Leica Elmarit-R 28/2.8 1st version vs Nikon 28mm f/2 AI

[Jedi]

Hello, I would like to ask you a council about a lens, the Leica Elmarit-R 28mm f/2.8 first version for my Nikon D810 (changing the bayonet, of course). I already own a Zeiss Distagon 28/2 and a Nikon 28/2 AI. I prefer Nikon 28/2 AI for internal and internal set portraits, whil I prefer Zeiss 28/2 for landscapes and others genres, because Nikon 28/2 suffers a lot the sun in front (Excuse me for my English!!). I don't know Leica's world, but I have understood that Leica and Zeiss depart from two different point, have two different school: sharpness and colour. I prefer Nikon 28/2 AI for internal to Zeiss, becuse of its warmer colors, warmer tones, more vintage colors and its vitreous tone, which I love also in its cousin Nikon 105/2.5 AI. I don't know Leica's world, so I had to look informations and samples on internet. So I  met Leica Elmarit-R 28/2.8: i loooooooove its colours!! I have uynderstood that what I was looking for for my photos were its tones and colours, which I have found in my Nikon 28/2 AI only minimally, not at all. Its colours are fantastic!! However, I have read that Leica Elmarit-R 28/2.8 was produced in two series: you can find the first costs around 450 euro, while the second 1600 euro.

I found many specimens of the first version, whil only one of the second, at 1600 euro.
I read that exist a great difference between the two versions, about sharpness and distortion: the second is much better: are you agree? I am especially interested in color rendering: is the same between the two version? I would like to avoid spending 1600 euro for the second version. The samples which I've seen are above all of the second version: can the first version produce the same color rendering, the same colour of the second? If not, what  whould you do? Would you stay with the Nikon 28/2 AI, or would you buy the Leica Elmarit-R 28/2.8 II version soon as possiible, because the difference is noticeable?

[toolazytotry]

Not related to the Leica (though I am now intrigued). I am thinking of purchasing the Zeiss Distagon 2/28 ZF to replace my Nikkor 28mm f2 AI-S. Would you happen to have taken direct comparisons between the two? I was hoping to compare sharpness and see the color rendering differences between both side-by-side.

Additionally, the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 you have listed in your profile, is it the Classic or Milvus version? If it is the Classic, have you experienced the focus shift too? I've lately been enamoured with Zeiss lenses and might end up with a full Zeiss line up. Color rendering matters a lot to me since most of my personal work is done on film which is a bit more difficult to manipulate than a RAW digital file from my D610.

Thank you!

[Danulon]

Four years ago the Zeiss Distagon 28 mm made it on Ming Thein's all time best lens list: https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/11/16/the-ultimate-lens-list-nov-2016-1/

And here is a more detailled assessment of its merits: https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/19/zf28distagon/

I really like it, even though I can't classify its optical behaviour in such a way. :p

And right now is certainly a good time of grab one, most people looking for Milvus or mirrorless Zeiss lenses.

[pluton]

I like the Zeiss ZF 28/2.  IMO, it is best accompanied by another 28mm that features a flatter field of focus.  The Nikon AiS 28/2.8 might be an ideal companion.

[Ethan]

The Leica R Elmarit 28 VI is a standard quality lens and any other 28mm is similar in quality if not better and beats it with AF.

However, the Leica R Elmarit 28 VII is a totally different beast with the real unparalleled Leica heritage colours rendering.

As for Mung Thein. it is just his paid bias opinion on gear.

If you want genuine reviews, ask Roger Cigala or Michael Erlewine.

[pluton]

The Leica R Elmarit 28 VI is a standard quality lens and any other 28mm is similar in quality if not better and beats it with AF.

However, the Leica R Elmarit 28 VII is a totally different beast with the real unparalleled Leica heritage colours rendering.

As for Mung Thein. it is just his paid bias opinion on gear.

If you want genuine reviews, ask Roger Cigala or Michael Erlewine.

I read the M.Thein long review of the Zeiss ZF 28/2.  Done in 2012 on a D700.  It seemed obvious that he had actually used the lens extensively, because he accurately described many of the more subtle of its imaging qualities.  Only his description of the field curvature seemed completely wrong.
Mr. Cicala deals only with measurable data, but never (that I have seen) describes the image-drawing qualities of a given lens.

[MEPER]

It is interesting that he is very happy with the Nikkor 45/2.8 P and has it on his top 10 list...….I have seen same lens on a list for the 10 most "bad" Nikkors....so it is very subjective what people like or does not like about a lens.