Contax N Image Thread
/forum/topic/850075/0

1
       2       3              74       75       end

Jim Schemel
Registered: Oct 18, 2006
Total Posts: 4931
Country: United States

As was suggested by Andi.Lets see some samples from your Contax N lenses.
Please indicate which lens and body and exif if possible.
-Jim



StevenPA
Registered: Jan 05, 2004
Total Posts: 2910
Country: Korea, South

5D, N24-85, 1/80s f/7.1 at 24.0mm






crazeazn
Registered: Jul 16, 2005
Total Posts: 1765
Country: United States

shin myung



Lotusm50
Registered: Sep 26, 2005
Total Posts: 6239
Country: United States

An early image from the N 24-85:






zombii
Registered: Apr 11, 2009
Total Posts: 1087
Country: N/A

Jim,I know you started this thread because you wanted to see images from the N 50. So far, it's all 24-85. Come on you N 50 owners, post some shots!



Lotusm50
Registered: Sep 26, 2005
Total Posts: 6239
Country: United States

OK. Here's one with the N 50/1.4






zombii
Registered: Apr 11, 2009
Total Posts: 1087
Country: N/A

Whoa, Dr Phil's got some serious wrinkles! Guess that clears up any questions about center sharpness.

Good shot!



Paul Yi
Registered: Dec 10, 2004
Total Posts: 5324
Country: United States

I've been waiting for my lenses forever......3 months now...
I'll surely post one here when I get them....



zombii
Registered: Apr 11, 2009
Total Posts: 1087
Country: N/A

You're killing me Wayne. I'd already talked myself out of this one. Watched a brand new unconverted one go for $460 on Ebay last night.



zombii
Registered: Apr 11, 2009
Total Posts: 1087
Country: N/A

I want that lens Paul but the price Yikes!



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4783
Country: United States

Thanks Zombii!
That's what happened to me with the N 85 1.4!

I am going off now to try to take some comparison shots between
my N50 1.4, ZE 50/2 and my Rokkor 58 1.2.



zombii
Registered: Apr 11, 2009
Total Posts: 1087
Country: N/A

Wayne, I hope you're going to post results from that test. N 85 is also on my list of wants but...



Sr.Cordeiro
Registered: Nov 12, 2008
Total Posts: 437
Country: Portugal

Paul Yi - that N17-35 keeps attracting me more and more. The versatility of a wide zoom with the zeiss look.

billsnature - That landscape photos are breathaking. The mountains on the first and the sky on the last one are incredible. The kind of photos that makes one want to see them large. Congratulations.



zombii
Registered: Apr 11, 2009
Total Posts: 1087
Country: N/A

Sr.Cordeiro wrote:
Paul Yi - that N17-35 keeps attracting me more and more. The versatility of a wide zoom with the zeiss look.

billsnature - That landscape photos are breathaking. The mountains on the first and the sky on the last one are incredible. The kind of photos that makes one want to see them large. Congratulations.


+1 The landscape shots are just what I would have expected from the 24-85. Nice work to you both.



Lotusm50
Registered: Sep 26, 2005
Total Posts: 6239
Country: United States

Here's another from the N 17-35, at 17mm:






philber
Registered: May 21, 2008
Total Posts: 9313
Country: France

Lovely shots all!



StevenPA
Registered: Jan 05, 2004
Total Posts: 2910
Country: Korea, South

Is it me or do none of the pictures so far (including mine) have the 3D pop, micro-contrast, whatever you want to call it that numerous C/Y lenses are known for? This is one thing that slightly disappointed me about the 24-85. I was expecting it to replace my C/Y 35-70, and it hasn't. Images from the 35-70 often wow me right out of the camera, the 24-85 less so. Images from the 100 macro: C/Y looks better than N. Images from 21/2.8 look better than N17-35. This is my general impression from viewing the many excellent pics scattered around the Alt Forum.



Lotusm50
Registered: Sep 26, 2005
Total Posts: 6239
Country: United States

StevenPA wrote:
Is it me or do none of the pictures so far (including mine) have the 3D pop, micro-contrast, whatever you want to call it that numerous C/Y lenses are known for? This is one thing that slightly disappointed me about the 24-85. I was expecting it to replace my C/Y 35-70, and it hasn't. Images from the 35-70 often wow me right out of the camera, the 24-85 less so. Images from the 100 macro: C/Y looks better than N. Images from 21/2.8 look better than N17-35. This is my general impression from viewing the many excellent pics scattered around the Alt Forum.



I would have to disagree with most of this. I think the images from both the c/y and N lens look great, but would give the edge to the N lenses overall. Clearly this is subjective, and I think if there were a blind comparison on the same subject, the differences perceived would be insignificant.

Specifically, however, I have both the N 24-35 and the c/y 35-75. Quite simply the 35-70 does not get used. It really provides nothing that the 24-85 can not provide and the N 24-85 gives you so much more. The c/y 35-70 is also significantly inferior to my primes in its focal lengths. The c/y 35-70 has been relegated to taking up space in a cabinet with absolutely no remorse.

I have also had both the c/y 100 MP sand the N 100 MS. While the c/y 100 MP was one of my long-time favorites, the N 100 MS is clearly to me, easily it's equal. The c/y does not "look better" to me. No doubt in my mind. Images from the N 100 MS are stunning with wonderful color, contrast, bokeh and pop -- and in a few of these areas will exceed what the c/y 100 can provide. The N 100 certainly continues the Zeiss Makro lens tradition but adds AF and on Canon, AE. If you want a Zeiss Makro for your Canon, the only reason to buy the older c/y lens is lower cost, and if you just can't find the newer N 100.

I do tend to agree, that for the most part, the c/y 21mm will be better than the N 17-35 zoom. This is, however, a typical prime vs. zoom issues. I expect the 21mm prime to be better than the zoom. And it is, mostly in corner performance at larger apertures. The c/y 21mm is an exceptional lens. However, if you compare the N 17-35 to the c/y 18mm, another lens that I have owned, I would unequivocally say that the N 17-35 is better. I think the N 17-35 images have wonderful color, pop and vibrancy to them that other zooms in this range just can't match. Just look at some of the images Andrew has posted over the last year with this lens. They jump from the screen, truly great stuff.

I would also, without hesitation or doubt, take the N 85/1.4 over the c/y 85/1.4, and the N 50/1.4 over the c/y 50/1.4.



philber
Registered: May 21, 2008
Total Posts: 9313
Country: France

Steven, in a way I have to agree with you, based on these Web-sized pics. Not having owned a N lens, and not having access to a high-rez version makes this a very limited statement, however. But even Wayne's pic from his 50 f:1.4, which look magnificent from a colour point of view, probably even better than my beloved ZE 50's, lack the "pop" you mention. As I don't own N lenses, I don't want to hijack this thread with non-N pics to see if, as I believe, more "pop" can be achieved from other Zeiss lenses without special PP and even in Web format, but it might be interesting.
It would go some way towards the Zeiss-50-shootout we have been talking about.



Lotusm50
Registered: Sep 26, 2005
Total Posts: 6239
Country: United States

philber wrote:
It would go some way towards the Zeiss-50-shootout we have been talking about.



Yes, a ZE 50/1.4, N 50/1.4 and c/y 50/1.4 comparison would be interesting. I suspect that you really won't find much difference. If the comparison is rigorous and robust enough to discriminate the very small differences in performance between these lenses, I think you'll find that the ZE will take it overall by a nose.



1
       2       3              74       75       end