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.

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

Lovely shots all!

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.

A few with the 100 N Makro on a 5DMk2

Here are some more N 50/1.4 shots,

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.

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.

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.

You should add the ZE 50 f:2.0 Makro, Lotus. I suspect from the pics posted on another thread that it might well lead the pack of Zeiss 50s

philber wrote:
You shold add the ZE 50 f:2.0 Makro, Lotus. I imagine that it could end up ahead of the bunch...


Indeed, particularly if your test is done at closer focus distances. You could also extend it to the c/y 50/1.7 to satisfy some if it's ardent supporters, but the test could easily become unwieldy.

The rose is a great shot Wayne!

Thanks Andreas!

One other difference I don't think was mentioned,
isn't the filter size of the N 50 greater than the C/Y and Z* 50 1.4 and
thus potentially has less vignetting wide open?

Also, the Contax N lenses have a way to program AF micro-adjust values into the lens itself for overall,distant and near values which work along with your normal camera AF micro-adjust if your Canon camera has it. My AF on my N 50 is very accurate now, thank you Conurus!

Lotusm50 wrote:
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 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...

And that's cool. You have more experience with different N lenses than me. My only direct experience is with the 35-70 and 24-85. I know that I prefer the image quality from the 35-70. The images are punchier and I prefer the colour and saturation straight out of the camera. I've been using the 24-85 on a 5D for a while now (I was one of the first to have the lens converted), and I have yet to be truly wowed by its image quality. It's a great lens, no question, but I don't see it as being all that distinct from, say, an EF 24-70 or 24-105, whereas the C/Y to my eyes clearly has some character that the more modern N and EF lenses lack. Maybe not all the time but certainly in general.

philber wrote:
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.

Yes, I agree. Where's the Zeiss pop?

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.

Again, I agree. To hedge myself a bit, web-sized pics is the only experience I have to rely on for many of the N lenses and their C/Y equivalents, so my opinion is more accurately based on "impression" than "experience". But show me an N100 Makro websized image as punchy as Richard's lizard image, for example, and I'll change my tune, because I have yet to see one.

Now that more forum members have the N50 converted, I also hope to see some direct comparisons with the older C/Y version.

philber wrote:
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.


Really?? Even Wayne's image of the rose? Even his image of the fast food guy has that typical Zeiss "pop". I've not seen anything with more "pop" out of a c/y 50/1.4 (and yes, I have both 50's). Again, I think a good side-by-side will show that the difference you believe you see isn't there. If I have the time I will do a comparison (but I am in the middle of moving house).

Here is a link to some of Andrew's contax N 50 shots which I really like and were a major inspiration in getting this lens:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/762543/1

Maybe these have some of the "pop" you are looking for?

Lotusm50 wrote:

Really?? Even Wayne's image of the rose? Even his image of the fast food guy has that typical Zeiss "pop". I've not seen anything with more "pop" out of a c/y 50/1.4 (and yes, I have both 50's). Again, I think a good side-by-side will show that the difference you believe you see isn't there. If I have the time I will do a comparison (but I am in the middle of moving house).



Wayne's image of the rose is undoubtedly absolutely lovely, and I would have loved to have shot it. But if you had asked me what lens was used, I would have answered a Leica. The delicate, almost tender rendition (but not the bokeh) point me in that direction rather than towards the "punchy" rendition which I find typical of Zeiss, even if my ZE 50 f:1.4 is the least punchy of the lot. As I see it, the same flower, shot with my ZE 35 would be a different story.
The fast food guy, to me, has pop, though not more than I could get out of my 135L, my best Canon lens in this respect .
And over the hwole set of pics displayed here, I still stand by my comment.
Now, as my ZE 50 has the least "pop" of all my Zeiss lenses, maybe what I am seeing here is due to the caracteristics of this planar design, even though this version of it could as good as or better than other Zeiss incarnations...

wayne seltzer wrote:
Here is a link to some of Andrew's contax N 50 shots which I really like and were a major inspiration in getting this lens:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/762543/1

Maybe these have some of the "pop" you are looking for?

Yes, Wayne, these pics have "pop" galore. Which means that I happily recant my blanket statement. Let's see what Steven says...

StevenPA wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
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 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...

And that's cool. You have more experience with different N lenses than me. My only direct experience is with the 35-70 and 24-85. I know that I prefer the image quality from the 35-70. The images are punchier and I prefer the colour and saturation straight out of the camera. I've been using the 24-85 on a 5D for a while now (I was one of the first to have the lens converted), and I have yet to be truly wowed by its image quality. It's a great lens, no question, but I don't see it as being all that distinct from, say, an EF 24-70 or 24-105, whereas the C/Y to my eyes clearly has some character that the more modern N and EF lenses lack. Maybe not all the time but certainly in general.

I have to disagree with your comparison to the EF 24-105 at least. When I got my N 24-85, it was so much better than my EF 24-105 that I sold the 24-105 which I thought I'd never do. The only thing I miss is the extra 20mm but I rarely ever used the lens since it just didn't do that much for me. On the other hand, first time out with the 24-85 and I got images that I really liked and didn't have to tell myself "oh well, it's a zoom". I used the 24-105 a lot in Hawaii last summer and really wish I'd had the 24-85 instead.