How does this lense compare to the 24-70 2.8L? I've been pining for this range again; given that i sold my 28-70 f/2.8L for being too short and too long. Will i miss the f/2.8? How are the shots wide open? I've signed up on the conurus forums but I haven't really seen a head to head comparo. Most are about the 17-35 vs. everything else. Given that the converted costs around $900 USD (weak dollar), is it even worthwhile to consider it? Hows AF? THANKS!
The auto focus is fine. Just like Canon. The lens functions just like a Canon. I have never owned a Canon 24-70 2.8L so I do not know how they compare. I do know that the Zeiss 24-85 N is fantastic.
I have the 17-35, 24-85, 70-300, 85, and 100 Makro N series lenses which have been converted by Conurus. His work is fantastic.
What other way can you enjoy Zeiss lenses designed for Digital in "full auto" on your Canon?
Jack
I can compare it to the 28-70/2.8. You will miss the fixed aperture if you shoot w/flash or strobes. Other than that, I only sold my 24-85N to fund a much needed body and i'm feeling remorse ...
Great color, AF comparable to USM (not quite as fast or quiet, but close), more compact, better distortion control, no softer than the 28-70 wide open. And Bo-Ming's work is impeccable, no doubt. Great guy, imho.
jmswickard wrote:
I have the 17-35, 24-85, 70-300, 85, and 100 Makro N series lenses which have been converted by Conurus. His work is fantastic.
What other way can you enjoy Zeiss lenses designed for Digital in "full auto" on your Canon?
Jack
BTW Jack, how do you like your 85? Mine is a bit soft in corners, on FF camera, compared to the Canon 85L.
Conurus converts the Contax N-mount lenses. The older manual focus lenses can be used with an adapter.
To answer the OP:
I have owned the Canon 24-70mm f2.8. It is a very good lens and truly does live up to it's reputation. AF speed is very good and it's hard to mess up a shot with the 24-70L. That said, I sold the Canon lens once I got my converted 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 N mount.
Some differences:
- Smaller/more compact that the canon - even when zooming out, the Zeiss isn't bad when it comes to lenth of the lens. The Zeiss makes for a decent walk about lens.
- The 24-70L has a pretty big hood while the Zeiss has a smaller petal shaped hood
- They both feel just as heavy, but the Canon may be heavier.
- Canon uses 77mm filters - the zeiss uses 82mm filters - C-PL's can get pricey sometimes
- The Canon can focus faster than the 24-85N - but only by a small margin. Both use "USM", but Canon's ring usm will always be just a tad bit faster. If you are going to use it on a 1-series (instead of a Rebel Xti), you may not notice the difference that much
- The Zeiss (converted by Conurus) does offer the option of backfocus/focus adjustment with any Canon D-SLR
- The Canon will have a 1 year warranty on it. With the Zeiss, if you get a bad copy and find out after the conversion, you will have to ship it back to conurus to un-convert it and then ship it to Japan to get it fixed. If you get lucky and find a brand new 24-85N at an authorized dealer, Zeiss offers a 3 year warranty on them. Zeiss does an amazing job of getting their lenses back in spec - something the canon service center doesn't always do on the first try.
If you do buy the Zeiss and have it converted, do it because of what it has to offer - simply amazing image quality - the L tries very hard to meet, but comes just a bit short of delivering.
Distortion at 24mm is very good on the Zeiss
Check out the Alternative image thread in this forum. You should be able to see quite a few images taken with the Zeiss 24-85N.
I used one instead of a canon 24-105mm for about six months.
Preferred the images out of it greatly and really liked the feel of the lens, focussing etc.
But...I've replaced it with 24-105 again purely because of weatherproofing and where I was shooting.
Otherwise it would be the zeiss all the way.
IMO the CZ 24-85N is more of a 24-105L IS competitor. The Contax does best when stopped to around F8. Wide open is fine, but nothing to get excited about. The 24-85N does have higher resolving than 24-105L IS, and with the 1Ds3 every bit of added horsepower is needed. It terms of utility, I still think the 24-105L IS offers the most due to IS. Shooting F16 with IS and handheld is quite do-able with good results.
Some pro's for the 24-85N are its size - it's fairly compact and pretty light (1.2 pounds I think). For walk-around duty it's easy to live with. Focus is quite and as good as a Canon lens. Build quality is actually pretty nice. I hate the hood though, it takes some force to get it on.
Bo-ming's craftsmanship is excellent. I've had four converted lenses, and the workmanship has been excellent with all of them. Depending on parts availability the turn-around-time can be frustrating.
I sold my 24-105L after getting my CZN. Slower focusing with the Zeiss but I much prefer the results. Yes, the stupid hood is a pain to remove and put on. I leave it on all the time, and bought a center pinch lens cap which is much easier to remove when the hood is mounted. The manual focus CZ lenses are better than the N's, but I am addicted to autofocus. Also, you get full EXIF data with the converted N lenses; you won't get that with CZ manual lenses used with adapter.
Montana state capitol building in Helena. I laid on my back in the middle of the floor to capture as much as possible as I didn't have any wider lens with me.
The CZ N 24-85 is an amazing lens. I regrettably sold mine and now can't afford to get it again!
However, the reason I sold it was because of the lack of weather sealing. Shooting at the beach and river etc, the zoom sucks in dust. No different than any other non-sealed lenses but I felt like I was going to trash the lens. In retrospect, I guess I could have just had it cleaned from time to time.
Try it, not hard to sell if you decide its not for you.
tom in mpls wrote:
The manual focus CZ lenses are better than the N's
That is something I might disagree with. I think it might be better to say that they are "different".
If you look at comparable lenses...
The N's 100mm Makro-Sonnar is every bit as good, if not better, than the c/y 100mm Makro-Planar. They do have slightly different strengths.
The N's 85mm Planar is quite a different lens than the c/y 85mm Planar almost to the point that they should not be compared. The c/y is a better all-purpose lens, with the N is an exquisite portrait lens. The c/y is slightly better at long focus distances, while the N with its floating elements is better up close.
The N's 24-85 Vario-Sonnar is significantly better (and wider) at the wide end than the c/y 28-85 Vario-Sonnar. Some suggest that the c/y 28-85 has slightly better contrast at middle to long focal lengths. I would say that they are very close and that the differences might be subjective. The 24-85 is also a nicer size, shape and weight.
The N 70-300 is quite comparable to the c/y 80-200. The N 70-300 is weak at 300mm, but then the c/y 80-200 doesn't go past 200mm.
Oh yes, and the N's 50mm f1.4 Planar is essentially the same optical design as the c/y 50mm Planar, however, other improvement in coatings and barrel design make the N's 50mm better in terms of resistance to flare, ghosting and internal reflections, etc.
Add in the advantages/conveniences of AF, auto aperture, etc. to the N, and they would certainly seem to be a better overall than the c/y manual focus Zeiss lenses (but certainly more costly to acquire and harder to find).
and i'm feeling remorse ...