wayne seltzer wrote:
Last weekend I decided to put my contax N 50 up against my other Zeis lenses, ZE 50/2 MP, contax 100/2, and ZF 35/2. This test was just to compare color and tonal qualities and not resolution. All were processed the same way in LR and then PS to resized and sharpen for web. All were taken at f11 They are in this order:
1) con tax N 50
2) ZE 50/2 MP
3) contax 100/2
4) ZF 35/2
Hmmm, I prefer the cooler rendering of the Contax N 50.
I am surprised by this test. I expected the 50/2 MP to do better. Here, I feel that both 100/2 and 35/2 come out tops in "you-are-there"ness. Then N50, then 50/2, the colours of which look just a tad washed out by comparison. The strongest 3D effect looks to me to be 35/2, so it could be a factor of the shorter focal length, though 100/2 comes second in this respect as well.
Just my $0.02.
Wayne, thanks for taking the time and trouble!
Thanks for the responses Phil and Bluetsunami!
Ok, so I shot all these 4 shots at f11 and 30 second exposures with a dark ND filter on the front to get some water blur. In LR, I modified the WB to what look good for the contax N 50 shot and then applied the same value to all the files. I left the exposure at zero for a ll files. Here is what I found:
1) The ZE 50/2 MP shot is slightly warmer and brighter than the other shots. I think this is what is causing the washed out colors and the moss looking slightly more yellow and less green.
2) I noticed while shooting and then confirmed it looking at 100% at the RAWs, that the 50/2 MP has a larger DOF than the N 50/1.4 and is sharper.
I will redo the 50/2 MP shot with slightly cooler WB and slightly darker to match the other shots more and then you can see the difference.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Last weekend I decided to put my contax N 50 up against my other Zeis lenses, ZE 50/2 MP, contax 100/2, and ZF 35/2. This test was just to compare color and tonal qualities and not resolution. All were processed the same way in LR and then PS to resized and sharpen for web. All were taken at f11 They are in this order:
1) con tax N 50
2) ZE 50/2 MP
3) contax 100/2
4) ZF 35/2
The ZE50/2 is my favourite (with a little tweak of the WB to tame the yellows), the N50 a close second. The ZE35 needs to be stopped down more, or focus adjusted more into the scene. As it is, the big rock foreground left is in focus and not much else, even at web resolution. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with the test, but I'd stop these puppies down even more because even though you might lose some resolution, the pic will probably turn out better overall with more of the scene in focus. Or focus bracket and merge in post. Beautiful compositions though, and that's most important. Nicely done seeing the scene in the mess of branches and rocks.
philber wrote:
Nice shots, Paul. Would you say that N 24-85 is better than C/Y 35-70?
I would not hesitate to take this lens over C/Y35-70.....
Their drawing style is similar, but 24-85 has much better range....but too bad it has AF......
Seriously, I prefer N24-85 much more.....it is built better too.....
Paul Yi wrote:
I would not hesitate to take this lens over C/Y35-70.....
Their drawing style is similar, but 24-85 has much better range....but too bad it has AF......
Seriously, I prefer N24-85 much more.....it is built better too.....
Same here. With the N 24-85, my c/y 35-70 does not get used. Performance is similar, but the N 24-85 has a (much) better range as suggested and is much more convenient and much quicker to use. I also think the 24-85 is better at f3.5 (wide open) than the older zoom. AF is a plus in my book, but it can focused manually very effectively.
Of course the N24-85 is a lot bigger and more expensive than the C35-70. That said, I'd probably take the N as well. The 35-70 does fit really well in between some primes though, for instance paired with a 21/25 and 85/100+.
Thanks guys. With that in mind, I just bid on a 35-70. If I can get it cheaply (a fraction of the cost of a 24-85, and no 9 months' wait for the Conurus conversion), it will be a nice way to get close up ability and zoom flexibility.
philber wrote:
Nice shots, Paul. Would you say that N 24-85 is better than C/Y 35-70?
"Better" can be approached from many different angles.
The N is probably clinically sharper across the frame at most apertures, but from f/5.6 (probably) and f/8 (certainly) onwards, we're really splitting hairs.
The N has 82mm filter threads. If you like landscape photography, forget about using Cokin P-filters. You'll have to get the pricier, bulkier Z series to cover that front element. I won't even mention the price difference between 82mm (N) versus 67mm (C/Y) CPL filters. Also forget about attractive point-sources of light during night photography. The N's rounded aperture blades and their "balls of mush" just can't hold a candle to the beautiful star effect from the C/Y, but then again not many modern lenses can. C/Y 35-70, f/16. http://www.pbase.com/stevenpa/image/109283097/original.jpg
Splendid picture, Steven. Care to share where it was taken?
It also seems for your collective wisdom that buying a 35-70 may be valid avenue for me... Then I will see whether I want to replace it with a 24-85 later on...
The C/Y 35-70 versus N 24-85 decision isn't easy for me. They both have their strong points, and weaknesses too, and it depends on what your shooting style is. I've compared it to the Leica 35-70/4 and N24-85, and from an ergonomic standpoint, I like the C/Y least. But the optical performance is very appealing to me, more appealing that either the Leica or N. I hope you find the same satisfaction with it that I have over the years.
Well, congratulations again, because I was there, and could not see anything remotely like this. It is so inspiring when somebody's eye opens mine... I supposed you used a strong filter?
