I Own Six Of The N's..
Three Have Been Converted (17-35, 24-85, 100)
Three Are In The Wings Waiting For Bo-Ming.... (28-80, 50, 70-200)
The Four Zooms Are The Only Zooms I Own... Quality Shines Through.
Other Lens In The Respective Focal Range May Be Equal, But The "Zeiss"
Intangibles Make Most Anything Else Pale.. (Color, Resolution, Contrast)
Are you talking about the converted one's or the N-mount un-converted one's ?
I have one brand new in the box N-mount unconverted copy and two converted copies - all hand picked from 14 lenses I had to choose from at an authorized dealer.
So they are out there (unconverted that is) and for the right price, anyone can find the converted lenses as well.
I have a 50mm f1.4 and 70-200mm I am getting ready to list on ebay. I am also thinking about getting rid of the unconverted 24-85mm.
Chances are I will hold on to the 17-35N, two copies of the converted 24-85's, and the 70-300mm so I can use them on the 1Ds Mk III when I eventually buy one two years down the road. For now, I am not using Canon anymore (maybe 10%) and have switched to the Olympus system for daily use.
pascal03 wrote:
Are you talking about the converted one's or the N-mount un-converted one's ?
I have one brand new in the box N-mount unconverted copy and two converted copies - all hand picked from 14 lenses I had to choose from at an authorized dealer.
So they are out there (unconverted that is) and for the right price, anyone can find the converted lenses as well.
I have a 50mm f1.4 and 70-200mm I am getting ready to list on ebay. I am also thinking about getting rid of the unconverted 24-85mm.
Chances are I will hold on to the 17-35N, two copies of the converted 24-85's, and the 70-300mm so I can use them on the 1Ds Mk III when I eventually buy one two years down the road. For now, I am not using Canon anymore (maybe 10%) and have switched to the Olympus system for daily use....Show more →
Converted of course. KEH has a few unconverted. I don't want to deal with the hassle of sending it back and forth. I wish i still lived near you, then I could make take a few test shots!
Lotusm50 wrote:
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...
If I may add my own findings, from direct comparison of some of the N lenses to their C/Y counterparts:
I find the 17-35mm to be a superb lens, and although it can't match the 21mm Distagon for resolution or accutance, the versatility and overall performance make it a very attractive lens that produces gorgeous looking images.
The 100mm N Makro-Sonnar is undoubtedly more convenient than the C/Y Makro-Planar for most uses, and would be the better choice for general photography. It produces a particularly appealing image at medium-long distance.
However, in direct comparison I found the C/Y MP to be noticeably better at resolving fine detail in the macro range. It also suffered less from diffraction at smaller apertures.
I compared the 70-300mm N against the C/Y 100-300mm (and the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS).
In this comparison the C/Y was considerably better at all focal lengths, stopped down and wide open. This is confirmed by the MTF charts.
I had hoped that the AF and auto-aperture would make up for the weaker performance, but I found the AF to be less than perfect, especially at tracking moving subjects (in that respect it was slaughtered by the Canon).
I am still considering the N 24-85mm vs C/Y 28-85mm, as the latter has proved a fine lens for me over the years.
The corner performance of the N is certainly better at wider apertures, and auto-aperture is an obvious advantage (AF not so much for me), but there is something in the overall image that is not quite as appealing as the C/Y - I have yet to put my finger on exactly what that is.
I think most people would find the auto-everything performance of the N range to be enough of an advantage to sway their decision over the C/Y versions. Any technical differences in image quality are pretty small.
BTW, I do have a 17-35mm in its original N mount available for sale, if anyone is looking for one.
deshojo wrote:
The 100mm N Makro-Sonnar is undoubtedly more convenient than the C/Y Makro-Planar for most uses, and would be the better choice for general photography. It produces a particularly appealing image at medium-long distance.
However, in direct comparison I found the C/Y MP to be noticeably better at resolving fine detail in the macro range. It also suffered less from diffraction at smaller apertures.
Interesting. I have had both lenses, and I don't see much of any difference overall between these 2 lenses in the macro range. Also, Zeiss' MTF's for the 2 lenses don't suggest much of a difference either.
deshojo wrote:
I compared the 70-300mm N against the C/Y 100-300mm (and the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS).
In this comparison the C/Y was considerably better at all focal lengths, stopped down and wide open. This is confirmed by the MTF charts.
I had hoped that the AF and auto-aperture would make up for the weaker performance, but I found the AF to be less than perfect, especially at tracking moving subjects (in that respect it was slaughtered by the Canon).
I would have thought that the 80-200 was a more apt comparison -- especially as I consider then lens to be a 70-200 that gives you 300mm if you need it in a pinch. I do think, if there was one lens that doesn't hold up to a comparison with the c/y lenses, the 70-300 would be it.
I would also say that a comparison between the 17-35 VS zoom and the 21mm fixed-focal length Distagon isn't really a fair comparison. One would expect the fixed focal length lens to be better than the zoom -- and it is. The zoom is inherently a compromise to accommodate several other uses, the fixed focal length isn't saddled with such a compromise.
Perhaps a four way comparison between the N70-300, N70-200, C/Y 100-300, & C/Y 80-200 would be most apt because of their large overlap.
I'm particularly curious how the 70-200 fits in as no one ever talks about it much. No doubt because it isn't convertible yet but has anyone used it on Contax film or digital?
I remember having read reviews of both N zooms in a German magazine when digital didn't come yet to existence. The 70-200 IQ was by far better than the 70-300.
TeamSK jay wrote:
I'm particularly curious how the 70-200 fits in as no one ever talks about it much. No doubt because it isn't convertible yet but has anyone used it on Contax film or digital?
I have used the 70-200mm f3.5-4.5 side by side with the 70-300mm f4-5.6. From 70-200mm, it's really hard to notice a difference between the two when shot at wide open aperture. Perhaps a slight advantage to the 70-200mm f3.5-4.5 as it is just a tad bit crispier and sharper than the 70-300mm f4-5.6 - but you would have to look really hard at a full size image on a monitor to tell.
Like the other post said, the 70-300 just gives you the option of going to 300mm if you need it. Otherwise, the two are just about the same.
Stopped down to f8.0, you can not really notice the difference between the two - but if you had to pick one over the other, I would say the 70-300mm has it.
What really puzzles me is why Zeiss/Contax did not bother with a tripod mount ring/tripod foot for the 70-300mm f4-5.6 - this is definitely a lens that could use a solid tripod foot.
That all sounds good. I like the 70-200 over the 300 as it is much lighter. My plan is to have a two lens kit of it and the 24-85 as my hiking/backpacking set. I'm wondering if there will be any issue with using a Canon 1.4 TC with it?
I suppose, depending on camera, that AF will get turned off.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I would have thought that the 80-200 was a more apt comparison -- especially as I consider then lens to be a 70-200 that gives you 300mm if you need it in a pinch. I do think, if there was one lens that doesn't hold up to a comparison with the c/y lenses, the 70-300 would be it.
I suppose I compared it to the 100-300mm simply because I have that lens, and I was looking at the N as an autofocus replacement for it. I think the 100-300mm was also a much later lens than the 80-200mm, so perhaps benefitted more from advances in design and materials..
Lotusm50 wrote:
I would also say that a comparison between the 17-35 VS zoom and the 21mm fixed-focal length Distagon isn't really a fair comparison. One would expect the fixed focal length lens to be better than the zoom -- and it is. The zoom is inherently a compromise to accommodate several other uses, the fixed focal length isn't saddled with such a compromise.
Absolutely.
Again, I made that comparison because I have the Distagon and was considering the 17-35mm as a replacement. It was an expensive exercise though, as I can't bring myself to sell either of them now!
Also the 21mm is as tough a comparison as could be made, and I have to say that stopped down the difference between them at 21mm is actually commendably slight in real life use.
deshojo wrote:
If I may add my own findings, from direct comparison of some of the N lenses to their C/Y counterparts:
I find the 17-35mm to be a superb lens, and although it can't match the 21mm Distagon for resolution or accutance, the versatility and overall performance make it a very attractive lens that produces gorgeous looking images.
The 100mm N Makro-Sonnar is undoubtedly more convenient than the C/Y Makro-Planar for most uses, and would be the better choice for general photography. It produces a particularly appealing image at medium-long distance.
However, in direct comparison I found the C/Y MP to be noticeably better at resolving fine detail in the macro range. It also suffered less from diffraction at smaller apertures.
I compared the 70-300mm N against the C/Y 100-300mm (and the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS).
In this comparison the C/Y was considerably better at all focal lengths, stopped down and wide open. This is confirmed by the MTF charts.
I had hoped that the AF and auto-aperture would make up for the weaker performance, but I found the AF to be less than perfect, especially at tracking moving subjects (in that respect it was slaughtered by the Canon).
I am still considering the N 24-85mm vs C/Y 28-85mm, as the latter has proved a fine lens for me over the years.
The corner performance of the N is certainly better at wider apertures, and auto-aperture is an obvious advantage (AF not so much for me), but there is something in the overall image that is not quite as appealing as the C/Y - I have yet to put my finger on exactly what that is.
I think most people would find the auto-everything performance of the N range to be enough of an advantage to sway their decision over the C/Y versions. Any technical differences in image quality are pretty small.
BTW, I do have a 17-35mm in its original N mount available for sale, if anyone is looking for one.
Lotusm50 wrote:
That is something I might disagree with.
Quite right for calling me to task on such a broad statement, especially since I have a limited knowledge of both lens lines. I have used some of the finer CZ's such as the 35-70, 15, 21, 35PC and 85/1.2. These are all exceptional lenses. Of the N's I have only used the 17-35 and 24-85, mostly the latter. I like the 24-85 better than any of the Canons or other 3rd party EOS lenses that I have used in that range, but the CZ 35-70 beats it in my opinion, as do the primes. Thanks for the info on some of the other lenses that I have not had the opportunity to shoot with.
Here are my shots from a recent trip, using exclusively the 24-85N except for the tele shots which were done with the Canon 70-200/4L.
did you sell your 24-85? on the conurus forums its still listed for sale. i'd buy it but the dollar is killing me.
Hi John, it has now sold, although the 17-35mm in original N-mount is still available.
I know what you mean about the US dollar, great if we want something from the states, but pretty tough for your guys buying here.
photoArne wrote:
A bit off-topic, but since the Zeiss 17-35 mm has been mentioned several times in this thread, how does it compare to the Canon 16-35 II?
Hi Arne,
I've sent you an email, and I'll get back to you later this evening.
