Any experience with the Zeiss 25/2 ?

[Airy]

A 2nd hand copy is available nearby (900€ instead of about 1600€ new), that's why I am asking...

[Frank Fremerey]

You mean the Macro lens (ZF/ZF2)? There are gazillions of reviews out there. It seems she is a beauty in the ballpark of the 2/100mm Macro.

[Airy]

No, the 25mm f/2.0 distagon.

I know there are gazillions of reviews. I'd rather hear from users.

[Frank Fremerey]

The Distagon I had as prerelease in 2006. It is a 2.8/25mm. My findings were then summarized by this guy here: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/zf25mm/index.html

I loved it but was reluctant to buy it because I wanted AF and later bought the 1.4/14G by Nikon

Today I would go for the SIGMA ART

[pluton]

At that price, you can buy without concern, because you are almost guaranteed to be able to resell it for the same.
I had a copy of the ZF2 25/2 Distagon for about two years.  I believe my copy was a good one.  It was an excellent, very highly corrected lens.  It had even sharpness across the frame from wide open.  Relatively small amount of regular, non-wave distortion, so many shots of the man-made environment appear to have no distortion at all.  Reduced lateral CA compared to Zeiss 35/2, 28/2, maybe even less than 21/2.8.  I found it slightly more difficult to focus(at wide open) on the D800 screen than the 35/2, 21/2.8, etc.
Wide open at infinity it seems very slightly less contrasty on the distant subjects than it does in the medium and close range....many users have reported this phenomenon.
I might re-acquire this lens if it was offered at such a reasonable price.
I could post some shots I made with it if it would be useful.

[Airy]

Thanks Pluton. I do not really need sample shots, as some have been made available on the net (and often do not reveal a lot, when only available in a downsized and compressed format). User experience is what I'm after. Charts only convey partial info too. From experiencce, subjective reports and ranking, such as those published by a certain Naturfotograf, are better predictors of my own satisfaction than any kind of DxO-Mark. This does not prevent me from consulting the latter with interest. Also, those sites that combine measurements with user opinions (slrgear, fred miranda) are very useful.

BTW I could not purchase the lense, lacking time. Next time maybe, if it is still on display.

[esym]

It's a fine lens.  Very low CA, but a short focus throw and noticeable field curvature in the far corners.  Designed, I think, as a PJ lens but quite good for interiors.

[pluton]

I cannot imagine an experienced photojournalist being able to quickly and accurately focus this lens --- with much reliability ---  in fast moving situations. 
On both the D3 and D800, it was unusually difficult to see the point of sharp focus. 
Some lenses are easier to 'see the focus' with than others, due to some unique interaction between the lens design and the focusing screen of the particular camera model.  This was one of the less easy ones.
Maybe using the green dot would help.

[esym]

The green dot method works fine.  Like most (all?) wide angle lenses it is harder to focus.  Probably not the right lens for action shots. 😊

[pluton]

Your shot is an excellent example of the minimized distortion in the ZF2 25/2, Bill.

[JohnBrew]

Photozones has a test of one. Look under Canon FF.

[Fons Baerken]

From what i understand people shooting b/w often consider zeiss lenses for their better microcontrast.

[Airy]

... and they are correct. I quenched my GAS with the Tamron 45/1.8 and it is the anti-Zeiss : relatively mild contrast, and very low vignetting. While I had very good reasons for purchasing it, it is not the kind of lens to be placed in a kit with, say, the 21/2.8. Getting homogeneous shoots would become slightly tricky, although the lens is definitely sharp.