I have Contax G 28, 45 and 90mm F2.8 and Fotodiox adapters. They are beautiful lenses with a lovely warm rendering.I tested the 45 against the FE35 2.8 and the images look very much the same. The 45 has the reputation of being super sharp. The 28 is not quite suitable for the a7r as there is a slight magenta cast to the sides of the image.It works much better on the  a7rii I believe.The 90 is also a lovely lens and is more of a portrait lens.I am selling all 3 if interested to help fund an upgrade to an a7rii. They are in mint condition, everything works, I have hoods, a Fotodiox adapter and another brand adapter. The Fotodiox works the best.Greg.

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.I assume that you are referring to the Zeiss Contax G 35/2, which is not a good fit for an A7x camera, due to peripheral softness.  OTOH, the 45/2 G is stellar and has no such issues. I have it along with a Metabones adapter for my A7II. The 45G would be an excellent match for the 90G. If you go that route, I would suggest one Metabones for each lens, as changing lenses can be challenging.Rob

Alpha Photo wrote:Yeah, but do you really want to settle for "pretty good" at f8 ???I would and I bought one myself. Also it should improve on any modified A7sFor street/landscape photography, I settle for f8 any way using any lens. It is actually pretty shape.  The fact is Contax T or T2 gives distance scale for f8 only. It is a Sonnar design, soft corners at wide open is perhaps expected and good for portraits. @2.8, the image has nice and soft edges without losing too much details.  If you check that Japanese site, I found the photo of that toddler is very pleasing.

Great shots, thanks. I actually really liked the way the Planar worked out for those shots, great 3D feel. Distagon looked real nice too though.

TimHar wrote: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/72157650158742099Like that distagon! It looks like they aren't easy to find.

Where are you selling themI find 50 a little too tight for what I like and I read the 45 is actually a little longer. Still tempted to try it though as most reviews seem excellent. Have a 90 hopefully coming in tomorrow.

Thanks Philip. I can't disagree, people don't seem overly enthusiastic about a lot of the 35's. I'd love a Distagon 1.4 but it's just out of the question which is why I figured I'd see what the "best bet" is for what I can afford. I know I like the Zeiss drawing, so I appreciate some of the other suggestions but it's not what I'm looking for (like the 3rd party stuff). Thanks for the ZF suggestion, it's not quite as outrageous used as a Distagon (+-$700) so might do a little more research.I've read great things about the 35-70 as well and would probably really enjoy it, but they seem impossible to find, and what I do see costs close to the same as the ZF 35 f/2. Maybe I'll have to keep looking.Thanks again for the thoughts.philip pj wrote: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.

TimHar wrote: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/72157652637437304This has not been my experience with the Contax G 35/2 on my A7II. Edges are unacceptably soft at all apertures, worse, of course, at wide ones. I'm curious as to whether the above photo has been cropped, thus removing the edges.In contrast, the 45/2G and 90/2.8G are absolutely splendid.Rob

stevo23 wrote:Like that distagon! It looks like they aren't easy to find.They are very easy to find (at least in Europe).Get the HFT version. Alternatively, the one made by Rollei in Singapore branded as "Voigtländer Color-Skoparex" (same formula & coating), but NOT the "Color-Skoparex AR" which is an o.k. but not great Mamiya lens.

Rol Lei Nut wrote:stevo23 wrote:Like that distagon! It looks like they aren't easy to find.They are very easy to find (at least in Europe).Get the HFT version. Alternatively, the one made by Rollei in Singapore branded as "Voigtländer Color-Skoparex" (same formula & coating), but NOT the "Color-Skoparex AR" which is an o.k. but not great Mamiya lens.Thanks - I'll keep that in mind. I noticed that most of the listings for them on ebay were from overseas - perhaps all. And the prices were all over the place.

Man, now you have me torn between the 35-70 3.4 and the 35 2.8. Aperture doesn't really bother me. Had myself soft on the 35-70 and could replace my Macro too, but I need a longer macro with a tighter field of view and realized its Macro at 35mm, so that's a no go.Get both, then decide?

Matthieu, normally KEH.com in Atlanta has the Contax 35-70 3.4 for reasonable prices .

$599 for the 35-70 and $529 I think for the 28-85. I haven't been looking too long but that seems steep. Is that what I should expect?john inglis wrote:Matthieu, normally KEH.com in Atlanta has the Contax 35-70 3.4 for reasonable prices .

Mathieu18 wrote:$599 for the 35-70 and $529 I think for the 28-85. I haven't been looking too long but that seems steep. Is that what I should expect?john inglis wrote:Matthieu, normally KEH.com in Atlanta has the Contax 35-70 3.4 for reasonable prices .The 35-70 usually goes for $500 to $600 at KEH, $400 to $500 on eBay. The price range is depending on condition. There are currently a couple of MMJ versions on eBay in the $250 range but they are in less than excellent condition.Later,Johnny

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.Easy. Canon EF 40/2.8 pancake ($100) + Techart III adapter (aka DEO Saker Falcon) -- $200. This combo is small, super-sharp and autofocuses fast and well, full electronic control of the aperture.Of course, the adapter can be reused with other Canon-mount lenses, such as Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (I tested it, AF works very well) or 70-200 f/4 (my version is non-IS) - tested, AF works even with an x1.4 teleconverter (Kenko).

stevo23 wrote:Rol Lei Nut wrote:stevo23 wrote:Like that distagon! It looks like they aren't easy to find.They are very easy to find (at least in Europe).Get the HFT version. Alternatively, the one made by Rollei in Singapore branded as "Voigtländer Color-Skoparex" (same formula & coating), but NOT the "Color-Skoparex AR" which is an o.k. but not great Mamiya lens.Thanks - I'll keep that in mind. I noticed that most of the listings for them on ebay were from overseas - perhaps all. And the prices were all over the place.Often the Color-Skoparexes are cheaper because they don't have "Zeiss" written on them.I've tried several samples of both, and - despite what some say about Rollei's Singapore production - my keeper is a Color-Skoparex.

Thank you very much!You can't go wrong with both of the lenses.

Robgo2 wrote:TimHar wrote: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/72157652637437304This has not been my experience with the Contax G 35/2 on my A7II. Edges are unacceptably soft at all apertures, worse, of course, at wide ones. I'm curious as to whether the above photo has been cropped, thus removing the edges.In contrast, the 45/2G and 90/2.8G are absolutely splendid.RobNo, I have not crop the edges. My copy was in the mint condition when I bought it and behaves as on the film. The rear element is not getting deep in the camera like Biogon's  and it's not typical WA RF lens. Planar 2/35 was worst of the stellar Contax G series so actually is a very good lens.

Rol Lei Nut wrote:stevo23 wrote:Rol Lei Nut wrote:stevo23 wrote:Like that distagon! It looks like they aren't easy to find.They are very easy to find (at least in Europe).Get the HFT version. Alternatively, the one made by Rollei in Singapore branded as "Voigtländer Color-Skoparex" (same formula & coating), but NOT the "Color-Skoparex AR" which is an o.k. but not great Mamiya lens.Thanks - I'll keep that in mind. I noticed that most of the listings for them on ebay were from overseas - perhaps all. And the prices were all over the place.Often the Color-Skoparexes are cheaper because they don't have "Zeiss" written on them.I've tried several samples of both, and - despite what some say about Rollei's Singapore production - my keeper is a Color-Skoparex.The Color-Skoparex have HFT coating, Zeiss Distagon 2.8/35 QBM(Rollei's Quick Bayonet Mount) with HFT coating are very rare. There is no difference between Singapore and German built lenses  I have cleaned two QBM Planars1.8/50 one Zeiss German made and other one built in Singapore and there is no difference, they are precisely the same.

philip pj wrote: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,The Leica R Elmarit 35mm 2.8 type II is an excellent, high-acutance, nearly flat field lens, great for reproduction, landscape and architecture. "Nearly" flat field because it has more curvature than, say, a macro lens, but excellent for a wide.The C/Y 35mm 2.8 actually has a great reputation, though I've never used it. The Rolleiflex mount 35mm 2.8 is an excellent lens (see other posts in this thread).There are a number of 35mm 2.8 or 2.5 lenses which are very good, often better than their faster brothers.