p.1 #1 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
I am quite happy with the 28-experience but realize that what I am looking for - coming from Canon 5DMkII and a multitude of fast lenses that produces what I look for - is shallow DOF. The 28 produces very sharp images across the frame starting wide-open - something that kind of surprised me coming from the FF-world with some really pixelsharp experiences with the 5D2.
The Contax G internal focusing is not very smooth (through the adapter) but I am getting a hang of it now. I guess that's the price for size (almost wrote Zeiss by mistake, oops ;-).
The fastest lenses around are not Contax G, but if I get a longer focale I could still achieve what I like I think. The CV's, Leicas and what-have-you below ~30mm cost more than I am willing to pay right now.
So what could be the best choice, the 45 or the 90? The 35 are too close to what I already have. Or are there any alternatives (still small) at a similar price/IQ level?
p.1 #2 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
can you give an example photo of the type of pictures you take on FF? how shallow dof are you looking for and how narrow a field of view can you tolerate?
p.1 #3 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
I've using Contax G45/2 and G90/2.8 along with G28/2.8 and I am very happy with the results. With respect to focal length, 45 is closer to 70 in full frame, and 90 is about 135. You will be the one decides what you prefer. As for CV lenses, IMHO, they are very good but Contax G lenses are special.
p.1 #5 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
I have an Industar-69 28/2.8 pancake with custom adapter giving infinity, for sale (pm me if interested). Not the best/sharpest lens in the world (just a tradeoff for its' super small size and cheap price, that's the tradeoff), but totally usable and gives pics a vintage low-contrast looks, with occasional flares. Thin as the Sony 16mm.
p.1 #6 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
sebboh wrote:
can you give an example photo of the type of pictures you take on FF? how shallow dof are you looking for and how narrow a field of view can you tolerate?
This is what I like with FF and a lens like 35/1.4 (@ 1.4). I want blurry backgrounds and crisp subjects. Quite hard to find an equivalent setup for the NEX. But I guess (when it comes to DOF) that one shortcut is to increase focal length and de-zoom with the legs, hence the question
p.1 #8 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
wfrank wrote:
This is what I like with FF and a lens like 35/1.4 (@ 1.4). I want blurry backgrounds and crisp subjects. Quite hard to find an equivalent setup for the NEX. But I guess (when it comes to DOF) that one shortcut is to increase focal length and de-zoom with the legs, hence the question
your never going to get the same look as FF with aps-c, but the best lens for that on the NEX would probably be the cv 35/1.2. it is a little big and nearly $1000 though. the cv 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 are very small but aren't nearly as good performers, won't blur the background as much, and have significantly harsher bokeh. from the cost perspective your best bet to come close would be an old slr 50/1.4. there are a bunch of different ones that can be had cheaply, but from what i've seen of your shots and processing you would probably like some version of the pentax 50/1.4 best of the sub $400 fast 50s. for around $500 you could get the cv 50/1.5 which is by all accounts extremely good and smaller by a bit than slr lenses.
p.1 #9 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
sebboh wrote:
your never going to get the same look as FF with aps-c, but the best lens for that on the NEX would probably be the cv 35/1.2. it is a little big and nearly $1000 though. the cv 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 are very small but aren't nearly as good performers, won't blur the background as much, and have significantly harsher bokeh. from the cost perspective your best bet to come close would be an old slr 50/1.4. there are a bunch of different ones that can be had cheaply, but from what i've seen of your shots and processing you would probably like some version of the pentax 50/1.4 best of the sub $400 fast 50s. for around $500 you could get the cv 50/1.5 which is by all accounts extremely good and smaller by a bit than slr lenses.
i don't think you'll find anything like the performance/cost value of contax g 45/2 and 90/2.8 though. these lenses are still class leading (they out perform nearly all modern lenses of the same focal length). they weren't designed for maximum blur though. here's some example of the 45/2 at f/2 on the NEX for an idea of the dof (it's basically the same you would get at 70/2.8 with a FF camera): ...Show more →
Dawud: thanks for the heads-up. I wasnt really aware of that one. Saw a similarly handsome 40/1.4. I dont find much information on them though. Pricewise they're ok - any opinions on IQ if you're kind of picky (but not a total perfectionist)?
Philber: oh indeed, that's blur The 90 is looking good!
Sebboh. Compliments on a wonderful and photogenic daughter (yours I assume) - that combined with you yields extremely handsome images #3 and #6. Immediately frame those, they belong to the wall.
Regarding blur I probably mean to say that I want to separate subject from background. The blurry part (bokeh) from the Samyang is normally very soft, which as it happens isnt really the case in the image I posted above. The bokeh of the G 28/2.8 is pleasing but harsher - but of course a lot attributed to the smaller aperture (and sensor).
Really appreciate your suggestions, will look into them and it will for sure help shorten the shortlist for the choices available.
p.1 #10 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
Ok, that's it, just bought a mint 45/2 from England. Mostly for the F/2 compared to 2.8, it's a full stop and remembering some really nice experiences with 5DII and EF 85/1.8 I will see if it performs on a similar level.
Sebboh and Philber. What adapters do you use? I have a cheapo one fully metallic and good overall quality feel. Focusing is not smoot all-over but I read the same thing about expensive adapters for G lenses. In my case after a week with the 28 - it works fine (when zooming the screen - focus peaking is not enough). It does not come close to a real focusing ring but the size and IQ of the G lens I have made me continue that road.
p.1 #12 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
michael49 wrote:
Seboh, those 45 f/2 shots are fantastic.
+1
I missed one of those when I was on a FM meeting in Berlin. Now I bought a Leica R 60 makro, and will see how I live with it. It might relieve my need of the G 45.
I use a Kipon adapter, and could say pretty much the same as you, wfrank. It is far from a great sensory experience, but the glass is just too good to forgo. Congratulations on your new lens...
p.1 #14 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
I have had both the Contax 45/2 and the Voigtlander 40/1.4 for about a month, and I don't think I'd get rid of either one. The CV is useful for low-light situations, and is also a tad smaller. The Contax is pretty amazing optically, but it does take time to achieve critical focus, particularly with its adapter focus ring.
Couple of shots of the same subject (pretty much my only subject over the last few weeks). If you go to Flickr, you can see the detail on the originals.
p.1 #16 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
I am glad to see that the Contax G lenses are having a revival.
I was very pleased with the G2 with 21/28/45/90mm with the 21 and 45 being the superstars in that outfit. The 28 is splendid but almost always took a backseat to the 21.
Back then I was met by a lot of skepticism by fellow photogs when I said I thought the lenses were among the best ever made for 24x36. However, a lot of people (not photographers) were commenting on the prints as being very sharp, lifelike and detailed or as they often said: they are so clear. And then the following "oh, you must have a great camera" comments ensued. Sigh...
p.1 #17 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
I agree, Henrik. I own G 21, 28 and 90, and they are unquestionably remarkable, even by Zeiss standard. When you think of how little 28, 45 and 90 cost, they should be the first port of call for alt glass on NEX, if one is willing to live with the less-than-ideal focusing on the adapter.
p.1 #18 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
wfrank wrote:
Dawud: thanks for the heads-up. I wasnt really aware of that one. Saw a similarly handsome 40/1.4. I dont find much information on them though. Pricewise they're ok - any opinions on IQ if you're kind of picky (but not a total perfectionist)?
Philber: oh indeed, that's blur The 90 is looking good!
Sebboh. Compliments on a wonderful and photogenic daughter (yours I assume) - that combined with you yields extremely handsome images #3 and #6. Immediately frame those, they belong to the wall.
Regarding blur I probably mean to say that I want to separate subject from background. The blurry part (bokeh) from the Samyang is normally very soft, which as it happens isnt really the case in the image I posted above. The bokeh of the G 28/2.8 is pleasing but harsher - but of course a lot attributed to the smaller aperture (and sensor).
Really appreciate your suggestions, will look into them and it will for sure help shorten the shortlist for the choices available.
Frank, I think you will find difficulty on creating the same amount of blur as your 35 f/1.4 on FF. Sure you could use longer FL to achieve that but the perspective & dimensionality will be different also.
About the Nokton 40 f/1.4, it is a competent lens that's usable wide open and good by f/2. But currently I didn't use it as much, I prefer 35 C-Biogon & 50 Planar combo. However, if I was in your shoes, I'll get the Nokton 35 f/1.2 mk.II or Leica 35 summilux. Even with those lenses you still lose some performance compared to full frame but for what you get considering the weight, you get a lot.
The dark patch is alway at the bottom frame if I hold the camera horizontally. Unfortunately this problem just came and gone. It just showed up in some photos and disappeared during the same shooting session. When I deliberately trying to reproduce it, I couldn't get it.
I am using Kipon adapter on this lens. I am not sure if it's related to the adapter. I have just swapped with the metabones adapter (from my G90). Will try this coming weekend to see if happens again.
p.1 #20 · NEX with Contax G after 28/2.8: 45/2 or 90/2.8?
philber wrote:
When you think of how little 28, 45 and 90 cost, they should be the first port of call for alt glass on NEX, if one is willing to live with the less-than-ideal focusing on the adapter.
I agree certainly for the 45 and 90, but I'm still waffling over the 28, given that it sounds like the corners are still a bit soft even on the 5N, and given that there are some pretty good SLR 28/2.8s in that same price range (C/Y, Nikkor, etc.) that shouldn't have those corner issues.
