Is there a significant image quality difference between a ZE vs. CY version of the lens. I understand the ZE has auto aperture and CY doesn't. Is there much to be gained to upgrade from CY to ZE?

The rest of the electronics will also work (not only auto aperture) and you get the real exif data saying what Zeiss lens you used and everything else in the exif. How much do you belive you have to pay for the upgrade?

Not sure about the financial part - haven't researched. Don't know what a mint copy of CY goes for these days. I was just looking into how compelling an upgrade it is.

JameelH wrote:
...Don't know what a mint copy of CY goes for these days.

About $1650, although the two most recent auction sales I've seen on eBay were at about $1800, see Lens$db: http://tinyurl.com/jcolwell-lensdb.

no (my shortest FM post ever).

If you look at the MTF charts, the newie is better (by 3/5s of bugger all) wide open for that great 21mm bokeh (joke on my part), and about the same or a little less good at best shooting apertures. Distortion very similar. CZ have changed the links to MTFs, I now get them at zeissimages: http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf.php

The E-bay BIN sellers have been holding the C/Y21's between $1850-2000 usd for quite some time - KEH has been raising the Contax prices over the last month for everything but the 21 - they have one now for $1479 usd - two years+ ago they were closer to $2895 - there is a ZE on B&S that someone here should grab if looking for one.

If you can get the same price for your CY lens, like the prices they write here. Then I think there is a lot gained by upgrading

philip_pj wrote:
that great 21mm bokeh (joke on my part)

Maybe you haven't paid close attention to the Z* thread, but a number of nice close-ups have been posted in which the 21 shows excellent bokeh, IMO.

http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/carl-zeiss-slr-lenses-51/wide-angle-slr-lenses-93/691-carl-zeiss-distagon-t-21mm-f28-zf.html

I got the ZE in the mail today. Did a quick test on a 5D Mark II. Tripod, mlu, live view focus at f5.6 indoor. The CY appears a tad sharper than the ZE to my eyes. Not an exhaustive test - I'll do more of that tomorrow am.

Interesting, JameelH. You can see that f5.6 is the strong suit of the older lens, and one can expect f8 to be similar.
[They are both here: http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf.php]

The CY records stellar (higher) 40 lpmm performance from image centre out to the short edges (12mm image height) at f5.6, thence the two lenses show different character, the CY keeps its tan/sag close together while declining steadily - the ZE/F lines separate, but stay higher. Well, one of them anyway.

Which is why I say its pretty much the same, unless your subject matter needs strong central performance - and I am prepared to say most images do, to put some perspective on the over-emphasis on corners lens enthusiasts fall victim to. So we see lens makers not particularly caring about minimising vignetting, despite the photozone site casting nasty looks at them.

Note also the lower MTF 40 lpmm the ZE shows at the image centre at f5.6 compared with its f2.8 effort, this is IMO the most striking doifference in these two lenses. The CY lens, by contrast (as it were), looks like a different lens at f5.6 compared with its f2.8 chart - *much better*. This looks like a design intent to me in the ZE, maybe Zeiss are channelling the bokeh fans on the ZE thread AhamB alludes to above!

I'd be interested to hear if you see CA or other odd behaviour in the ZE in the corners (15-20mm IH) on high contrast edges - the 40 lpmm lines are quite a distance apart out there at both reported apertures, whereas the CY has them almost as overlays at 20-21mm image height at f5.6, and does this very well for fine detail even wide open from 15-21mm - that is some achievement of course, in such a wide angle optic.

The A900 can now easily use the ZF version (Leitax) - but I won't be 'side-grading', for the above-stated reasons, plus the extra 100 grams of weight won't help. That's progress for you, though. But you do of course get a warranty, and a good chance of a good sample with a new lens. cheers, philip.

mMontag wrote:
The E-bay BIN sellers have been holding the C/Y21's between $1850-2000 usd for quite some time - KEH has been raising the Contax prices over the last month for everything but the 21 - they have one now for $1479 usd - two years+ ago they were closer to $2895 - there is a ZE on B&S that someone here should grab if looking for one.




Why do people pay more for the old used C/Y lens? if they like to use it on Canon/Nikon

The CY & ZE are surprisingly different at least at f/2.8 where the ZE shows much better performance. The f/2.8 -> f/5.6 improvement is much more dramatic with the CY. At f/5.6 the center performance of the CY is slightly better while the ZE produces better resolution as you go towards the edges.

black = ZE
blue = C/Y

Sven Jeppesen wrote:
Why do people pay more for the old used C/Y lens? if they like to use it on Canon/Nikon

I was wondering the very same thing....

I would have imagined that it would sell at a 15-20% discount below the ZE/ZF to account for the electronics and optics upgrade. The newer lens, aside from the better performance wide-open is also better corrected with an additional element, as I recall (though far from flawless but then nothing is). It would be interesting if in its second round of lenses which began with the 1,4/35 and the announced 2/25, Zeiss creates the equivalent of the ZM 4,5/21. A highly corrected, more compact alternative to the classic.

I wish someone would compare these lenses properly. From studying the MTF charts and looking at photos, I have a feeling the older lens has slightly less lateral chromatic aberration. Obviously both lenses are very good in this regard.

I'll be doing some testing today. I don't plan to do a very exhaustive comparison though - mostly the way I plan to use it i.e. landscape and some interior. As part of this I'll look at CA as well. Stay tuned.

I did a bunch of more controlled comparisons with the two. Here are my conclusions.

a. The CY version is slightly wider than the ZE.
b. The ZE is slightly sharper than the CY at f2.8. CY slightly sharper than the ZE at f5.6. Beyond that they are equal.
c. The CY meters about 1/3 stop brighter at every aperture. The ZE appears more accurate.
d. CY is also warmer by about 300K (Camera on AWB).
e. CA is about the same on both across the apertures. If I split hairs, I would give the nod to ZE esp. wide open.
f. Weight. The ZE is so much heavier than the CY. Whats with that?

I like the other intangibles i.e. auto aperture, EXIF etc. for the ZE.

JameelH wrote:
f. Weight. The ZE is so much heavier than the CY. Whats with that?


The electronic aperture control contributes to that. I believe all the ZE's are heavier than the ZF/ZS/ZK versions because of this.
Perhaps the Cosina built lenses also have a bit more metal to them than the Contax equivalent (no rubber focus and aperture ring grips but metal instead).

Z* 21 weight

C/Y: 530 gms
ZF/ZF.2: 600-620 gms
ZE: 720 gms