Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2014 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF

  
 
kopuschenfred
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


The optical formula appears updated significantly according to the spec.
The new version evidently has macro 1:2 so that's new. But for non-macro type work, do anyone see noticeable difference between the two versions? Pebbleplace appears see not much real-world significant difference other than deep black contrast in the bokeh.



Mar 18, 2014 at 02:36 PM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


kopuschenfred wrote:
The optical formula appears updated significantly according to the spec.
The new version evidently has macro 1:2 so that's new. But for non-macro type work, do anyone see noticeable difference between the two versions? Pebbleplace appears see not much real-world significant difference other than deep black contrast in the bokeh.


The MP is sharper at large apertures. Blur characteristics are very similar, including defocus color fringing.




Mar 18, 2014 at 04:32 PM
Ulff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


I have owned the older Contax for some years, sold it, and use now the ZE 100. I haven't compared both lenses directly (so my opinion is probably biased), but judging from thousands of images with both lenses I much prefer the newer ZE for non-macro work. It is sharper and has more contrast at f2.0 and f2.8. It has less CA than the Contax wide open (although the ZE has some problems here, too). I also like the wide open bokeh from the ZE more, but this may partly be due to the shorter MFD. Stopped down (f4.0 and below) both lenses are excellent (the ZE is as good as it gets and I never saw any problem with the Contax here). With manual focussing I have much more luck with the ZE, probably due to the better wide open contrast, but live view should reduce this difference.


Mar 18, 2014 at 04:38 PM
kopuschenfred
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


Great to hear some feedbacks from real world usage! I was tempted to use Contax for the more compact size (although almost same weight). Cost wise I think it's about 30% difference (if both used) so not too significant.



Mar 18, 2014 at 04:47 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


I would not trade the CY100/2 for the ZE version. Among a set of CY's I have one ZE; the superb 21/2.8. I could never find a CY copy at a reasonable price, which BTW, usually is more expensive than a new ZE/ZF. When using the ZE21 I always wonder what I am missing from the original. As you can tell I am biased :-)

Some shots reminding me of what I like with the CY100/2. First three with the Canon 5D2 (focusing though fast matte) and the last with Sony A7. Sry for bigger size of the last. Subject isolation possibilities are amazing.












Mar 18, 2014 at 05:32 PM
nehemiahphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


Not sure if it helps, but I am used to high quality lenses, and I recently purchased the 100 ZF--I found it too sharp for portrait work. First time it's ever happened to me.

I have used the Nikon 85 1.4, Sony Carl Zeiss 85 and 135, Mino 85, Sigma 85, Canon 85 1.2 for reference.

The Zeiss ZF is phenomenally sharp and modern, which I found good for general and macro photography but I found unpleasant of for portraiture.



Mar 18, 2014 at 05:52 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


The Contaxes are true aficionado lenses, beyond the 'usual sharper, better wide open, CA' business. That era saw some great character lenses. Zeiss more recently changed their name, changed their aim, changed some stuff around - and started making clinical, contrasty, 'perfect' lenses for C/N users...

If you don't see 'organic', don't buy it. Many photographers and cinematographers like them.

Want to know more? Start reading:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide

'The Contax don’t look vintage to me, but they also don’t look modern. I know “organic” is a hackneyed term, but it fits. On digital, these things are a home run..'

PS. the 100/2 is one of the best, a star among stars.



Mar 18, 2014 at 06:56 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


I own the ZF.2 version, and have always been curious about the Contax. From what I have seen, and it have looked a lot, the difference is similar to the two 35/1.4 lenses, which means that the Contax version is not as optically great as the newer version, but has more presence, something less tangible. I am fairly sure that I will end up with the Contax lenses. Whether or not I then sell the ZF.2 lenses is an open question. The Contax versions appear to have more 3D, by the way.


Mar 18, 2014 at 07:30 PM
kopuschenfred
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


@wfrank, thanks for the image samples! I like large samples because that's what telling about the imagery. "Holy crap!" is my first reaction

@nehemiahphoto, @philip_pj, I do start to realize that the modern Zeiss are designed with more emphasize towards nowadays lens test and reviews (MTF, resolution, etc.). It may also reveal as a trend when we see samples from AE->MM->ZE/ZF.

@carstenw, 3D is another things that intrigues me and get me hooked (oh those micro contrast, like those from wfrank's images)

To have an MM collection of Zeiss glass is tempting, the 21mm has a price that's insane so that might be the only exception I'll make in the end, not that I don't like to I guess.



Mar 18, 2014 at 07:42 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


philip_pj wrote:
The Contaxes are true aficionado lenses, beyond the 'usual sharper, better wide open, CA' business. That era saw some great character lenses. Zeiss more recently changed their name, changed their aim, changed some stuff around - and started making clinical, contrasty, 'perfect' lenses for C/N users...

If you don't see 'organic', don't buy it. Many photographers and cinematographers like them.

Want to know more? Start reading:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide

'The Contax don’t look vintage to me, but they also don’t look modern. I know “organic” is a hackneyed term, but it fits. On digital, these things are a home run..'

PS. the 100/2 is one
...Show more

That was an interesting link, never saw it. I never thought of, or heard, the T* coating described as "low contrast". I guess it was in comparison with Leica R and specifically about "Contax T*" but regardless, interesting.



Mar 19, 2014 at 05:58 AM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF




That was an interesting link, never saw it. I never thought of, or heard, the T* coating described as "low contrast". I guess it was in comparison with Leica R and specifically about "Contax T*" but regardless, interesting.


Interesting indeed. According to the author of that piece, I am full of shit.




Mar 19, 2014 at 11:32 AM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


I considered the P2/100 to be my best lens in my Contax years. High contrast already at full aperture, great subject separation, and a wonderful background blur. Simply il miglior 100 f/2 in commercio at that time.

That said, I sometimes feel that the reputation of this lens has reached a folklore status. The only valid comparison is a direct comparison, and that is what I did soon after I bought the MP2/100. The results silenced the "P2/100 has more 3D" crowd as well as the "P2/100 has better subject separation" crowd, not to mention the "MP2/100 has more LOCA" crowd. I sold the P2/100.

Generally I prefer the Y/C version of a lens when the ZE/ZF version has a similar design, tweaked mainly to accommodate environmentally friendly glass types, and the ZE/ZF version when the design is new.



Mar 19, 2014 at 12:01 PM
briantho
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


Toothwalker wrote:
I considered the P2/100 to be my best lens in my Contax years. High contrast already at full aperture, great subject separation, and a wonderful background blur. Simply il miglior 100 f/2 in commercio at that time.

That said, I sometimes feel that the reputation of this lens has reached a folklore status. The only valid comparison is a direct comparison, and that is what I did soon after I bought the MP2/100. The results silenced the "P2/100 has more 3D" crowd as well as the "P2/100 has better subject separation" crowd, not to mention the "MP2/100 has more LOCA" crowd.
...Show more

Do you have a link to your direct comparisons? The 100/2 is on my short list... Almost everything I've seen taken with that lens has magic to it, whereas the MP100/2 is just boring.



Mar 19, 2014 at 12:20 PM
carlitos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


Good information.

I really like my ZF 28/2 and 35/2. Maybe look into the Contax MM 85/2.8 & 35/2.8.



Mar 19, 2014 at 12:20 PM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


briantho wrote:
Do you have a link to your direct comparisons? The 100/2 is on my short list... Almost everything I've seen taken with that lens has magic to it, whereas the MP100/2 is just boring.


I don't know whether there is something left on FM. I don't have these specific images in my local archives, because I don't keep test shots. However, while looking I found a directory full with raw files from another comparison (i.e. these are not shots intended to silence the crowds, but just something to satisfy my own curiosity). The lighting conditions are not constant because of a cloudy sky, but if that is not a show-stopper for you I could prepare some files.





Mar 19, 2014 at 01:03 PM
briantho
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


Well, only if it's not too much trouble...

If the Contax 100/2 isn't worthy of its reputation, then let it be known.



Mar 19, 2014 at 01:11 PM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


briantho wrote:
Well, only if it's not too much trouble...

If the Contax 100/2 isn't worthy of its reputation, then let it be known.


All images are captured at F/2 on a 5D2. They are straight from DPP, with zero sharpening but with small exposure equalizations.

1. Infinity scene, focus with 10x live view on the yellow building in the center: YC and ZE.

2. Medium distance, focus with 10x live view on the helicopter: YC and ZE.
(For what it is worth, the light is different in the background.)

3. Medium distance, focus with 10x live view on the leaf closest to the center: YC and ZE.

4. Typical portrait distance, focus with 10x live view on the dots: YC and ZE.

These images will not be accessible forever from these URLs ...


Edit: I found two more:
5. Grover distance, focus with 10x live view on the pupils: YC and ZE.



Edited on Mar 19, 2014 at 03:21 PM · View previous versions



Mar 19, 2014 at 02:24 PM
AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


^Thanks. The helicopter sign looks front focused in the ZE shot. The better sharpness of the ZE is convincing enough, but its bokeh fringing looks noticeably stronger to me than that of the Contax.


Mar 19, 2014 at 02:46 PM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


AhamB wrote:
^Thanks. The helicopter sign looks front focused in the ZE shot.


Maybe it is, maybe not. It is the only case where the sharpness advantage of the MP is not apparent, but I did not want to exclude it for that reason. Au contraire, "show all the evidence" is my credo.


The better sharpness of the ZE is convincing enough, but its bokeh fringing looks noticeably stronger to me than that of the Contax.


To me it looks very similar.



Mar 19, 2014 at 03:20 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF


No doubt the ZE/ZFs are fine lenses. More than fine and even some of the best available. And I believe the overall consensus is that with regards to all measurable optics they will almost always be on par or better than the originals. Just far less choices compared to the quite vast Contax line produced. The other part of the consensus here is about character involving character/isolation/colors/"3D" and other non-measurables where the CYs are on top. The word "organic" was new to me and I like that too.

Brand value is not a bad thing, and nor are the intangible assets we put into it. And with regards to sharpness, all CY's I tried or own passes all thresholds of interest. And the smaller size and high quality designs suits me particularly well having moved from a 5D2 to a Sony A7. Which BTW leaves my ZE21/2.8 out in the cold. I am trading it for something more useful with an aperture ring ;-)

How sharp is enough? How many pixels are enough? Opinions differ and obviously there is a (small) market for such things as the OPUS though me personally would have problem exploiting those values. And I think many of us would.




Mar 19, 2014 at 04:04 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.