dovey wrote:
Phillip,
I could not agree more strongly.
I have a selection of Canon L primes and zooms, now the ZE551.8 and soon the 24-70, but the Contax zoom and 28mm are on my camera more than any other lens. The zoom also offers a 1:1 macro!
1:2.5 is indeed correct for the CY 35-70, but very few 'macro' lenses are 1:1 these days. For example the well-regarded 50mm f2 Makro Planar ZE/F does 1:2.
The CY 35-70 also has pleasant bokeh and is lighter than both the 50MP and 35/2 Distagon in the ZE/F line. Better corners and less distortion (at 50mm) than the 50MP, factors that assume greater importance on the 36Mp a7r. Slow lenses like this one come alive with good focus aids - EVF, etc.
The threads popping up on FM lately have been really in sync with my A7R experience.
I headed out the door on a gloomy San Francisco day today with a brand new Novoflex CY->NEX adapter and a bag full of CY Zeiss lenses, not least of which the 35-70mm f3.4.
Boy did this lens get along with the A7R! With this excellent adapter it's sharp pretty much edge to edge, and contrasty with seemingly no stray light bouncing around inside.
So here are some shots from today. Love this lens on the A7R.
philip_pj wrote:
Let me tell you leo, the a7r loves the 35-70 to death, lol, it brings out all the subtlety of the colour and microncontrast the zoom has in abundance. Best used above 45mm, a little CA appears at the short end with the tough new taskmistress.
While on the subject, what I think the a7r does to most (depressingly many) lenses is this: where lower res sensors flatten out the best each lens has (in the centre regions) so the outer frame and corners look not bad at all, the a7r takes the centre to a higher level (often much higher) and outer frame and corners suddenly look weak, being far below.
It also exposes related weaknesses that underlie these frame areas such as curvature and sudden drops in microcontrast. Happily the 35-70 is close to the top of the pile, after 20 years......Show more →
I respectfully beg to differ. The A7R, with its great resolution, also shows which lenses are richer in detail than others. While the 35-70 does indeed score well on color, contrast and sharpness, I have always found it quite weak on detail. The picture of the bridge does confirm my impression, though a lens shouldn't be judged on one picture alone, where PP might be the cause.
philber wrote:
I respectfully beg to differ. The A7R, with its great resolution, also shows which lenses are richer in detail than others. While the 35-70 does indeed score well on color, contrast and sharpness, I have always found it quite weak on detail. The picture of the bridge does confirm my impression, though a lens shouldn't be judged on one picture alone, where PP might be the cause.
philber wrote:
I respectfully beg to differ. The A7R, with its great resolution, also shows which lenses are richer in detail than others. While the 35-70 does indeed score well on color, contrast and sharpness, I have always found it quite weak on detail. The picture of the bridge does confirm my impression, though a lens shouldn't be judged on one picture alone, where PP might be the cause.
Sorry to differ. I say "detail", and the conter is "sharp". That is not the same thing. The 3-70 is definitely a very sharp lens.
But the bridge shot definitely has very little fine detail, and the extra sharpening only makes that stand out even more. Very fine detail is what makes, amongst other things, transitions very gradual instead of brutal. In this case, the bridge is almost etched out, as are the rocks.
If you are looking for very fine detail, look for example at Brian Smith's pictures of Haiti with A7R and FE 35.
The 35-70/3.4 Sonnar is a sharp and contrasty lens,but I wouldn't say it has very little fine details.Actually there are lots of fine details in the pictures from my A7s/NEX7/NEX5Ns that I can see.For Zeiss lenses designers contrast was one of key points,as far as I know,so no wonder that perception of sharpness overwhelms the apparent presence of tonal gradation in a picture.
philber wrote:
Sorry to differ. I say "detail", and the conter is "sharp". That is not the same thing. The 3-70 is definitely a very sharp lens.
But the bridge shot definitely has very little fine detail, and the extra sharpening only makes that stand out even more. Very fine detail is what makes, amongst other things, transitions very gradual instead of brutal. In this case, the bridge is almost etched out, as are the rocks.
If you are looking for very fine detail, look for example at Brian Smith's pictures of Haiti with A7R and FE 35.
I must be misunderstanding the concept of detail. There are 50 pages of photos in this thread, most taken with much lower resolution cameras than the A7R, but I'd argue that many of these photos are among the most "detailed" i have ever seen, including the Brian Smith pictures from Haiti. Admittedly, it's hard to tell when you only have the web size versions available.
Reading the old posts, you seemed to have trouble with your copy. Could that be influencing your opinion?
I haven't taken my 35-70 out yet, but it's mounted on my A7R, ready to go when the conditions are right. I'll be looking spcifically for that little fine detail...
Here are some images in this thread worthy of a repost:
Brian, here is what I see: my own picture, where the column seems to be unntaturally etched against the background sky. The same is true of teh_rebel's castle. Similarly, the first picture, wonderfuul though it is, does not have the amount of detail I would have expected to see.
I am not sure that I agree that downsizing for the Web kills this micro-detail, otherwise why would I find pictures with A7R and Otus so wonderfully appealing?
Let me see if you can show me what I am obviously not seeing.
Unnaturally etched? That's probobly the Zeiss 3D effect which is normally considered a good thing.
These days, in the A7/R thread for instance, people are resizing their photos to much larger sizes than in this old thread, and detail is therefore much more obvious in that thread.
I had little luck trying to convert a C/Y 35-70 with a Leitax mount, couldn't get past the last steps; the Leica 35-70/4 is a very fragile competitor (mine took a small bump in a padded bag & the protruding frnt element became wobbly, sometimes need to manually pull it out while zooming),
and worse………I missed out on an auction (family emergency, the Imaginary Friend of other people decided to play a dirty trick) for a Nikon Leitaxed CY 35-70 that went for half the price of non-converted vario-sonnars
Glad to see others produce great images with the lens though, keep 'em coming!
Hi everyone. Just picked up another 35-70, and an A7! Which adapter do I need to use this combo? Will the normal C/Y to NEX adapter work?? Or does it need to be another?
Thanks for your help!
Gregg
Anyone leitax their 35-70? According to instruction on leitax site it's quite simple and I'm tempted to do it, simply because the current adapter is wider than the lens mount and just feels awkward.
One thing I noticed, the 35-70mm (or most other contax zeiss lens in general) seems really shine under good NATURAL lighting. I have taken photos in-doors with or without flash, and the result is indistinguishable from my other Canon lens, i.e. same flatness. I'm not saying it's impossible to take great indoor photos with this lens, it can, it's just in my experience, a much harder exercise due to the reason below (I guess, that is).
The reason, I'm thinking, is likely due to the fact that natural lighting has more continuous and gradual spectrum end-to-end, and in a good lighting situation, a good mixture of directional light and diffused light. These factors, I think, is the sauce that highlights a real-world object in micro level with full color band, which really brings up the famous micro-contrast and spatial feeling of the image.
