Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #13 · Contax 100mm f/2 vs ZE/ZF | |
Dudewithoutape wrote:
I would like to add in that there are some minor differences in the AE (white last aperture) and MM (green last aperture) series of the Contax line. I read in a Chinese forum (with rough Google translate) that showed the difference between AEG, MMG, and MMJ of the D35/1.4. The person took pics of the aspherical glass. They said that the AEG was hand polished, the MMG was the initial mechanization, and MMJ was the final mechanization and you can kind of see it in the pics of the reflections; AEG was the least even or "perfect", the MMG was better but showed circular lines, and the MMJ was the smoothest.
There are also minor updates between the AE and MM lines from using slightly improving the glass shape (better corner performance: 135/2.8, 25/2.8; sharper: 50/1.7 8 series serial) to better coatings. MMs tend to handle flare and retain slighhtly more contrast in backlit situations. But AEs look more "organic" and sometimes have quicker OOF transitions. It's kind of like comparing the C/Y line to the Z* line, near the end (late, late C/Y), lenses tend to perform better, especially in the clinical sense. C/Y lenses were made for about 30 years so you'd think there would be some [minor] improvements along the way. Some of my early serial lenses must be 40 years old now!
I read about the better corner performance on MF lenses and the coatings from a video forum. I never compared AE vs MM, except for the 50 1.4 and 1.7s and can at least agree with the coatings but only somewhat about sharpness (as my testing N is 1, so there's not enough sample size). In the end, I personally prefer the look of AE lenses more usually if they're available (the 35-70/3.4 is only available in MM). The differences are slight from a shooting perspective, but can be important depending on shooting style, pixel peeping, test charts, compatibility, etc.
However, MMs do allow for additional capabilities (shutter priority, I believe) on Contax bodies, but I also heard if you stimulate the notch on an AE, it miraculously works too. MMs also can be Leitax'd to Nikon, and some believe they don't hit the mirror of the cheaper Canon FFs such as 5Ds 6Ds, etc. I do want to say, I never had any issue with AEs or MMs on my 5Dc.
...Show more →
It would be surprising if Zeiss would not have made incremental improvements, or other changes, during 30 years of production. However, the details are a well-kept secret in Oberkochen. I regularly owned two samples of a YC lens, and differently colored reflections from the coatings, or a different color balance in the images, were not uncommon. Even if both samples were AE or both samples were MM.
I remember the one occasion where the P2/100 let me down, namely a portrait session at medium apertures with a brightly lit screen in the background. The veiling glare was really bad. I did not think much of it, because any lens will flare if the contrast is high enough, and I had not used other lenses that would have allowed a direct comparison.
I remembered the portrait session while studying the aperture series of the backlit walking path sign. This time there are other lenses for comparison, and the results do not particularly flatter the P2/100 at medium apertures. The lenses are P2.8/100, MP2/100, and P2/100, and the apertures range from maximum down to F/8. After this introduction, there is no need to point out which lens is which in the overview below. A larger version can be obtained by clicking here. The P2/100 is MM by the way.
http://toothwalker.org/temp/fm/planars_aperture_series_small.jpg
|
But what the heck, that's part of the fun today. And if we were to "represent" a lens based on test shots, we need to be meticulous don't we? 
