I had a recent thread asking for comparisons of the Contax 28 2.8, 35 2.8 against my Voigtlander 40 f2 Ultron. Didn`t get many replies so decided today to do some testing. My WA side is sorted but needed to decide on something around 28, 35 and 50. I was offered a Contax 35 2.8 at a very good price. Anyway! without actual images because I shot a number of lenses at various f stops my quick findings are below. (wide open to f5.6/f8
Contax 28 2.8 =Vigging w/open but gone by f4, good definition in general but corners never really came to life.
Canon cheapo 28 2.8=Goes on getting better as stopped down more but again corners never make it.
Canon 35 f2= Generally very good central but again corners never really come to life and even edges a bit suspect.
Voigtlander 40 f2 Ultron 11 asph= Strong vigging wide open, gone by f4 but centre darkens at the same time, By 5.6 IQ is very good with just a touch of corner softness ( a very good lens in most ways)
Contax 50 1.7= Very good all rounder, vigs wide open but one stop down cleans up nicely, by f8 excellent (nearly got the tops)
Canon 50 1.8 mk2 toy town= Poorly made this lens might be but performance from f4/ 5.6 and I just can`t find much to complain about (at any price)
Leica 50mm f2 Sumi latest German= Vigs a touch wide open but after 2.8 this lens beats all my other small primes (corners!! what corners)
Canon 17-40 @ 28 a really competent focal length on this zoom
Canon 17-40 @ 35 "
Canon 17-40 @ 40 "
Not on par with primes but away from the wide end puts in a really decent result. (CA and all:-)
Canon 24-105 @ 35 not a bad definition for a zoom but corners lag behind the 17-40 at those focal lengths.
Canon 24-105 @ 50 as above but by f8 the corners tidy up nicely.
Canon 24-105 @ 70 as above more or less. An OK lens for what it`s intended for but on 21 million pixels it aint the same as on the 1dsmk2.
Contax 35-70= This is certainly a decent lens and one of my first MF lenses and I was slightly upset that it just didn`t seem to shine like I remember when shooting normal pictures. Maybe a cross between the 24-105 and the better primes.
So! I`ll maybe carry the Voigtlander to bridge from my 25 but must carry the winner, being the Leica 50 f2 sumi and then let my 70-200 f4 IS do the rest. what did amaze me was just how even the light was from the Leica as you stopped it down.
Remember that this was brick wall shooting which can`t show the 3d effect of some lenses or show how they handle into the sun so things might vary somewhat more so with variation of actual copies but it did pass an afternoon with dull conditions.
Shots on tripod, mirror up and live view focussing.
I used two different modern 2/50 Summis and they had their qualities, sharpnesswise they did not stand out. I 'd think both the 1.4/50 and the 35-70 should be slightly sharper. I mean who cares, 50ies are generally all sharp enough
Andi Dietrich wrote:
I used two different modern 2/50 Summis and they had their qualities, sharpnesswise they did not stand out. I 'd think both the 1.4/50 and the 35-70 should be slightly sharper. I mean who cares, 50ies are generally all sharp enough
Yeh! me to Andi. But of course it was just a brick wall. What I like about the Voigt and the sumi is the built in Leica hood and the small Voigt hood. On my contax lenses i tend to use the contax original metal hoods which either take up extra space in the bag or make it harder to get them out of the domke vest pockets.( I keep threatening to tape over the domke pocket velcro but then of course I will stumble and a lens will fall out and you know which one it will be
What did I learn from the 50 or so images I took? that I must dig out my light Gitzo tripod and make the effort.
dave chilvers wrote:
What did I learn from the 50 or so images I took? that I must dig out my light Gitzo tripod and make the effort.
Unless shooting in a studio with strobes, mirror lockup and solid tripod are way more important than many people realise or appreciate. It's certainly the only way to get the best from a lens.
