C/y 35-70 thread
/forum/topic/862783/50

1       2       3              50      
51
       52       end

philber
Registered: May 21, 2008
Total Posts: 7501
Country: France

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.



Peire
Registered: Apr 27, 2010
Total Posts: 1325
Country: Poland

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.



briantho
Registered: Oct 07, 2011
Total Posts: 1099
Country: Sweden

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:

Andreas Resch






teh_rebel












Krosavcheg






mMontag







Paul Yi







philber







philber
Registered: May 21, 2008
Total Posts: 7501
Country: France

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.



briantho
Registered: Oct 07, 2011
Total Posts: 1099
Country: Sweden

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.



classic man
Registered: Dec 08, 2004
Total Posts: 5
Country: N/A

It's official: I deserve to burn in Hellfire .

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!



Greggf
Registered: Aug 03, 2011
Total Posts: 1644
Country: United States

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



dovey
Registered: Feb 05, 2012
Total Posts: 110
Country: Australia

I use the novaflex adapter, pricey but excellent, I suspect that you will probably find a cheap one that works just as well



kopuschenfred
Registered: Dec 28, 2013
Total Posts: 36
Country: United States

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.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15767
Country: Germany

According to the Leitax site it is quite complex, but doable, depending on which mount you want on there...



kopuschenfred
Registered: Dec 28, 2013
Total Posts: 36
Country: United States

I think I'm lucky to adapt to Canon EOS mount and according to leitax site it's quite doable... May give it a try!



helimat
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 3737
Country: Canada

I have Leitaxed my 35-70 to Canon, there wasn't much to it.



kopuschenfred
Registered: Dec 28, 2013
Total Posts: 36
Country: United States

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.



OpticalFlow
Registered: May 17, 2011
Total Posts: 189
Country: N/A

I leitaxed mine to Canon EF as it nearly fell out of one of the C/Y-EF Mount adapters when I engaged the macro setting. (The little catch spring disengaged when I applied too much torque). With the Leitax-Mount this is bullet proof and infinity is spot on.
The conversion to EF is very easy if you know how to use a screwdriver.



Manoj
Registered: May 19, 2011
Total Posts: 164
Country: India

A few with the CY 35-70. Glad to see this thread back from the depths

#1

Katraj sunset by Manoj Prabhu, on Flickr

#2

Kartraj Sunset (Light trails) by Manoj Prabhu, on Flickr

#3

Katraj sunset (retro) by Manoj Prabhu, on Flickr



Greggf
Registered: Aug 03, 2011
Total Posts: 1644
Country: United States

Just got mine for th second time, to use with my A7 arriving next week! So here it is on my 1D4...Love thos lens!
Gregg



Greggf
Registered: Aug 03, 2011
Total Posts: 1644
Country: United States

One more with the 35-70
Gregg



philip_pj
Registered: Apr 03, 2009
Total Posts: 3103
Country: Australia

The venerable CY 35-70 produces so much microcontrast that the results can be visually interpreted in the way Philippe alludes to. Nothing in any way wrong with differences of opinion, in fact it is a badge of honour as so many top lenses are 'controversial'.

Zeiss's MTF do not lie however and as all MTF data is microcontrast, at infinity this zoom produces astounding performance, it's not shabby up close either. As the images indicate it is a superb field lens with an uncanny creaminess in the palette and top drawer 3D. In key aspects it resembles the FE primes: flatness of field (necessary to deliver great frame edges/corners); terrific small aperture performance, f11 is just one stop from optimum of f8; and excellent object shaping giving a high photorealism to images.

These are all design goals of Sony Zeiss to cope with the a7r right now, but Zeiss made this one 20 years back without the assistance of ED elements or Asph surfaces, just painstaking design and development. It is therefore a thoroughly modern style of lens even down to the 475 grams weight, just 45 grams more than the FE 24-70/4.

I took back to back comparison a7r shots along with a Summicron R50/2 E55, of near infinity FDs, the zoom trounced the Leica in all respects, drawing foliage and tree bark with great subtlety, and the high res camera makes the most of the extended DOF the zoom delivers. Now this zoom is best around 50mm where it has no distortion to mention and very high performance even past the deep corners - the same is true of the FE zoom incidentally, but the CY is also excellent at 70mm, Somewhat unfair to the Leica prime perhaps, it is essentially a portrait lens best at close distance and optimized for the image center, but one view is that 50s should be all rounders, as is the FE55.

It's not perfect. Some copies suffer knocks poorly, the push-pull action puts off some users and may suck in dust, focus rings can develop play. The short end is less good on the a7r where a little CA arises for the first time, all is well at 40-45mm onwards however. I would very much like to see it up against the new FE 24-70 which from reports other than at FM is gaining accolades fast. Tim Ashley found it the equal of the FE55 with a little more sharpening..sacrilege I know -;



philip_pj
Registered: Apr 03, 2009
Total Posts: 3103
Country: Australia

Another thought - the 35-70 has somewhat lower 10 lpmm lines. These lines reflect the rendering of large structures in the image. Examples might include the edges of buildings, statues and even heads. Leica work hard to get very strong performance in this area of lens performance, while Zeiss traditionally emphasize fine detail. That is a generalization with plenty of exceptions but has a fair sized kernel of truth to it. Now these large structures are the first to reflect losses to diffraction in fast primes, even as fine detail is improving with stopping down.

The CY zoom retains its less wonderful large object shaping at smaller apertures but gains greatly in fine details and I speculate that this might disrupt some peoples' visual perception of images from the 35-70, while delighting others. It's very subject dependent of course.



kopuschenfred
Registered: Dec 28, 2013
Total Posts: 36
Country: United States

Before 35-70 (being my first zeiss), I don't know what "micro contrast" mean
Along with the cinematic color palette, it gave you the sense of "reality".

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7290/12771672754_974827efb3_b.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3813/12771223575_3099491c2f_b.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5517/12771223595_9ca7532dc0_b.jpg



1       2       3              50      
51
       52       end