In your experience is better the Contax G 90/2.8 or the C/Y 85/2.8 Sonnar for a NEX-7? I have the second one, but have the opportunity to switch and need your advice...
In case of switch, what brand produces the best adapters for Contax G to NEX?
fracas wrote:
In your experience is better the Contax G 90/2.8 or the C/Y 85/2.8 Sonnar for a NEX-7? I have the second one, but have the opportunity to switch and need your advice...
In case of switch, what brand produces the best adapters for Contax G to NEX?
tks
francesco
For the NEX I would have no doubt getting the Contax G. It's very small and light - and a high performer. Bad part is the focusing ring that is missing, hence done through the adapter. I dont mind that (I have G 21, 28, 45 and 90) but some do.
Zeiss 35/2 - may have been a professional "shoot," but I got permission from a gentleman who appeared to be serving in a body guard role I know the background is blown out, but, she's pretty for sure...
This isn't a good shot. It isn't even a mediocre shot. In fact, it is only a test shot, but it shows the character that I love so much in the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Distagon ZF.2 which made me buy one recently. Unfortunately the small blemish on the front element turned out to be a series of small but nasty scratches and I sent it back. Double unfortunately it was in Austria and the guy who I bought it from had meanwhile spent the money, so he has to raise some cash to refund me, which could take until the end of the month. @#%!#$!@
carstenw wrote:
This isn't a good shot. It isn't even a mediocre shot. In fact, it is only a test shot, but it shows the character that I love so much in the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Distagon ZF.2 which made me buy one recently. Unfortunately the small blemish on the front element turned out to be a series of small but nasty scratches and I sent it back. Double unfortunately it was in Austria and the guy who I bought it from had meanwhile spent the money, so he has to raise some cash to refund me, which could take until the end of the month. @#%!#$!@ ...Show more →
I've been contemplating this lens for such a long time (ZE for me) but have yet to find one at a time I could pull the trigger. So long as you use the lens in its sweet spot (medium to long distance), I love the look it gives. I must find one!
I adore the colors and contrast from this lens, more so than the fine microdetail it seems to pick up. And having own the 50/1.7 at one point, its strange, it could just be subject variation but I've found the colors and contrast of my 50/1.4 to be higher than that of the 50/1.7. As fantastic as the 50/1.7 was it didn't have quite the punch as I'm getting from my 50/1.4 but... I was shooting a Rebel XT at the time of owning the 50/1.7 so I'm guessing that plays a big part.
adrianb wrote:
Can you tell me how does the Biotar 58 f/2 (m42) stack up against my Planar (zebra) 50 1.8 (m42) in terms of IQ (sharpness, bokeh,color rendition, etc etc)?
Sorry, I've only used the white MC version of the Pancolar, but what I've seen from the Biotar is that it has much stronger swirly bokeh than the Pancolar. The Pancolar already has some of this effect, but it's much more exaggerated with the Biotar. You can use it creatively but it gives some people a feeling of motion sickness (as if the image is spinning). Look for posts from Jim Schemel -- he has been posting some images taken with that lens recently.
I know the background is blown out, but, she's pretty for sure...
