This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
p.11 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I just picked up the C/Y 28/2.8 here at FM. (Thanks Andrew!)
I will be comparing it to the FE 28/2 and GM zoom.
After the surprising performance from the Contax 35-70, I decided to try the 28 and 100 primes.
@rji2goleez,
Is your adapter flocked? I just flocked my Novoflex and it made a noticeable difference in contrast towards the corners.
I will be comparing it to the FE 28/2 and GM zoom.
After the surprising performance from the Contax 35-70, I decided to try the 28 and 100 primes.
@rji2goleez,
Is your adapter flocked? I just flocked my Novoflex and it made a noticeable difference in contrast towards the corners.
Apr 22, 2016 at 07:08 PM
p.11 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Thank you Fred !! Great tests 
The CY 35-70 is a superb lens. I sold mine about a year ago when I was having a "gear cleanse". I must say after these tests I do have some remorse!!
The CY 35-70 at a BBQ with the A7s.
The CY 35-70 is a superb lens. I sold mine about a year ago when I was having a "gear cleanse". I must say after these tests I do have some remorse!!
The CY 35-70 at a BBQ with the A7s.
 |
||
 |
||
|
|
||
 |
||
|
Apr 22, 2016 at 07:18 PM
p.11 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just picked up the C/Y 28/2.8 here at FM. (Thanks Andrew!)
I will be comparing it to the FE 28/2 and GM zoom.
After the surprising performance from the Contax 35-70, I decided to try the 28 and 100 primes.
@rji2goleez@,
Is your adapter flocked? I just flocked my Novoflex and it made a noticeable difference in contrast towards the corners.
Whoah soon you'll have the whole contax fleet!
Isn't the C/Y 28 2.8 pretty similar to the ZF/ZE?
EDIT oops there is no Zf/ZE 2.8.
I just picked up the C/Y 28/2.8 here at FM. (Thanks Andrew!)
I will be comparing it to the FE 28/2 and GM zoom.
After the surprising performance from the Contax 35-70, I decided to try the 28 and 100 primes.
@rji2goleez@,
Is your adapter flocked? I just flocked my Novoflex and it made a noticeable difference in contrast towards the corners.
Whoah soon you'll have the whole contax fleet!
Isn't the C/Y 28 2.8 pretty similar to the ZF/ZE?
EDIT oops there is no Zf/ZE 2.8.
Apr 22, 2016 at 10:43 PM
p.11 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Hey Bob...glad you're enjoying the lens. And Fred too! I too had the 28-85/3.3-4, and while it was almost as good as the smaller 35-70, it was WAY huge. But it fit well on my 1D4....I think it would be too big on an A7x...
@Fred...thanks again for all the testing! And thanks for your upcoming tests as well, with the 28mm and 100/3.5, too. As far as the 100's go, my favorite all time Contax lens is the 100/2. A phenomenal lens...and I miss it. There is one for sale on the bs board I might have to pick up....
@Fred...thanks again for all the testing! And thanks for your upcoming tests as well, with the 28mm and 100/3.5, too. As far as the 100's go, my favorite all time Contax lens is the 100/2. A phenomenal lens...and I miss it. There is one for sale on the bs board I might have to pick up....
Apr 23, 2016 at 09:45 AM
p.11 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I would go for the 100/2 but it's much bigger and heavier and would use mainly for landscapes. For that I already have the 70-200/4. I was looking for a very compact and light 100mm and it seems like the 100/3.5 is the ticket. Let's we how well it performs. Its MTF looks very promising. The only downside I see on these older Contax lenses is LaCA but it's fixable in post.
Best,
Fred
Greggf wrote:
Hey Bob...glad you're enjoying the lens. And Fred too! I too had the 28-85/3.3-4, and while it was almost as good as the smaller 35-70, it was WAY huge. But it fit well on my 1D4....I think it would be too big on an A7x...
@Fred.@..thanks again for all the testing! And thanks for your upcoming tests as well, with the 28mm and 100/3.5, too. As far as the 100's go, my favorite all time Contax lens is the 100/2. A phenomenal lens...and I miss it. There is one for sale on the bs board I might have to pick up....
Best,
Fred
Greggf wrote:
Hey Bob...glad you're enjoying the lens. And Fred too! I too had the 28-85/3.3-4, and while it was almost as good as the smaller 35-70, it was WAY huge. But it fit well on my 1D4....I think it would be too big on an A7x...
@Fred.@..thanks again for all the testing! And thanks for your upcoming tests as well, with the 28mm and 100/3.5, too. As far as the 100's go, my favorite all time Contax lens is the 100/2. A phenomenal lens...and I miss it. There is one for sale on the bs board I might have to pick up....
Apr 23, 2016 at 10:16 AM
p.11 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I added a Zeiss 100/2 ZE to my lens case this week. It's the only lens I've owned that's better than the Sonnar 100/3.5 CY, at f/8 and infinity focus.
P.S. this is consistent with their MTF curves.
P.S. this is consistent with their MTF curves.
Apr 23, 2016 at 10:26 AM
p.11 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Jim I use the Zeiss 100. Fantastic lens.
Apr 23, 2016 at 11:02 AM
p.11 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
For a long time I considered the Zeiss 100 the best lens in my bag. Based on some really great reviews and in an effort to replace a Leica R 80-200, I bought a Contax 100-300/4. I tested it after it arrived and it looked good. I ran some comparison shots and was shocked at how good the 100-300 was in direct comparison to the ZF 100/2. I am not ready to say the Contax is better but in nearly all of my tests, it was as good. I re-ran the comparison because I found it so hard to believe. The Contax is really something - at least to about 225-250. It fades on the long end but it is still good. It is really hard to find - I bought mine from Japan but at $825, it was a steal. The reviews that caught my attention said the 100-300 was world class. I would have to agree.
Apr 23, 2016 at 02:42 PM
p.11 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Jimple wrote:
For a long time I considered the Zeiss 100 the best lens in my bag. Based on some really great reviews and in an effort to replace a Leica R 80-200, I bought a Contax 100-300/4. I tested it after it arrived and it looked good. I ran some comparison shots and was shocked at how good the 100-300 was in direct comparison to the ZF 100/2. I am not ready to say the Contax is better but in nearly all of my tests, it was as good. I re-ran the comparison because I found it so hard to believe....Show more →
I ran tests with my C-Y Z 100-300, C-Y Z 80-200, Leica 70-210, CV90 APO Lanthar LTM and CV180 APO Lanthar. Same conclusion. The micro-contrast of the 100-300 VS is amazing - and the CV90 APO Lanthar LTM was second best. Especially at the 100mm end the 100-300 VS shoots as good as any prime!
For a long time I considered the Zeiss 100 the best lens in my bag. Based on some really great reviews and in an effort to replace a Leica R 80-200, I bought a Contax 100-300/4. I tested it after it arrived and it looked good. I ran some comparison shots and was shocked at how good the 100-300 was in direct comparison to the ZF 100/2. I am not ready to say the Contax is better but in nearly all of my tests, it was as good. I re-ran the comparison because I found it so hard to believe....Show more →
I ran tests with my C-Y Z 100-300, C-Y Z 80-200, Leica 70-210, CV90 APO Lanthar LTM and CV180 APO Lanthar. Same conclusion. The micro-contrast of the 100-300 VS is amazing - and the CV90 APO Lanthar LTM was second best. Especially at the 100mm end the 100-300 VS shoots as good as any prime!Apr 23, 2016 at 03:21 PM
p.11 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
In 2013, I directly compared my CZ 100-300 and CZ 100/3.5, at f/8 and infinity focus. My conclusion was that they are very close in resolution, and that the Sonnar 100/3.5 was slightly better. Earlier this week, I did some preliminary comparison tests with the same Sonnar 100/3.5 and my new 100/2 ZE, and the ZE is slightly but distinctly better, especially at the edges. The difference between the ZE and Sonnar is greater than the difference between the CZ 100/3.5 CY and CZ 100-300 CY.
Apr 23, 2016 at 03:51 PM
p.11 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Just joined the A7RII + 35-70/3.4 club , saw one in a Japanese website (rather famous MapCamera in Shinjuku),
I just go to the shop and pick that one the first day I arrive Tokyo The MapCamera shop is really great.... they have lots of camera for visitors to try, they even have Leica Q, T119 (way lighter than I thought), old leica M5, Pentax 645Z (love the viewfinder)..
Saw a 28-85/3-3.4 beside the 35-70/3.4, on sales right now, rather tempting.
But I'm getting inconsistent results, probably adapter related (I'm using CY-EOS + Metabones), but I'm rather reluctant to get a Rayqual adapter here, esp this is the ONLY C/Y lens I have right now and I am already carrying EOS and F mount adapters...
, saw one in a Japanese website (rather famous MapCamera in Shinjuku),I just go to the shop and pick that one the first day I arrive Tokyo The MapCamera shop is really great.... they have lots of camera for visitors to try, they even have Leica Q, T119 (way lighter than I thought), old leica M5, Pentax 645Z (love the viewfinder)..
Saw a 28-85/3-3.4 beside the 35-70/3.4, on sales right now, rather tempting.
But I'm getting inconsistent results, probably adapter related (I'm using CY-EOS + Metabones), but I'm rather reluctant to get a Rayqual adapter here, esp this is the ONLY C/Y lens I have right now and I am already carrying EOS and F mount adapters...
Apr 23, 2016 at 06:01 PM
p.11 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I would go for the 100/2 but it's much bigger and heavier and would use mainly for landscapes. For that I already have the 70-200/4. I was looking for a very compact and light 100mm and it seems like the 100/3.5 is the ticket. Let's we how well it performs. Its MTF looks very promising. The only downside I see on these older Contax lenses is LaCA but it's fixable in post.
Best,
Fred
@Fred.@@..thanks again for all the testing! And thanks for your upcoming tests as well, with the 28mm and 100/3.5, too. As far as the 100's go, my favorite all time Contax lens is the 100/2. A phenomenal lens...and I miss it. There is one for sale on the bs board I might have to pick up....
I'm with Fred here. The 100/2 MP is one of the great classic lenses no doubt. It's unreasonably sharp at all settings - generally a little more so in the outer field than the CV 100 3.5 - and the only mild flaw is a fair bit of LOCA and SLOCA (I wonder if an APO Makro Sonnar will come out one day?) But it's for a completely different purpose. It's large and heavy, has a very sharp f2 setting for portraits and yet has useful semi-macro (1:2). I've borrowed it from time to time, but never owned it. For macro I prefer other solutions; for portrait I'd go a faster (f1.4 85) or smaller (Batis 85) solution and would in the portrait scope prefer AF. But it's a superb lens and for someone wanting to satisfy their portrait and close focus needs in one wonderful lens it makes sense. But it's no light hiking optic!
I would go for the 100/2 but it's much bigger and heavier and would use mainly for landscapes. For that I already have the 70-200/4. I was looking for a very compact and light 100mm and it seems like the 100/3.5 is the ticket. Let's we how well it performs. Its MTF looks very promising. The only downside I see on these older Contax lenses is LaCA but it's fixable in post.
Best,
Fred
Greggf wrote
Hey Bob...glad you're enjoying the lens. And Fred too! I too had the 28-85/3.3-4, and while it was almost as good as the smaller 35-70, it was WAY huge. But it fit well on my 1D4....I think it would be too big on an A7x...@Fred.@@..thanks again for all the testing! And thanks for your upcoming tests as well, with the 28mm and 100/3.5, too. As far as the 100's go, my favorite all time Contax lens is the 100/2. A phenomenal lens...and I miss it. There is one for sale on the bs board I might have to pick up....
I'm with Fred here. The 100/2 MP is one of the great classic lenses no doubt. It's unreasonably sharp at all settings - generally a little more so in the outer field than the CV 100 3.5 - and the only mild flaw is a fair bit of LOCA and SLOCA (I wonder if an APO Makro Sonnar will come out one day?) But it's for a completely different purpose. It's large and heavy, has a very sharp f2 setting for portraits and yet has useful semi-macro (1:2). I've borrowed it from time to time, but never owned it. For macro I prefer other solutions; for portrait I'd go a faster (f1.4 85) or smaller (Batis 85) solution and would in the portrait scope prefer AF. But it's a superb lens and for someone wanting to satisfy their portrait and close focus needs in one wonderful lens it makes sense. But it's no light hiking optic!
Apr 23, 2016 at 06:14 PM
p.11 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
billsnature wrote:
What is your ultimate f8 and be there lnadscape kit
EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II*
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II*
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
*When weight is an issue, substitute
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS or 24-70mm f/4L
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
The word Mirex occasionally enters my vocabulary, too.
What is your ultimate f8 and be there lnadscape kit
EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II*
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II*
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
*When weight is an issue, substitute
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS or 24-70mm f/4L
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
The word Mirex occasionally enters my vocabulary, too.
Apr 23, 2016 at 06:25 PM
p.11 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
gdanmitchell wrote:
EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II*
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II*
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
*When weight is an issue, substitute
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS or 24-70mm f/4L
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
The word Mirex occasionally enters my vocabulary, too.
All on A7rII currently..with adaptor where applicable..
Canon 16-35mm F4
Zeiss ZE 21mm
Contax 35-70mm
Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8II
Sony RX1R2 (35mm)
The 21mm may change to the Loxia soon.... Ive tried it many times and its terrific for the size.
billsnature wrote
What is your ultimate f8 and be there lnadscape kitEF 24-70mm f/2.8L II*
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II*
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
*When weight is an issue, substitute
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS or 24-70mm f/4L
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
The word Mirex occasionally enters my vocabulary, too.
All on A7rII currently..with adaptor where applicable..
Canon 16-35mm F4
Zeiss ZE 21mm
Contax 35-70mm
Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8II
Sony RX1R2 (35mm)
The 21mm may change to the Loxia soon.... Ive tried it many times and its terrific for the size.
Apr 23, 2016 at 07:20 PM
p.11 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Another vote for the Zeiss c/y 100-300mm. My 35-70mm, 100-300mm and my c/y 100mm Makro-Planar are some of my favorite lenses. Four years ago I purchased the Makro, new in box, for a very high price... Foolish, but a wonderful, but heavy lens. The only downside of the Contax zooms are that they are push/pull.
Apr 23, 2016 at 07:36 PM
p.11 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
bwcolor wrote:
Another vote for the Zeiss c/y 100-300mm. My 35-70mm, 100-300mm and my c/y 100mm Makro-Planar are some of my favorite lenses. Four years ago I purchased the Makro, new in box, for a very high price... Foolish, but a wonderful, but heavy lens. The only downside of the Contax zooms are that they are push/pull.
Given that the C/Y MP is already heavy, and not cheap, why did you choose it in preference to the Z* 100/2 MP? This gives you an extra stop and slightly better performance. Or was the very high price still a fair bit less than the 100/2? (I hate the way collectors push up the price of some old lenses so they aren't competitively priced for use. Love the 125 APO Lanthar, but the price is not worth it for actual use!)
Another vote for the Zeiss c/y 100-300mm. My 35-70mm, 100-300mm and my c/y 100mm Makro-Planar are some of my favorite lenses. Four years ago I purchased the Makro, new in box, for a very high price... Foolish, but a wonderful, but heavy lens. The only downside of the Contax zooms are that they are push/pull.
Given that the C/Y MP is already heavy, and not cheap, why did you choose it in preference to the Z* 100/2 MP? This gives you an extra stop and slightly better performance. Or was the very high price still a fair bit less than the 100/2? (I hate the way collectors push up the price of some old lenses so they aren't competitively priced for use. Love the 125 APO Lanthar, but the price is not worth it for actual use!)
Apr 23, 2016 at 07:59 PM
p.11 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
My ultimate f8 landscape kit is
Sony FE 16-35
Canon TSE 17mm (small Loxia 15mm might see this replaced)
Canon TSE 24mm (one day might replace it with a Loxia 21mm)
Contax 35-70 3.4
Contax 100 3.5
2.8kgs of lenses. If I was going light weight I'd drop the Canon TSE lenses and it would come to 1.2kgs Under 2kgs with an A7R2.
I usually also take FE 35mm 2.8 for when I need a quick draw or discreet lens.
Metabones is a nightmare, and I have one metabones 3 adapters for each of my TSE lenses adjusted for each of them. I've filed, sanded, painted and shimed them. Tedious work.
Others somtimes:
Samyang 14mm 2.8 (only for Astrophotography)
Sony FE 70-200 f4 (A MD 200mm f4 (400g) coming, if it as good I'll take that).
Sony FE 16-35
Canon TSE 17mm (small Loxia 15mm might see this replaced)
Canon TSE 24mm (one day might replace it with a Loxia 21mm)
Contax 35-70 3.4
Contax 100 3.5
2.8kgs of lenses. If I was going light weight I'd drop the Canon TSE lenses and it would come to 1.2kgs Under 2kgs with an A7R2.
I usually also take FE 35mm 2.8 for when I need a quick draw or discreet lens.
Metabones is a nightmare, and I have one metabones 3 adapters for each of my TSE lenses adjusted for each of them. I've filed, sanded, painted and shimed them. Tedious work.
Others somtimes:
Samyang 14mm 2.8 (only for Astrophotography)
Sony FE 70-200 f4 (A MD 200mm f4 (400g) coming, if it as good I'll take that).
Apr 23, 2016 at 08:05 PM
p.11 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I would go for the 100/2 but it's much bigger and heavier and would use mainly for landscapes. For that I already have the 70-200/4. I was looking for a very compact and light 100mm and it seems like the 100/3.5 is the ticket. Let's we how well it performs. Its MTF looks very promising. The only downside I see on these older Contax lenses is LaCA but it's fixable in post.
Best,
Fred
@Fred.@@..thanks again for all the testing! And thanks for your upcoming tests as well, with the 28mm and 100/3.5, too. As far as the 100's go, my favorite all time Contax lens is the 100/2. A phenomenal lens...and I miss it. There is one for sale on the bs board I might have to pick up....
I'm going 100/3.5 as well. But another alternative has occurred to me for anyone interested.
It's the CV 90 3.5 APO Lanthar. I had ruled it out on weight grounds: I used to have an SLII in EF mount; but it was more than 500g all up including an adapter, and it didn't strike me as compellingly small to take around instead of the FE zoom, or the FE macro, or (especially now!) the Batis.
BUT I had forgotten about the LTM version. If it's optically identical (and I think it might have worse coatings than the SLII version) it weights only about 260g without adapter. You could take a helicoid adapter or not depending on whether the closer focus is worth it for you for the price/weight.
I would go for the 100/2 but it's much bigger and heavier and would use mainly for landscapes. For that I already have the 70-200/4. I was looking for a very compact and light 100mm and it seems like the 100/3.5 is the ticket. Let's we how well it performs. Its MTF looks very promising. The only downside I see on these older Contax lenses is LaCA but it's fixable in post.
Best,
Fred
Greggf wrote
Hey Bob...glad you're enjoying the lens. And Fred too! I too had the 28-85/3.3-4, and while it was almost as good as the smaller 35-70, it was WAY huge. But it fit well on my 1D4....I think it would be too big on an A7x...@Fred.@@..thanks again for all the testing! And thanks for your upcoming tests as well, with the 28mm and 100/3.5, too. As far as the 100's go, my favorite all time Contax lens is the 100/2. A phenomenal lens...and I miss it. There is one for sale on the bs board I might have to pick up....
I'm going 100/3.5 as well. But another alternative has occurred to me for anyone interested.
It's the CV 90 3.5 APO Lanthar. I had ruled it out on weight grounds: I used to have an SLII in EF mount; but it was more than 500g all up including an adapter, and it didn't strike me as compellingly small to take around instead of the FE zoom, or the FE macro, or (especially now!) the Batis.
BUT I had forgotten about the LTM version. If it's optically identical (and I think it might have worse coatings than the SLII version) it weights only about 260g without adapter. You could take a helicoid adapter or not depending on whether the closer focus is worth it for you for the price/weight.
Apr 23, 2016 at 09:08 PM
p.11 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
It looks like over the common range of the GM 24-70 and the C/Y 35-70mm that the C/Y wins on an "f8 and be there" scale.
In recent posts, I am seeing a lot of love for the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II. Any comparisons of the GM and Canon f2.8II?
I know the GM wins for f2.8 - f4.0, but for landscape does the Canon match the C/Y 35 and edge out the GM at F8?
I know the C/Y beats the Canon 24-70 f4 IS at f8, I just haven't owned or tested the Canon 24-70 II.
Thoughts?
Bill
In recent posts, I am seeing a lot of love for the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II. Any comparisons of the GM and Canon f2.8II?
I know the GM wins for f2.8 - f4.0, but for landscape does the Canon match the C/Y 35 and edge out the GM at F8?
I know the C/Y beats the Canon 24-70 f4 IS at f8, I just haven't owned or tested the Canon 24-70 II.
Thoughts?
Bill
Apr 23, 2016 at 09:37 PM
p.11 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
TakenWild wrote:
My ultimate f8 landscape kit is
Sony FE 16-35
Canon TSE 17mm (small Loxia 15mm might see this replaced)
Canon TSE 24mm (one day might replace it with a Loxia 21mm)
Contax 35-70 3.4
Contax 100 3.5
2.8kgs of lenses. If I was going light weight I'd drop the Canon TSE lenses and it would come to 1.2kgs Under 2kgs with an A7R2.
I usually also take FE 35mm 2.8 for when I need a quick draw or discreet lens.
Metabones is a nightmare, and I have one metabones 3 adapters for each of my TSE lenses adjusted for each of them. I've filed, sanded, painted and shimed...Show more →
I'm going to try using these 4 lenses for a while. (Landscape photography)
Other than that, my Loxia 50/2 and CV 15/4.5III are always in my bag for those occasions when the sun is on the frame and I want a nice sunstar. (They are so light, it does not bother me)
I am thinking of using my big 24-70/2.8GM more for events or even for landscapes when only brining one lens.
I also own the FE 55/1.8 and FE 28/2 but I use them more for people and street shooting. (I'm going to test the C/Y 28/2.8 against the FE 28/2 soon)
My ultimate f8 landscape kit is
Sony FE 16-35
Canon TSE 17mm (small Loxia 15mm might see this replaced)
Canon TSE 24mm (one day might replace it with a Loxia 21mm)
Contax 35-70 3.4
Contax 100 3.5
2.8kgs of lenses. If I was going light weight I'd drop the Canon TSE lenses and it would come to 1.2kgs Under 2kgs with an A7R2.
I usually also take FE 35mm 2.8 for when I need a quick draw or discreet lens.
Metabones is a nightmare, and I have one metabones 3 adapters for each of my TSE lenses adjusted for each of them. I've filed, sanded, painted and shimed...Show more →
I'm going to try using these 4 lenses for a while. (Landscape photography)
- Distagon 15/2.8 (The best 15mm for the A7RII. Period.)
- Loxia 21/2.8 (Best 21. Period.)
- C/Y 35-70/3.4 (After much testing, I feel confident that at f/8 and f/11, it's the best IQ for this range. Better than my RX1RII (35mm) and very similar to my Loxia 50/2)
- C/Y 100/3.5 (I didn't even get this lens yet but if it compares well against the 70-200/4 @100mm, it will be my long lens)
Other than that, my Loxia 50/2 and CV 15/4.5III are always in my bag for those occasions when the sun is on the frame and I want a nice sunstar. (They are so light, it does not bother me)
I am thinking of using my big 24-70/2.8GM more for events or even for landscapes when only brining one lens.
I also own the FE 55/1.8 and FE 28/2 but I use them more for people and street shooting. (I'm going to test the C/Y 28/2.8 against the FE 28/2 soon)
Apr 23, 2016 at 10:04 PM