Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Image Upload
end

dave chilvers
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

Most people that own the 21 2.8 need not read on (it`s old news to them)

I purchased a new boxed lens ( I think it might have been the most or close to amount I`ve spent on a single lens)

Was it worth it? absolutely yes!
I`d like it to be a touch wider at times but it is amazing how I have adapted to moving around more to get everything in the frame. For my type of photography (mainly landscape and large objects) it is a lens that can just be used at infinity most of the time which helps with MF problems. What i really like about the lens is the ability to shoot buildings and trees with the sun more or less behind them and see the total lack of any colour fringing ( a thing that bugged me bad with my 17-40 and 24-105) and the lack of needing to use the distort etc tools in photoshop to make the edges of the frame tidy up. I can honestly say that the so called mustache distortion talked about has not been a problem for me (where it rears it`s head sometimes is seascapes and the horizon and PTlens cleans it up no problem.) I just love the natural colours that this lens produces.
I`m not posting any pointless j peg examples that prove nothing and of course one can only judge ones own work against your own skill level.
If the proposed new CZ EF mount lens is anything like this old version then it will be a steal at the rumoured price point.

So, whats the danger of owning this lens then? You might be tempted to refuse to give it up at knife point

Dave

Oct 15, 2008 at 05:54 AM

David Clapp
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

Well thats good to read Dave. I am currently going through testing the 1DsIII 14-24 and not havign as much fun as you are by the sounds of things. For all the hype I think the thing that lets this combo down is the working method (I am not refering to the adapter) the hyperfocal distance nightmare (a deep viewing window to the focusing scale does little to help although I have now bypassed this by making my own scale and sticking it on the body) and the poor performance at f16 (no better than the 17-40), I could write a very different review about it all right now from the glowing hype that surrounds the lens.

After shooting my 35-70 and my 28mm f2 with the same giddy delirium, the option of this lens does appeal quite a bit. I shot some woodland over the weekend in thick fog and there is zero CA and unsurpassable image sharpness from both lenses.

Oct 15, 2008 at 10:24 PM

cogitech
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

Everyone already knows how much of a fan I am of the CZ21 (gonna have another, some day) but I would like to confirm one thing; the CZ21 is the easiest lens I have ever focused, particularly for landscape shooting (obviously?).

When I owned mine, I went against conventional wisdom and simply racked it to infinity and set it at f5.6. It was just stupidly sharp for every single landscape shot. Period.

This is not the case with many other wides I've used.

Oct 15, 2008 at 10:57 PM

StevenPA
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

I wonder if the waveform distortion has something to do with that, Paul, because I too was rarely if ever let down by the Distagon 21 when just racking it to infinity. I find the OM 21/3.5 more finicky in this regard, and if I'm doing a landscape shot with a detailed foreground, and especially with a distant subject that isn't infinity, I find the lens performs best just back slightly from infinity.

Oct 16, 2008 at 01:54 AM

jjlphoto
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #5 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

David Clapp wrote:
Well thats good to read Dave. I am currently going through testing the 1DsIII 14-24 and not havign as much fun as you are by the sounds of things..... I could write a very different review about it all right now from the glowing hype that surrounds the lens.

There was a report a while ago from another member who tested three samples of the 14~24 to get a good one. He mentioned quite a huge variance of IQ in his tests. (Apparently, Canon is not the only one with quality issues regarding sample variations.) Could you possibly have a dud?

Oct 16, 2008 at 03:18 AM

dave chilvers
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

cogitech wrote:
Everyone already knows how much of a fan I am of the CZ21 (gonna have another, some day) but I would like to confirm one thing; the CZ21 is the easiest lens I have ever focused, particularly for landscape shooting (obviously?).

When I owned mine, I went against conventional wisdom and simply racked it to infinity and set it at f5.6. It was just stupidly sharp for every single landscape shot. Period.

This is not the case with many other wides I've used.

I`m a lot newer to Mf lenses than some of you guys so often hesitate to push home a point in case I`m still in the learning curve and get left with egg on the face but now you guys bring it up( I did touch on it in the first thread) I`ll push it home a bit harder and say" I just don`t use the 21 away from infinty period" I was going to mention it on a separate thread but still can`t get my head around why this lens should be different than other WA of similar focal length, physics don`t change ! do they?
The only answer might be( as previously mentioned) the way the lens has been computed/designed with the central bit of distortion we all know of that allows the DOF to look deeper.

Oct 16, 2008 at 07:41 AM

montespluga
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

Wondering why David would use the 14-24 at f = 16?

It will enhance diffraction, only.
At the wide end, DOF is so big, that using f = 8 looks to me to be more than plenty:

Focusing at 2 meters, you'll have from 53 cm to infinity, with that f-stop!

Oct 16, 2008 at 08:33 AM

David Clapp
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

jjlphoto wrote:
David Clapp wrote:
Well thats good to read Dave. I am currently going through testing the 1DsIII 14-24 and not havign as much fun as you are by the sounds of things..... I could write a very different review about it all right now from the glowing hype that surrounds the lens.

There was a report a while ago from another member who tested three samples of the 14~24 to get a good one. He mentioned quite a huge variance of IQ in his tests. (Apparently, Canon is not the only one with quality issues regarding sample variations.) Could you possibly have a dud?

I had my initial hire lens and then the one I purchased, both were the same.

There are many reasons as to why I bought it, I needed a wider field of view than 17mm for instance, but the majority of "wow isnt this lens the total mutts nutts" comments have had nothing to do with working method or landscape photography. Its got problems, setting hyperfocal distance accurately, IQ drop at f16 and even worse at f22, but the sharpness at f11, f8. 5.6 and even f4 is literally edge to edge and absolutely biting on my 1DsIII. On any wide angle this is unheard of agreed, but how often am I shooting a wide angle landscape at 18mm f8 for example? The foregrond is OOF. Even f11 is still not stopped down enough... if you have a look at my portfolio you can see the style I shoot, especially coastal work.

I am happy with it for what it is, but it is not the 'answer' like I hoped it would be. Its in another field of its own, a sidestep, but not a replacement for my 17-40, especially when at the sea. With all the stopping down, dark viewfinder, finnicky hyperfocal distance inaccuracy its a game as far as I can see. I couldnt imagine what would happen getting the front element belted with sea water.

Its all work in progress as far as I am concerned, anything with a querky working method takes a while to get used to, its just the f16 issue that is the biggest problem. Why lug a super heavy lens around in my bag if it performs no better than the lightweight 17-40 does at the aperture I use most?

I am going to write a full 'landscaping with the 14-24' review at some point after I feel fully in tune with it.

Edited on Oct 16, 2008 at 08:47 AM · View previous versions

Oct 16, 2008 at 08:43 AM

David Clapp
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #9 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

montespluga wrote:
Wondering why David would use the 14-24 at f = 16?

It will enhance diffraction, only.
At the wide end, DOF is so big, that using f = 8 looks to me to be more than plenty:

Focusing at 2 meters, you'll have from 53 cm to infinity, with that f-stop!

At 14mm perhaps, but not at 24mm or 21mm. The adapter also being thicker, decreases the available DOF marginally. the IF point is not at the ~ mark and the lens focuses past infinity.

Oct 16, 2008 at 08:46 AM

montespluga
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

At 21 mm and f = 8, focusing at 2.5 meters will still give a DOF fom 1.06 m to infinity.

Oct 16, 2008 at 08:57 AM

David Clapp
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

its not enough... like I said the adapter thickness also reduces this. Are you just using a DOF calculator? I have done all the tests by inspecting the point where the lens loses IF, these values from tables are not always correct.

Oct 16, 2008 at 08:57 AM

David Clapp
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #12 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

The other thing is how do I accurately set a focal point of 1.06m for example? The scale on the lens is just as bad as they all are on modern lenses, they are not designed to be used in this way (which is a shame!) The slightest inaccuracy and IF is lost...

Oct 16, 2008 at 09:16 AM

shirozina
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #13 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

DOF scales on lenses are not relevent with modern high res digital. They are usualy based around 'acceptable' sharpness on 10x8 prints. Correct adapter thickness is critical with complex internal focus lenses - if the flange to focal plane distance is not spot on performance suffers esp at the edges. All the Nikon-EOS adapters I have tried have been far too thin. They are usualy a 2 part design so are quite easy to shim out. If you are not hitting infinity on the lens scale when the lens is focused on infinity I would get this sorted.

Oct 16, 2008 at 09:25 AM

David Clapp
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #14 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

I must contact Mark about this...

Oct 16, 2008 at 09:30 AM

Andi Dietrich
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

shirozina wrote:
DOF scales on lenses are not relevent with modern high res digital. They are usualy based around 'acceptable' sharpness on 10x8 prints. Correct adapter thickness is critical with complex internal focus lenses - if the flange to focal plane distance is not spot on performance suffers esp at the edges. All the Nikon-EOS adapters I have tried have been far too thin. They are usualy a 2 part design so are quite easy to shim out. If you are not hitting infinity on the lens scale when the lens is focused on infinity I would get this sorted.

I still use the DOF scale of my lenses if I need, however I usualy go by the -2 rule. I look at the 5.6 readings when I use 11 and I use f4 readings when I use f8.

Also my two ZF lenses work very well with my adapter. the 18 has not problem at all and the 50mm goes a tiny bit over infinity.

Oct 16, 2008 at 10:01 AM

David Clapp
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

I agree with you Andi, especially with my 28mm f2, I do exactly the same. I just wish there were some better markings on the 14-24 and my 17-40 for that matter. I had to make a stick on 'scale' made out of 16ths of an inch to position the foccusing accordingly on the 14-24. The 17-40 is actually easier, the focus 'window' isnt so deeply recessed as the 14-24 is. You can actually get 'parallax' errors setting the focal point, how bizarre. I have to postion my head exactly of the top of the window or I can go past infinity very easily if I am not careful.

Oct 16, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Andi Dietrich
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

The problem you experience is why I did not get the 14-24. For landscape you often need to focus the lens when the weather is bad and the photographer tired. I also like to have the ability to shoot at wider apertures because I have the feeling it increases the 3D look

Oct 16, 2008 at 10:23 AM

David Clapp
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

Sharpness seems to be exemplorary on thew 14-24 at f11 -f4, its a great lens without a doubt, I just think that little thought has been made by everyone regarding the working method. When I say all this I am not meaning the stopping down and how to set the fstop using Marks adapter, thats easy, its the focusing hyperfocally that is the biggest issue for us landscape photographers, not making mistakes is the next.

Oct 16, 2008 at 10:40 AM

montespluga
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

shirozina wrote:
DOF scales on lenses are not relevent with modern high res digital. They are usualy based around 'acceptable' sharpness on 10x8 prints.

So what would be the correct COC for modern high res digital?

David, yes, I had a look at a DOFtable.

Personally, I don't mind a bit of out of DOF; somehow it looks a bit more photographic, less °generic°

Oct 16, 2008 at 05:57 PM

theophilus
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #20 · Contax 21mm 2.8 after a couple of thousand exposures

montespluga wrote:
So what would be the correct COC for modern high res digital?

IIRC it is different for every sensor, depends on the pixel size. I'm sure someone here will know how to compute it from that.

Oct 17, 2008 at 12:53 AM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Image Upload end