abhijeeth, I have both versions of the image (without the tree and further away having the tree smaller) but I didn't like either of those versions.
Bob, liked your 4th bicycle photo.
Markus, weird bokeh you got from 100mm Sonnar.
carstenw wrote:
Ooh, very nice! Hans-Balushek-Park? The boke is a little wild in places. Is that typical of this lens?
Carsten, I haven't used lately much my Contax Sonnar T* 3.5/100 (100ZE kills usage of my other short tele lenses...), but decided yesterday go shooting with it and Leica Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8, mainly wanting to compare, which has smoother bokeh. Most boring test of my life, images are almost hard to identify by lens without EXIF information. Below are some photos, but only one I would say that bokeh is not good (#3, top left corner). So at least to me nisen-bokeh from this lens is weird to see. Also I was happy to see that lens is very sharp wide open and contrast is also OK. Very neutral lens, not strong on "zeiss like"-rendering, at least to me.
All below = Contax Sonnar T* 3.5/100 @ f/3.5, from tripod at ISO 100. Thumbnails are links to bigger photos:
May I ask for the results of your test shots against the Leica 90 Elmarit and the Zeiss 100 ZE?
Interestingly these two lenses together with with the Sonnar are my three MF portrait/tele lenses and testing each against each other is something I plan to do, too. I acquired the Zeiss 100 only recently and haven't had the time to test it in different situations yet.
So far the Sonnar is the lens I take with me when I need a light and sharp tele lens and the Leica got more use when portraits and flowers are involved, due to the shorter MFD and a smoother bokeh for portraits. I intend the Zeiss 100 ZE to use as my standard 100mm, the Sonnar as a light and tiny alternative and the Leica more for portraits.
Four 50 MP shots. I visited Spreepark in Berlin with Bobu, who was briefly in town. It was meant to be open to the public, according to an article from the 28th of May, but they had changed the rules again, and it was closed, except for guided tours. After some discussion, we managed to gets permission to go in for an hour, for 20 Euro. Possibly the fact that we are both 40-something years old and clearly carried serious photo equipment had something to do with them letting us in.
The first four shots are all water-based, horizontal aspect, weirdo shots
Carsten, thanks, thou these photos were shoot to bring up ugly bokeh... Liked your 3rd image "pink concrete on water" or whatever it is, weird looking stuff - what it is?
Ulff wrote:
May I ask for the results of your test shots against the Leica 90 Elmarit and the Zeiss 100 ZE?
Yes and no - I have only two 5DmkII bodies so I'm not able to test 3 lenses at same time... I was not going to "publish" "review" since there is nothing to see, the lenses are way too similar to be from different "camps". Here are Leica comparison images, open to tabs and compare by switching tabs:
A. LeicaContax
B. LeicaContax
C. LeicaContax
D. LeicaContax
Look the photos and get bored like I did, nothing to see...
---------------------------
Image thread so I must post something, hmmm, something from my Norway-Lapland 2009 summer holiday, thumbnail is link to bigger size version:
Salla, Finland - Contax Distagon T* 2.8/25 @ f/8, 1/20s, ISO 100 (most probably polarization filter used, can't remember, but based on shutter speed I would assume so)
Thanks Samuli. It is a barrel with some kind of shape on it, maybe made from fibre glass. It was lying in a water channel which was used for a boat ride.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I was not going to "publish" "review" since there is nothing to see, the lenses are way too similar to be from different "camps".
Look the photos and get bored like I did, nothing to see...
I see a lot more yellow in the Leica shots, which is nice in some of them. The Contax seems to have bit more microcontrast but otherwise they are indeed very similar.
Jun 27, 2011 at 07:01 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I like the Leica better in the third set, especially the edges of the out of focus petals (a key feature to me when shooting flower close-up and Leica lens do excel with that detail), but I like the contax better in the fourth set. Here the microcontrast on the birch tree really makes the contax shine. I do agree with AhamB, that the Leica is a little more yellow and I like that and the Zeiss has better microcontrast throughout, but the first two are so close I couldn't report a preference at all.
AhamB wrote:
I see a lot more yellow in the Leica shots, which is nice in some of them. The Contax seems to have bit more microcontrast but otherwise they are indeed very similar.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I like the Leica better in the third set, especially the edges of the out of focus petals (a key feature to me when shooting flower close-up and Leica lens do excel with that detail), but I like the contax better in the fourth set. Here the microcontrast on the birch tree really makes the contax shine. I do agree with AhamB, that the Leica is a little more yellow and I like that and the Zeiss has better microcontrast throughout, but the first two are so close I couldn't report a preference at all.
I think the slightly more yellowish/warmer WB is "feature" of all Leica lenses when compared to Zeiss "blueish" WB. I used 5400K and +9 (magenta = +, green = -) tint, maybe neutral for Leica would have been 5300K and +11 in lightning we had in Tampere at Saturday, maybe even 5250K. Typically warmer WB looks also softer so it may fool the eye to think Leica looks softer. However I did not want to compensate for lens differences, just tried to get good WB matching environment.
These all were wide open and both lenses improve on contrast and microcontrast when closed down to f/5.6, but very little amount. Considering the age of designs and coatings I consider both lenses very good. Of course short tele lens is the easiest SLR lens to get good quality with cheap (assuming lens is not fast, like these f/2.8 and f/3.5 "slow" lenses).
One thing to notice in flower picture is that even I tried my best there is slight magnification difference and Leica photo has bigger magnification, so it may seem better due to this. On all other photos Leica magnification is smaller since shoot from same position and Leica is 90mm while Contax is 100mm.
I think I'll shoot some comparisons MP100ZE & S100C/Y images at f/5.6 to see can we see differences between two very good 100mm lenses. With 100mm Sonnar it can be seen that quality decreases when closed down to f/8 compared to f/5.6 (similarly to Leica 80-200 and MP100ZE), so I don't expect there to be huge differences, but I assume we can see difference between the lenses. If very close I'll tease you and just show photos "from lens A and B" won't tell you which is which
-------
Aargh again have to find new photo to post - I hope I have not "published" this before (just thumbnail, this is little older image):
Contax Vario-Sonnar T* 4/80-200 @ f/11, 1/13s, ISO 100
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
One thing to notice in flower picture is that even I tried my best there is slight magnification difference and Leica photo has bigger magnification, so it may seem better due to this.
That's what I noticed too. Was the Leica shot wide open? In that case it would have a focus distance and aperture advantage for bokeh, at only 10mm shorter FL.
I have the Contax 100/2.8 MP now, by the way. That lens really is a heavy block of glass! A bit heavier than the ZF 100/2 even. I'm loving the colors and (micro)contrast, better than I had imagined. I hadn't thought the DOF would be so thin wide open at longer focus distances though. Very challenging to focus with my 5D.
I have to do some comparisons to see if there is a noticeable contrast difference between f/5.6 and f/8.
AhamB wrote:
That's what I noticed too. Was the Leica shot wide open? In that case it would have a focus distance and aperture advantage for bokeh, at only 10mm shorter FL.
This, however, is a nice feature of the Leica. It has a .7 meters MFD, versus 1 meter for the Contax, that combined with the faster aperture and that you can use the very nice Leica Elpro close-up lenses (instead of tubes making the aperture difference even greater) with it make it a great lens for these types of flower shots. In addition, I still like the characteristic of the edges of out of focus petals a lot better on the Leica. This is not just a function of the faster aperture and closer focus distance either. I like my Rokkor 58 f/1.2 for flower close-ups, but even (and perhaps especially) wide open it doesn't render these out of focus edges as nicely as the Leica.
FlyPenFly wrote:
If Leica is yellowish and Zeiss is blueish has anyone noticed Minolta is a bit greenish?
I think you can't really generalize like that. I believe Z* lenses generally are warmer than Contax lenses and there are significant differences between different Leica R lenses too. Then there's also different versions with different coatings, giving different color balances. For instance, earlier versions of the Leica APO 180/3.4 have a green cast, but the latest version doesn't.
@Steve: I'm willing to believe what you say about Leica. I'll have to try one of their 90's some time.
The Contax 100/3.5 does indeed have a rather long MFD, just like the 50/1.7. Probably to keep the size/weight/cost down, since they were low cost alternatives to the 100/2 and 50/1.4.
Agreed on the Z* having a "warmer" (red/yellow - mostly yellow) rendering, with slightly more saturation - what I like best of the Contax lenses are the "cooler" (blue/green - mostly blue) color - for landscape photography I find it easier to PP starting with the cooler less saturated palate. Canon tends to go to the "warmer" red/black spectrum. Of the Leica R's I've tried (35 & 50/2) I would refer to them as more neutral. The Oly's tend more towards green. Hasselblad "F" is the "cool-est" lens I've every tried - much cooler than the Contax produced in the same time period.
For use of the Contax 100/3.5 - I usually carry a 12mm X-tube to aid in MFD.
The difference in color tone are obvious, but I regard this as a minor difference because it can easily be changed in PP. The difference in microcontrast, on the other hand, seems to me the most significant difference. Regarding bokeh I had expected more differences, but at least for these subjects they can be neglected.
I'm looking forward to your 100mm @f5.6. An older comparison between the 100 ZF and the Leica 90 2.8 on your website has been very helpful to me in the past, too.
Jun 27, 2011 at 02:26 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mMontag wrote:
For use of the Contax 100/3.5 - I usually carry a 12mm X-tube to aid in MFD.
But then you have an effective max aperture of about f/4.5 and a minimum focus distance of about .8 meters or so. If you put an elpro lens on the Leica you still have a max aperture of f/2.8 and a minimum focus distance of about .4 meters. In my view the Leica's bigger max aperture, and shorter minimum focus distance, as well as having a matched diopter give it a clear advantage for close up photography.
Ulff wrote:
I'm looking forward to your 100mm @f5.6. An older comparison between the 100 ZF and the Leica 90 2.8 on your website has been very helpful to me in the past, too.
Markus, I didn't even remember that I had compared 100ZF and Leica 90/2.8
I was today shooting mainly with Contax Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200 C/Y, but had also short time to make comparison of Contax Sonnar T* 3.5/100 C/Y and Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE. Since Sonnar is 101.2mm and Makro-Planar is 97.5mm, I could not make you "guess which is which"-photo series. However I did find this quite interesting; Sonnar 3.5/100 is quite performer for it's price, size and weight if you shoot f/5.6-11 medium to long distances. Since my "theme of decade" seems to be Forest, these are shoot in familiar conditions to myself. All photos from tripod (Gitzo 3540XLS + Benro B-4 + Arca-Swiss L-bracket/clamp) focused with live view at maximum aperture (either of the lenses don't have focus shift), and trying to match the lightning conditions.
Below are thumbnails and links to bigger images with each lens. Images have not been adjusted individually, only following in Apple Aperture:
- all images: WB to 5000K and tint to 5
- images 2 and 3: Exposure -0.5EV
- image 3: highlight recovery to 0.4
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I was today shooting mainly with Contax Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200 C/Y, but had also short time to make comparison of Contax Sonnar T* 3.5/100 C/Y and Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE. Since Sonnar is 101.2mm and Makro-Planar is 97.5mm, I could not make you "guess which is which"-photo series. However I did find this quite interesting; Sonnar 3.5/100 is quite performer for it's price, size and weight if you shoot f/5.6-11 medium to long distances. Since my "theme of decade" seems to be Forest, these are shoot in familiar conditions to myself. All photos from tripod (Gitzo 3540XLS + Benro B-4 + Arca-Swiss L-bracket/clamp) focused with live view at maximum aperture (either of the lenses don't have focus shift), and trying to match the lightning conditions....Show more →
Thanks again for another nice comparison (great photos, too). My personal preference leans slightly towards the CY in these pairs (though it is a very close call). I don't know how much is due to the warmer color cast, slight edge in subject detail magnification from the marginally longer focal length, or just my brain adding some bias to protect me from wanting yet another lens, but the CY look a hair better at "3D" and color richness than the ZE to me.
Thank you Samuli - a very revealing comparison! And I like the result very much: the CY stands well against the ZE. The only reliable difference across the images that I can see are the slightly more saturated (green) colors from the ZE. Regarding sharpness and contrast the CY is at least on the level of the ZE.
For me this means, that I won't loose anything if I use the CY instead of the ZE as long as I don't intend to use larger apertures or close-up shots. Given that the IQ of the CY is very similar from wide open to f8.0, I expect both lenses to be quite comparable at wider apertures, too.
