Contax N Image Thread
/forum/topic/850075/1

1      
2
       3              74       75       end

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

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



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

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.



Anden
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Total Posts: 6605
Country: Sweden

The rose is a great shot Wayne!



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

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!



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

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.



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

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.



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

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).






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

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?



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

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...



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

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...



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

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.



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

StevenPA wrote:
but I don't see it as being all that distinct from, say, an EF 24-70 or 24-105,.


I owned a 24-105 for a while, and it was the most "un-Zeiss-like" high-end Canon lens I ever used. My copy produced sharp pics, but flat, lifeless, dull, boring. So if your 24-85 is not better than that...



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

I don't want to pick apart Wayne's excellent images, but the ihop guy is at ISO800, which kills much of the fine detail and adds a lot of high ISO artifacts. Personally, I see the image as having excellent edge (macro) contrast but a notable absence of micro-contrast in tonal gradations. Most lenses can produce this kind of look. I see no reason why the N50 is superior here.

In the flower shot, again, excellent pic, but my monitor is displaying it as having more painterly qualities (Philber mentions Leica, and maybe I would too). Maybe it's the post processing, which is beautiful in its own right, but not quite what I would call Zeiss punch. As a comparison, Jordan Steele's (I think) C/Y 85/2.8 of the flower patch screams Zeiss punch. That's the look I'm speaking of, and I don't see N lenses producing that.

I don't want to bash N lenses, but am I out in left field thinking that Zeiss N is visually different than Zeiss C/Y or ZF?



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

zombii wrote:
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.


Fair enough. I don't like the look of the 24-105 either. There's a flatness about the colours, and the contrast is heavily biased towards edge contrast. If we're talking portraits, the 24-105 produces nice contrast along the jawline and around the eyes (maybe too much), but the more subtle tonal gradations found on cheeks and forehead are flat and boring. This was my major complaint with the EF 85/1.8 too. And to talk again about the N24-85, I really wish it would performed better, like other non-N Zeiss lenses do, on these and other types of gradations of colour.

To keep the pics coming, here's another N24-85 image. 5D, 1/125s f/6.3 at 86.0mm iso100






APOLLO13ZX
Registered: Aug 01, 2008
Total Posts: 82
Country: Canada

N 50 f8






N 24-85 f10






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

Nice images, Apollo13!



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

No kidding, very nice!



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

3 very delightful shots, grasmuc. I was gong to write "delightful" only, but then thought of what Steven might write...
Where were the first two taken please?
And your indoor shots are superb as well. 6400 ISO with a 400 lens, and a useable result!



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

philber wrote:
3 very delightful shots, grasmuc. I was gong to write "delightful" only, but then thought of what Steven might write...


My thoughts exactly. Why so worried?

grasmuc, lovely night images.



grasmuc
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Total Posts: 109
Country: Germany

Thx philber and steven
The night shots are from Brasilia, Oscar Niemeyer buildings, the 85 shot is from Munich, Museum Brandhorst, by architets Sauerbruch and Hutton.



1      
2
       3              74       75       end