Great review, I like Auggie. There are so little reviews about this lens in youtube, this lens is never a popular lens. People tend to like the 35mm F2.0 distagon because it is sharper or get older C/Y 28mm distagon. I think the Distagon 28 f2.0 should worth more ppl paying attention to.
That's why wise individuals such as yourself are in smaller numbers, that appreciate this lens. I think the main reason why most go for the CY f2 version is the manual aperture ,since the classics ZE doesn't have it, while the ZF version focuses the other way. Its the only explanation I would have why people would pay much more for the CY f2 version, which is in worse worn condition and is more prone to haze and mold. Other than coatings, optically they are identical.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 That's why I have 2 copies of the ZF 28mm. However there are more differences other than coatings. 1) CY it is a 9 elements in 8 groups design, while the Classic it's a 10 elements in 8 groups. You can check the PDFs on Zeiss website. 2.) the big overlooked difference is that german made Zeiss lenses utilized Schott glass. It contained lead and is a proprietary formula which is closely guarded. Recent (past 15-20 years) environmental restrictions threated continued use of lead (and arsenic) in optical glass and elsewhere. This restrictions resulted in a lower quality optical glass, like more CA (if you check it, the Classics have more CA than Contax?). Usually the excuse is that the Classics were designed for film, but then the Contaxes weren't? :D Maybe that's why the Classic 28mm and 21mm have one extra element, to correct something. If you get a Zeiss (or Leica) that was manufactured before the introduction of € as a currency (this is an aproximation :D), you will most likely get the best optical glass. Yes, the Contax lenses are softer (never had a Contax 28mm 2.0, but had two 35mm 1.4 and were not usable at 1.4), but back then they didn't had the computation power of today, so it's understandable. As for today, Contax and Leica unicorns are snob territory (4500€ for a 19mm?? crazy!), so Zeiss ZFs are the perfect alternative. BTW I also have the ZF 25mm f2.0 and I like it better (on my BMCC and BMPCC OG small sensors) compared to the 28mm. Of course less DOF, since it's a bit wider.
@@bobbykent6556 Although I don't have a chance to compare a contax and ZF 28mm side by side, both of them suffer CA wide open from some online reviews i see. may be contax version is slightly less pronounce but image is also lower contrast. I cannot verfity the lead content in Cosina glass, some say yes & some say no. Lens design is compromise and trade off, Zeiss adds 1 more element to for more sharpness wide open but they don't address CA quite well.
Its why people should envy your sense of humor. Technically, that is correct, but the classic having the same internals as the original contact version according to Zeiss, it has been seen as a "Hollywood" in an updated body.
Thank you, your good taste is appreciated. Unfortunately a 25mm classic is not available, but from most reviews of people who own both, the 28mm has a more noticeable 3d pop and contrasted colors. How much of the 3d pop can be attributed to the additional 3mm, is hard to know.
I don't have any access to the 25mm f2 to review myself. But from many reviews there seems to be a common theme that the 25mm is less 3d in rendering than the 28mm. And maybe also less contrast.
Your question shall be answered. That time sequence was shot with the Otus 55mm at f1.4. Because that lens is sharp wide-open, it creates that still image look with the Zeiss bokeh.
Very nice video, You got a sub off me! Btw you should maybe post your video in Facebook groups and forums to get more hits. Your channel has lots off potential 😜
Great review. Should get much more attention!
Sir, you have excellent taste.
Auggie is hilarious and still serves up great humor and valuable lens info!.... Awesome channel.
@@backfilms1953 Uhmmmm.... Ya I think it might be. 🤣
Brilliant, thanks for the laughs...
I’m really a fan of the look. It’s not a lens that was on my radar, so I’m glad I came across your video. Thanks!
You are a gentleman of taste and style.
Poor Auggi. We all must suffer for our craft. lol. Good video. You should have 1 million followers!
Thank you, good Sir. As for Oggie he had it a long time coming, poluting eyesight everywhere.
Great review, I like Auggie. There are so little reviews about this lens in youtube, this lens is never a popular lens. People tend to like the 35mm F2.0 distagon because it is sharper or get older C/Y 28mm distagon. I think the Distagon 28 f2.0 should worth more ppl paying attention to.
That's why wise individuals such as yourself are in smaller numbers, that appreciate this lens.
I think the main reason why most go for the CY f2 version is the manual aperture ,since the classics ZE doesn't have it, while the ZF version focuses the other way. Its the only explanation I would have why people would pay much more for the CY f2 version, which is in worse worn condition and is more prone to haze and mold. Other than coatings, optically they are identical.
@@thatweirdfilmmaker4521 That's why I have 2 copies of the ZF 28mm. However there are more differences other than coatings. 1) CY it is a 9 elements in 8 groups design, while the Classic it's a 10 elements in 8 groups. You can check the PDFs on Zeiss website. 2.) the big overlooked difference is that german made Zeiss lenses utilized Schott glass. It contained lead and is a proprietary formula which is closely guarded. Recent (past 15-20 years) environmental restrictions threated continued use of lead (and arsenic) in optical glass and elsewhere. This restrictions resulted in a lower quality optical glass, like more CA (if you check it, the Classics have more CA than Contax?). Usually the excuse is that the Classics were designed for film, but then the Contaxes weren't? :D Maybe that's why the Classic 28mm and 21mm have one extra element, to correct something. If you get a Zeiss (or Leica) that was manufactured before the introduction of € as a currency (this is an aproximation :D), you will most likely get the best optical glass. Yes, the Contax lenses are softer (never had a Contax 28mm 2.0, but had two 35mm 1.4 and were not usable at 1.4), but back then they didn't had the computation power of today, so it's understandable. As for today, Contax and Leica unicorns are snob territory (4500€ for a 19mm?? crazy!), so Zeiss ZFs are the perfect alternative. BTW I also have the ZF 25mm f2.0 and I like it better (on my BMCC and BMPCC OG small sensors) compared to the 28mm. Of course less DOF, since it's a bit wider.
@@bobbykent6556 Although I don't have a chance to compare a contax and ZF 28mm side by side, both of them suffer CA wide open from some online reviews i see. may be contax version is slightly less pronounce but image is also lower contrast. I cannot verfity the lead content in Cosina glass, some say yes & some say no. Lens design is compromise and trade off, Zeiss adds 1 more element to for more sharpness wide open but they don't address CA quite well.
There is nothing like your chanell in the whole universe. I'm a fan already. Please send a t-shirt, cap, and wool, warm pijamas with an Auggies face 😂
And that is why objectively you have taste and style. 👍
Came for the vintage lens review, stayed for the comedy. Priceless.
Good Sir, you came for knowledge and stayed for Quality. A true Hero in a classical sense.
These reviews are so funny. Love your work
Thank you, good Sir. You know quality when you see it!
One of the best reviews to date 😂
Your excellent taste is appreciated!
Awesome content. Really enjoy what you produce. May you grow your channel fast. Auggy is just not selling it enough 👍
Your wisdom and logic shall be appreciated by generations to come. Yes, instead of calling an ambulance Oggie got a stern talking to.
Auggi should have more subs.
Auggi should wear a Depends.
Awesome video, the humour is much appreciated. I think tho the Zeiss classic 28 mm F2 is not the "Hollywood" (only the vintage one).
Its why people should envy your sense of humor.
Technically, that is correct, but the classic having the same internals as the original contact version according to Zeiss, it has been seen as a "Hollywood" in an updated body.
Great video as per usual! Wish I could see a side by side of the 25mm and the 28mm to compare the rendering.
Thank you, your good taste is appreciated.
Unfortunately a 25mm classic is not available, but from most reviews of people who own both, the 28mm has a more noticeable 3d pop and contrasted colors. How much of the 3d pop can be attributed to the additional 3mm, is hard to know.
Wise points and well made. I have the 28mm on the way 😁
Could you do one on the 25mm F2 peleeease?
I don't have any access to the 25mm f2 to review myself. But from many reviews there seems to be a common theme that the 25mm is less 3d in rendering than the 28mm. And maybe also less contrast.
Hey can you please tell what you did from 2:14 to 2:47? The background looks like a still image. Is it distagon which made the background like that?
Your question shall be answered. That time sequence was shot with the Otus 55mm at f1.4. Because that lens is sharp wide-open, it creates that still image look with the Zeiss bokeh.
The closeup on Oggie's eyes has turned me to stone. Prepare to be sued.
There are a bunch of lawsuits towards Oggie. 5 cases about him polluting the gargoyle gene pool.
Awww Auggi :'(
Very nice video, You got a sub off me! Btw you should maybe post your video in Facebook groups and forums to get more hits. Your channel has lots off potential 😜
Thank you, good Sir. You are a gentleman of good taste.