p.1 #1 · CZ 24-85N VarioSonnar vs CZ 35-70 on CanonMM
Today I went out and did some test shoots with my Canon 1DsmkIII and contax 24-85 N vario Sonnar converted to an EOS mount with the CZ 35-70 MM using a routine contax to EOS adapter. The 24-85 has autofocus and is fully automatic on the canon. THe CZ 35-70 is a manual focus lens. I shot at 35, 50, and 70mm at wide open apertures, f5.6, 8, and 11. The contax 35-70 was a bit sharper in the center in all of the above but the center sharpness differences were minimal. The contrast of the 35-70 is a bit better as well. What was interesting was corner sharpness at 35mm. The 24-85 was much better as the edges at all apertures although they were closer at f8. At 50 and 70mm, the advantage at the edges was clearly seen with the 35-70. I did some quick comparisons of the 14-24 Nikon and 24-85 contax at 24mm f8. The 24-85 was a bit sharper throughout but the differences were not huge. I still think the 35-70 is the king. I have another contax to EOS adapter and see if that makes any difference at 35mm.
p.1 #3 · CZ 24-85N VarioSonnar vs CZ 35-70 on CanonMM
The N 24-85 appear to be the sharpest at 35mm. (Judging from wide open corner sharpness.) I will do some more testing to determine the exact sharpest focal length.
p.1 #4 · CZ 24-85N VarioSonnar vs CZ 35-70 on CanonMM
I think CZ 35-70 is slightly better lens but 24-85 will provide that extra maneuvering space especially on the wide angle side. I haven't used 24-85 for too long (actually only a week) but I was quite happy with the results.
p.1 #5 · CZ 24-85N VarioSonnar vs CZ 35-70 on CanonMM
Curious to know how the CZ 24-85 compares to EF 24-105 L. Sharpness, contrast and light falloff on the corners. The price of 24-85N plus conversion is close to that of buying a 24-105L.
p.1 #6 · CZ 24-85N VarioSonnar vs CZ 35-70 on CanonMM
24-105 is no competition for the 24-85, but it offers IS and the worst distortion at 24mm.
Aug 26, 2008 at 01:16 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.1 #7 · CZ 24-85N VarioSonnar vs CZ 35-70 on CanonMM
Silentlight wrote:
Curious to know how the CZ 24-85 compares to EF 24-105 L. Sharpness, contrast and light falloff on the corners. The price of 24-85N plus conversion is close to that of buying a 24-105L.
Has anybody done this comparison?
This has been answered before, if you search the forum.
My experience was that the two lenses were practically indistinguishable at the wide end, except for the Canon's greater distortion, which was predictable since it has a longer range. The Contax is unusually well corrected for distortion at 24mm. At 35mm I really couldn't tell the difference. However, once you get to 70mm and above, the Canon seems to lack 3D effect, whereas the Contax, while not razor sharp, still has a lifelike punchy look. Both lenses will give visible CA on a 5D and better.
Now that DPP does distortion and CA correction, the Canon has a serious advantage, and right now I would choose it over the Contax because of that and IS. Before DPP offered distortion, CA, and fall-off correction, the reason I went with the Contax is that it is a much shorter lens at 24mm and hangs nicely over the shoulder, whereas the 24-105 is a bit like the 24-70L, a big long ugly burden which swings around hurting people and muttering "steal me".
p.1 #8 · CZ 24-85N VarioSonnar vs CZ 35-70 on CanonMM
I have done some comparisons. The 24-85 is better at the wide for sure. THe contax still has a slight advantage at the tele end but less significant. The major advantage is the corner to corner sharpness.
p.1 #9 · CZ 24-85N VarioSonnar vs CZ 35-70 on CanonMM
how does the 28-85 compare to these two?
May 13, 2009 at 05:18 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.1 #10 · CZ 24-85N VarioSonnar vs CZ 35-70 on CanonMM
jaetie wrote:
how does the 28-85 compare to these two?
It has wonderful bite over most of the frame, but distortion at wide end is pretty noticeable. If you are looking for the traditional virtues of the old Contaxes, this is definitely a candidate, as it has great 3D effect and micro-contrast. But it's an old-style zoom with push-me-pull-you zooming, and it's quite long and heavy, though no worse than the 24-105 in that regard. I sold mine and currently I'm keeping N24-85 for comfort and fun, and 24-105 for work and stabilisation. The 24-105 seems to be quite dull at the longer end, whereas the N 24-85 makes a very nice portrait lens for some reason: http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/honeymoon/lowrez/soph.jpg
p.1 #12 · CZ 24-85N VarioSonnar vs CZ 35-70 on CanonMM
I was studying the Zeiss MTF data sheet of the Vario-Sonnar 24-85, and noticed that at 85mm, the lens has a pupil magnification of almost exactly one, the same as a symmetric lens. My limited knowledge of optics would tell me, maybe at 85mm this zoom would behave like a symmetric lens, too, which would be great for portraiture. The mathematics is supported by real-world shooting, as anyone with that zoom is able to attest that at 85mm it is great wide-open and the rendering is beautiful. No substitute for the N Planar 85/1.4, but kudos to Zeiss for making exactly the right design choices for this lens. The symmetry thing is not a coincidence, but shows how Zeiss engineers put careful thoughts into real-world photography and design their lenses accordingly.
May 13, 2009 at 04:31 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.1 #13 · CZ 24-85N VarioSonnar vs CZ 35-70 on CanonMM
cyberstudio wrote:
I was studying the Zeiss MTF data sheet of the Vario-Sonnar 24-85, and noticed that at 85mm, the lens has a pupil magnification of almost exactly one, the same as a symmetric lens.
What does that mean exactly?
...maybe at 85mm this zoom would behave like a symmetric lens, too, which would be great for portraiture.
I know that I like it, but I'm not sure why. Why does symmetry help with portraits?
