Zeiss ZF / ZK Distagon T* 28mm f/2 Review

The Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm ƒ/2 lens for Nikon F (ZF) or Pentax K mount (ZK) is one of the recent series of manual-focus SLR lenses designed by Carl Zeiss in Oberkochen and manufactured under Zeiss QC by Cosina in Japan. I recently took it for a brief spin in Pentax mount, on a K20D with a 1.2X viewfinder loupe (i.e., magnifying eyepiece).

Zeiss seems to prefer older-style lens designs—witness the resurgence of rangefinder Biogons—and this Distagon is in some ways a quintessential old-fashioned Zeiss. It shows evidence of many of the typical flaws of traditional spherical wide angles: there is noticeable linear distortion (barrel type); the corners are worse than the center at wider apertures, and would doubtless be worse still on 24x36mm cameras; optimal correction has obviously been chosen for a focus distance closer than infinity, because infinity resolution is not terribly good; and performance at the widest apertures is noticeably worse than at the center apertures (ƒ/5.6–11). Yet large-structure contrast is outstandingly good and color transmission is superior, making for pictures that are viscerally satisfying in ways that lesser lenses can't match.

Flare seems decently if not outstandingly well controlled, and out-of-depth-of-field blur (bokeh) is also better than average without being class-leading, meaning it shouldn't bother most photographers except in extreme cases. I could not induce purple fringing. That doesn't mean you never will, but at least it seems well controlled.

Unfortunately the lens's worst flaw also happens to be the quality that I'm most allergic to these days (golden-eyes syndrome...sigh): surprisingly pronounced curvature of field. Its other flaws are mild in comparison. Most photographers don't even know how to see curvature of field in pictures, so it might not bother many buyers. But it's an Achilles' heel for the Distagon 28mm, and if you know how to see this property and you don't like it, expect it to ruin the occasional unlucky shot for you when it shows up.

Handling is fine, although I found the lens somewhat difficult to focus at times. The all-metal build quality is excellent, much better than most lenses these days.

Applications: This won't be the best choice for the landscape photographer, and as an all-around snapshooting lens it will be better suited to someone who uses it a lot and bothers to get to know it well, because performance is variable across the frame, up and down the aperture range, and to a slight extent depending on focus distance. It doesn't match today's super lenses for consistency in all conditions. Rather, this lens will reward the careful user who learns how to get the most out of it and takes care to use it in sympathetic conditions. The widest apertures especially will come with pictorial effects that will need to be understood in order to be applied with intelligence.

Recommended? No. This lens is in no way, shape or form a "dog"; in fact it's quite an excellent lens, of which owners could rightly be proud. Most of the flaws I've mentioned are present in most wide-angles to some degree. However, of the thirty or so major constraints that face the lens designer, size and selling price are #1 and #2—although I wouldn't want to have to pick which is which—and both of these parameters are significantly relaxed with this lens, which is both large and expensive. I would simply expect a modern 10-element interchangeable SLR lens this big (93mm long), heavy (520g), and costly (US$1,033 at B&H Photo as I write this) to be better corrected technically—more like its stablemate, the Distagon 35mm ƒ/2. I would expect it to be more, well, modern.

Still, there are significant consolations, because it also shows the traditional Zeiss virtues in spades: at middle apertures and middling focusing distances (i.e., not stressed), it is very sharp over the greater part of its field, with superb macrocontrast and rich, deep, subtly variegated color that can be beautiful and pleasing. The best results from this lens will surpass the best you can get out of many lesser lenses in richness, vividness, and a subjective sense of clarity. And this doesn't require pixel-peeping or golden eyes to see: non-photographers could notice it, and it should be readily evident to you.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Support us by using our links:
Amazon U.S. link
Amazon U.K. link
Amazon Germany link
Amazon Canada link
B&H Photo link

Featured Comment by Carsten Bockermann: "Yes, the curvature of field is quite pronounced as can be seen in the example below (Nikon D700, ƒ/2). Looking at the ornaments on the wall in the lower third of the picture you will see that they are much sharper towards the lower left corner than in the center, although the distance is just the same. Apart from that I find the ZF 28/2 an excellent performer. The Nikkor AI 28/2 is also a joy to use. It has somewhat more even illumination across the field but less contrast, which is most evident around bright light sources in the photos."

1/28/09 Carsten adds: Sean Reid of Reid Reviews just published his review of the ZF 28/2.

Comments

[Ben Rosengart]

Do you have any images you could show us which demonstrate this lens at its best?

Thanks,

[Tom Swoboda]

Where are the images?

[Christer Almqvist]

Please tell us "how to see curvature of field in pictures".

Best regards

Chris

[Howard Cornelsen]

"golden-eyes syndrome"?

I've never heard the term. How does curvature of field produce golden eyes?

Thanks.

[Chris]

Thanks for the brief write-up Mike. It's always good to get your impressions of the many lenses I'll never get to use. Many Pentaxians will want to hear how this compares with the FA31 Limited lens - have you had a chance to use that lens?

[Jerry Thirsty]

Thanks, Mike. A very timely review, as I'm looking at replacing my current 28 with something better. I'd been thinking of the 31 Limited, with the Zeiss being a possible contender. The 31 sounds better to me.

[Michael Johnston]

"'golden-eyes syndrome'? I've never heard the term."

Howard,
It's not a real term. I was referring to what audiophiles call "golden ears" syndrome, which is the ability to detect fanatically nit-picky electrical and acoustic artifacts when listening to what would otherwise be enjoyable recorded music. I, for instance, can sometimes hear individual instruments recorded out of phase in a soundfield, and I'm particularly susceptible to hearing bass standing waves if they exist. This sort of thing generally doesn't contribute to enjoyment, all things considered.

Mike J.

[ch]

Mike,

Thanks for this review. You have some of the only reviews I ever read online that don't equivocate in any way. This lens has problems, you describe them accurately, and you pass your judgement. I can't tell you how many reviews I see that seem to be afraid to make a judgement. They show you sample shots, show images that clearly illustrate shortcomings, yet somehow completely fail to say what is apparent to anyone with a pair of eyes: "This lens is a stinker".

The last one you panned was the truly awful 24-120 Nikkor zoom that Nikon is inexplicably packaging with its D700 kits. That one still boggles my mind because anyone buying the kit will be sure that the D700 is a piece of junk, when it really is that dog of a lens they sell with it. I owned one, unfortunately, and you were spot on.

[Michael Johnston]

Chris,
Take my word for this...you really don't want to start looking for curvature of field in pictures. (Sigh.)

Mike J.

[Michael Johnston]

ch,
Thanks, but your comment prompted me to add another sentence to the review, right after "Recommended? No." Take a look.

Mike J.

[Kevin]

Mike:

I would love to see your thoughts on the 25mm Zeiss, that's the one that really interests me!

[ch]

I appreciate your clarification, and let me add one of my own: I realize that you were not pronouncing this particular lens 'a dog', but rather one that does not have match up to comparably priced lenses in this category. But that is exactly the sort of clarity that is so hard to find in lens reviews, both printed and online.

But I will stand by my (and your) assessment of the 24-120 nikkor as a dog. That lens IS a dog. Not good at all, and not bad in any good way ( as in a Diana lens ).

[Bahi]

"Take my word for this...you really don't want to start looking for curvature of field in pictures. (Sigh.)"

A burden shared… :)

[Mike Jones]

I'm not an owner of the 28mm, but do have the ZF 50mm and 25mm. I got the 50mm F1.4 after succumbing to camera lust for Nikon FM3a. As a Canon user I had no Nikkor lenses, and frankly didn't want any. The Zeiss appeared ideal; both with the company's reputation and the lack of auto-focus. Who wants a sloppy auto-focus lens on a manual focus camera? Well the 50mm shined. I don't know quite what it is, but slides and scans both look better than with my trio of Canon L zooms. The 25mm quickly followed but here things were not so simple. The 25mm is a big lens, heavily retro-focused (for digital users?), and wide open shows some dramatic purple fringing. It probably has distortion too, but who's looking! Still, in the right circumstances it has that Zeiss thing; and in the end both lenses are better, lighter and faster than all my Canons.

[Wieland]

It is one thing to criticise a lens. But one has to compare it to others.
The FA31 has been mentioned. Is it better?
Or the K28/2 or the M28/2?

What is your alternative?

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

For some reason I thought curvature of field was always "concave", meaning closer in the corners than in the middle, but from the example this lens seems to be "convex". Is this unusual?

[Michael Johnston]

"The FA31 has been mentioned. Is it better? Or the K28/2 or the M28/2?"

Wieland,
If you'd like to send any of those to me, I'll give 'em a workout.

Mike J.

[John Camp]

I have a painting that I believe was uncritically made from a photograph, because the buildings on the right side of the painting show barrel distortion (one of the problems with the Zeiss.) Somehow, I don't notice it so much in photos, because it's something you expect in certain shots, and my brain simply buys it. But in the painting, it drives me nuts. The buildings look like they're about to topple into the street.

JC

[Robin Parmar]

Hold on. In Carsten's photo it is apparent the camera is not perpendicular to the axis of the screen/wall on which is located the filigree work. And not only in the lateral plane (obvious from the architecture of the church), but also vertically, as there is noticeable perspective distortion. So I don't think this image illustrates the lens flaw.

[Michael Johnston]

Robin,
It does. It's just not an *ideal* illustration, being a real picture....

Mike J.

[Tom K.]

Is there a reason lenses such as this are always Manual focus and not auto-focus?

[Iñaki Arbelaiz]

What I was wondering is how much better this lens performs againts the "wünderplastic" FA 28 2.8 or the "wündermetal" FA* 24 2.0 [which retails for 645 Euros approximately second hand].

´cos sometimes you find that those "wünderplastic" pentax lenses are truly keepers when compared to the most expensive competition [ie, the FA 35 and FA 50].

[Mark]

I can see it in the example. Kind of like the bad tilt/shift copy pics you see things in or out of focus you shouldn't.

[Eric]

Thanks for the review, Mike. I've long been itching for a high-performance 28mm lens, and I had hoped this one came closer to the Zeiss 35. Reports on the 28 have been very hard to find on the web, so this review is particularly worthwhile. Looks like I'll have to keep waiting for Nikon to get off its butt and make a new 28.

[Carsten Bockermann]

If you're looking for a thorough evaluation of the Zeiss 28/2 (and other Zeiss lenses), http://www.diglloyd.com/ is an excellent source. It's a paysite, but well worth the money IMHO.

Carsten

[Kevin]

I have the Zeiss 25mm on my K20D and love it... here's some shot's from my stream:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kjlloyd/tags/zeiss/

All of these have been played with colour wise, but the lens seems to have great contrast, and very good flare rejection in my experience.

The 28mm is reviewed here actually :

http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/433/51/