Lotusm50 Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On
|
p.1 #18 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted.. | |
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).
Edited on Apr 10, 2008 at 10:01 PM
|