, I have seen that the G35 is weaker than the G45, but comparisons have generally ended there. Since the G45 was said by some to be one of the greatest lenses ever (over the top I'm sure, but...) worse could still be excellent. Haven't messed with adapters yet, but good point, haven't heard anyone say it's easy either. That said, I'd likely throw it on and leave it, but looking more and more like it's C/Y 35 2.8 as a budget option or spring for a FE 35 2.8 if I'm going to spend more. I guess no one misses the f/2 on the G version?There is also the Zeiss 35mm 2.8 in Rolleiflex mount. It has a different optical formula compared to the C/Y version. I've never found a serious comparison of C/Y vs. Rollei lens versions (there were several which had different optical formulas), but mine is very, very good and might be cheaper.If, be sure to get the HFT model (= T*) or the made by Rollei in Singapore 35mm 2.8 "Voigtländer Color-Skoparex" (same formula & coating, but NOT the "Color-Skoparex AR" which is an o.k. but not great Mamiya lens).

Loxia 35mm 2.0Voigtländer Ultron 35mm 1.7 Looks amazing, see the samples Steve posted:http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/10/23/away-we-go-off-to-test-the-new-sony-a7sii-1st-samples/

If you checked I said B&H had it used, so what?Remember just because I cite availability and prices doesn't mean that someone won't beat you tobuying it.I saw a forum tell me about $2649 for an A7rII grey market, and $2700 used at B&H both deals were sold out by the time I got to check them out.On the Tamron I think its going to get a bit cheaper in holiday season.  Also, as I wrote before, the Canon mount version has IS in lens which the Sony A version doesn't.  Also, Canon adapters are cheaper new the the Sony.I have the Contax G 45mm and 28mm and the tests show the 35mm isn't so good.On the Sony 35mm f2.8, its not that much smaller than the Tamron and not as good a lens.For about the same price I want that extra 1.5 f-stops faster, less corner darkness and the IS, and close focus of the Tamron.I have a Leica Summicron 35mm and might still go for the AF Tamron, RF lenses don't focus that close, usually to .8 meters because they were designed to work with optical rf and they were inaccurate because of Parralex issues.  The Tamron focuses to .2 meters.

Ha, after I wrote that I said the same thing, I think I just answered my own question. The 24 1.8 is very nice but more sterile than the Zeiss. That said I process my RAWs better now to bring out the pop so maybe I need to go re-try the 24mm shots.Don't really care about portability, I don't have that worry often. Now I need to find a good, affordable copy of the C/Y 35mm f/2.8.

Alpha Photo wrote:These are beautiful lenses, no doubt, to me the cons outweighted the pluses, but I see the attraction of the original CY, especially if you do only MF.I have both CY28/2.8 and Sony 28/2, still "debating with myself". The Sony is sharper, especially in the edges and much lighter, plus AF, EXIF etc. and better bokeh (2.0 versus 2.8) wide open. There is however something about the rendering of the CY that makes me hesitant to sell it. I think I will keep bothPS: The advantage of adapters of course, you can get them with inbuilt helicoid for close-ups or with tilt-ability for landscapes.The CY28 is an exceptional lens I think.

Just for fun, I have seen a number of converted Zeiss 38mm f2.8 this year on ebay. The prices were around 200 euro. The lens is originally on Contax T.

Looks cool, but what is the corner performance? Likely very mediocre...

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0RIkETQt3nTrAO3Mjut4xM1IJyA6Wdyw-3qkche7FP8JMTT4XOwThis reminds me of the Nikon Nikkor P lensHow is the IQ on this lens?  38mm is an interesting FL.

Alpha Photo wrote:Looks cool, but what is the corner performance? Likely very mediocre...Found some photos on A7, and a test, seems on unmodified A7, the corners are mediocre indeed, but pretty good @f8.  It doesn't seem to cause too much trouble compared to its Biogon cousins.http://pensimples.sunnyday.jp/Journal/wp/archives/category/leica-lmr-mount-lens/carl-zeiss-sonnar-38mm-f2-8-t-contax-tt2http://leojar.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/digital-contax-t-and-minox-35.html

Interesting character, but I don't think that's for me.Mirrorless is great for the possibilities though.

I have Contax G Planar 2/35 and Rollei(Zeiss) HFT Distagon 2.8/35. I like them both, Planar has more modern rendition very sharp wide open in the centre from f5.6 sharp across the frame, bokeh wide open could be bad-nevous, there is no edge smearing, my copy is very sharp.Planar 2/35More Planar photos:https://www.flickr.com/photos/124162139@N02/albums/72157652637437304Rollei Distagon has similar design to C/Y version, Rollei has 5 elements and C/Y version 6. I love Distagons renition.HFT DistagonMore Distagon photos:https://www.flickr.com/photos/124162139@N02/albums/72157650158742099

Matthieu, all things considered, best for is the FE 35/2.8. Yes, it's not a Zeiss lens but has the overall best appeal and performance for most people in the FE system.If you are more of a 40mm person, there are quite a few but OOF/bokeh becomes much more important and the small lenses are made for portability rather than outright performance.I'm not sure how off-brand becomes an instant option to be put on the table here - the Tamron lenses are very heavy, heavier than any of the five Loxia/Batis lenses for instance. If that is for you, look in to Sigma too. FE is not DSLR.Of the older units, few people rate the CY 35/2.8 as worthwhile. 35s are a lens design Bermuda Triangle. The best ones are either fast and heavy (and expensive), the rest are often meh.We really need options for flat field work like you do. None of the old Leicas are suitable, none of the ZEF Zeiss lenses are light. If DSLR lenses on adapters are fine for you - can you get a dumb F>E adapter? Not sure they exist...if you can and can deal with DSLR weight, the best lens for you outside the Sony ecosystem may be Zeiss's 530 gram ZF 35/2.It is rated by those in the know as having one of the finest depth perception or 3D in 35mm photography. Landscapes a specialty, and they go for not much now there is Milvus and of course Zeiss sold a motza of them.I'd not rule out the lyrical 35-70/3.4 in CY, either, at 475 grams it's my zoom of choice and does a better job than the FE55 and RX1 - for that particular use. Fine OOF too. And macro. A zoom might suit you better for reasons outlined above. There are also Minolta's 35-70/3.5 and Leica's 35-70/4, not the Zeiss look but very good nonetheless.Look at images and discussion threads...try Fred Miranda Alt forum and Flickr and Zeissimages.My advice is to not rush into it. And trust your own perception of images, and weigh up a lot of advice you read.

Thoughts wrote:Just for fun, I have seen a number of converted Zeiss 38mm f2.8 this year on ebay. The prices were around 200 euro. The lens is originally on Contax T.Still WAY too big.Not a Zeiss, butsmall.As in : REALLYsmall.I present to you the MS Optical 28mm f4Super-Tpiplet[sic]:Yep, the aperture blades are in front of the front element. Just because. And it had a stepless aperture "crêpe" (I wouldn't dare call it a ring) before Zeiss made it cool.

Thoughts wrote:Just for fun, I have seen a number of converted Zeiss 38mm f2.8 this year on ebay. The prices were around 200 euro. The lens is originally on Contax T.That's just plain fun.

MayaTlab0 wrote:Thoughts wrote:Just for fun, I have seen a number of converted Zeiss 38mm f2.8 this year on ebay. The prices were around 200 euro. The lens is originally on Contax T.Still WAY too big.Not a Zeiss, butsmall.As in : REALLYsmall.I present to you the MS Optical 28mm f4 Super-Tpiplet[sic] :Yep, the aperture blades are in front of the front element. Just because. And it had a stepless aperture "crêpe" (I wouldn't dare call it a ring) before Zeiss made it cool.This is as small as a pin hole lens cap... This copy, I reckon will go up in value as there is a typo - Tpiplet instead of Tripletis it yours? How does it perform on Sony A7?  I remember Kai from Digitalrev did a comparison between this (on a Leica M) and Nikon 28mm on a Nikon DSLR, he thinks Perar is pretty good!

Thoughts wrote:MayaTlab0 wrote:Thoughts wrote:Just for fun, I have seen a number of converted Zeiss 38mm f2.8 this year on ebay. The prices were around 200 euro. The lens is originally on Contax T.Still WAY too big.Not a Zeiss, butsmall.As in : REALLYsmall.I present to you the MS Optical 28mm f4 Super-Tpiplet[sic] :Yep, the aperture blades are in front of the front element. Just because. And it had a stepless aperture "crêpe" (I wouldn't dare call it a ring) before Zeiss made it cool.This is as small as a pin hole lens cap... This copy, I reckon will go up in value as there is a typo - Tpiplet instead of Tripletis it yours? How does it perform on Sony A7? I remember Kai from Digitalrev did a comparison between this (on a Leica M) and Nikon 28mm on a Nikon DSLR, he thinks Perar is pretty good!I don't have an A7 series and I only used it on a Fuji X-pro 1 - but it's FF compatible, although perhaps not with a regular A7 (cover glass problems ?). Believe it or not, perhaps because of the triplet formula (I really have no idea), it had a lot less issues with corner smearing on the X-pro 1 than other M mount lenses I tried. To be frank I haven't used it in years and I don't remember its performances, but they were far from unusable.The funny thing is that the "tpiplet" typo was supposed to be corrected in later runs, but another mistake happened and it became a "tpirlet" (or perhaps the reverse). I don't know if a single copy of this lens with proper spelling ever existed.

Yeah, but do you really want to settle for "pretty good" at f8 ???