cogitech wrote:
To those of you who have owned and used both of these lenses.
How does the 35-70 compare to the 21 regarding sharpness, contrast, micro-contrast and colour?
That is an unusual comparison. But anyway, and although I have no experience with the
35-70, I find that the MTF reports published by Il Prode generally correspond well
with my CZ experience:
cogitech wrote:
I owned the CZ21 and loved these aspects of the lens. Not sure why it is unusual to wonder how the 35-70 compares...
Different focal lengths, different applications, ... oh well. Maybe it is not unusual.
When you ask about 'colour', do you mean colour saturation or colour balance? The
former is just a manifestation of what is generally known as 'contrast', the latter is
unfortunately subject to sample-to-sample variations. That happens even within the
Contax Zeiss arsenal.
Paul, I have a good idea of the kind of info you're after here. Briefly, yes, the 35-70 will deliver the same "punch" that the 21 does, but not as quickly, and wide open performance leaves something to be desired. The 21 is great wide open and becomes awesome at f/4 (one click down), as you well know. The 35-70 needs a bit more stopping down: two clicks to f/5.6, which is very nice indeed, and I don't hesitate to use it. f/8 is amazingly sharp right down into the corners.
I wouldn't buy the lens if I planned to use it wide open routinely. The Leica 35-70/4 is much better suited for wide open work.
I've never used the 21 but agree fully regarding the 35-70.
StevenPA wrote:
Paul, I have a good idea of the kind of info you're after here. Briefly, yes, the 35-70 will deliver the same "punch" that the 21 does, but not as quickly, and wide open performance leaves something to be desired. The 21 is great wide open and becomes awesome at f/4 (one click down), as you well know. The 35-70 needs a bit more stopping down: two clicks to f/5.6, which is very nice indeed, and I don't hesitate to use it. f/8 is amazingly sharp right down into the corners.
I wouldn't buy the lens if I planned to use it wide open routinely. The Leica 35-70/4 is much better suited for wide open work....Show more →
Steven nailed it pretty much: they mix sweetly in the same shoot: very similar drawing styles and colouring.
The CZ21 you know is flawless in terms of resolution, but is a little prone to internal reflection and doesn't handle flare as well as the Canon equivalents at the same focal length. And it has that gullwing distortion.
The CZ35-70 also has a distortion glitch: strong barrel at 35mm (gone by 40mm) but handles point light sources better. In the f5.6-11 range, at distance, the CZ35-70 outresolves any other Zeiss design it can be compared directly with. It's also very good close-up, but fractionally outperformed by the Zeiss 60 Makro. It does not suffer from long-end fade, either. The family resemblance to the CZ21 is strong.
I found the 35-70 was not at it's best at 35mm and iffy to focus on a Canon. The makro is nice but it can not be directly compared to real macro lenses as it does not offer some important qualities of a typical close up lenses. For best close up performance a reverse ring can be recommended. I think it is a little overrated here but for the price this lens usualy goes it is still an amazing piece.
Do you have any sample pictures that show that the CZ 35-70 outresolves the Zeiss 35 ZF and 50 ZF Makro at distance in the f5.6 to f8 range?
It's a fair cop: I should have said that it's sharper than any other Contax lens of similar focal length. I've not compared the CZ35-70 with the ZF35 and 50, but that sounds like a interesting idea!
Mark, Do you have any sample pictures that show that the CZ 35-70 outresolves the Zeiss 35 ZF and 50 ZF Makro at distance in the f5.6 to f8 range?
Actually, while I don't have any images off hand, I'd be so bold as to say that, in my experience, the 35-70 is sharper than the ZF35. Much more distortion, however.
Justin D wrote:
Actually, while I don't have any images off hand, I'd be so bold as to say that, in my experience, the 35-70 is sharper than the ZF35. Much more distortion, however.
I have both the ZF35 and the 35-70, and there isn't a chance that the 35-70 is sharper than the ZF35. Stopped down to around f8 (optimal for the 35-70 at 35mm) the zoom can probably get close, but the ZF35 reaches this level of performance by f4.0. Wide open up to f8, the ZF35 just dominates the old zoom, and has less light fall-off (almost a 2 stop difference).
I recently did some night work with the 21mm Distagon, and was disappointed with the amount of vignetting wide open. The 35-70 and Nikon 14-24 are my workhorses, and I think I'll move to the Canon 24mm mkII for night work. I think it will be better at f2.8 than the Zeiss.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I have both the ZF35 and the 35-70, and there isn't a chance that the 35-70 is sharper than the ZF35. Stopped down to around f8 (optimal for the 35-70 at 35mm) the zoom can probably get close, but the ZF35 reaches this level of performance by f4.0. Wide open up to f8, the ZF35 just dominates the old zoom, and has less light fall-off (almost a 2 stop difference).
Published tests show the 35-70 to be sharpest at f5.6, at all focal lengths. My personal tests confirm this
My own tests indicate that the 35-70 needs f8 to get the corners. The "published" tests (not sure if merely putting them up on the web qualifies them to be considered "published") you refer to didn't measure the corners (just the "borders"). Overall, in my view and experience, it is best at f8.0, even if it is essentially the same in the center at f5.6. Regardless, the ZF35 has about a 2 stop advantage over the zoom.
