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.12 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
billsnature wrote:
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
The Canon 24-70mm II is an exceptional lens. Its is damn sharp but in a 'technical' sort of way. Dont get me wrong I love mine but I work at a pro lab/ pro shop where I print a lot of material very large for both myself and for demo purposes for lens/camera sales.
The CY has a certain look that people gravitate towards. On a test bench the 24-70 might have the edge Id guess but when you actually start making some prints theres more to it (sometimes) then the test numbers.
Other items which have that special look in print are the Rx1 series and the Loxia/Zeiss 21's amongst a few others. The Canon 16-35mm f4 is one Canon lens that Id pick over the Sony Zeiss version. Ive tried loads of copies of that lens against my Canon and I always go back to the Canon. Maybe Ive got an exceptional copy...
Edited on Apr 23, 2016 at 10:28 PM · View previous versions
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
The Canon 24-70mm II is an exceptional lens. Its is damn sharp but in a 'technical' sort of way. Dont get me wrong I love mine but I work at a pro lab/ pro shop where I print a lot of material very large for both myself and for demo purposes for lens/camera sales.
The CY has a certain look that people gravitate towards. On a test bench the 24-70 might have the edge Id guess but when you actually start making some prints theres more to it (sometimes) then the test numbers.
Other items which have that special look in print are the Rx1 series and the Loxia/Zeiss 21's amongst a few others. The Canon 16-35mm f4 is one Canon lens that Id pick over the Sony Zeiss version. Ive tried loads of copies of that lens against my Canon and I always go back to the Canon. Maybe Ive got an exceptional copy...
Edited on Apr 23, 2016 at 10:28 PM · View previous versions
Apr 23, 2016 at 10:16 PM
p.12 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I purchased four Contax film bodies and rarely shot digital at the time that I purchased the Makro.
DavidBM wrote:
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!)
DavidBM wrote:
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.Apr 23, 2016 at 10:26 PM
p.12 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
billsnature wrote:
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
The Canon 24-70mm II is stronger in the 50-70mm range over the 24-70 F4 IS. About the same as the Canon 24-70 f4 IS @ 35mm @f8. Roger from LensRental.com compared the Canon v Sony FE v Nikon 24-70 2.8s and found the Sony to be as good as the Canon.
Canon is excellent, but it isn't as good as some of the praises people give it. Here is a comparison between the Canon 50mm 1.4 v Canon 24-70II on a 5DSR @f8. The 50mm is clearly better. We don't see that with the C/Y and the Loxia 50mm or the FE 55mm which I can tell you are better than the Canon 50mm 1.4 is at any f-stop. The Contax is on par (or just slightly behind) the Loxia and the FE 55mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=4&LensComp=115&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6
I've seen tests that show all this out, but I can remember where to find them. The Contax is really the King of f8 mid range zooms. I don't think there are any 24-70s that are as good, due to the nature of designing them.
Apr 24, 2016 at 01:53 AM
p.12 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
We could expect that the level people rate a lens at, will reflect how it goes against the previous version of the later lens, together with comparisons to competing lenses of the same configuration.
The key with the CY 35-70 is its signature color-contrast look, it's well sharp enough. It's not a really complex design, at 10 elements / 10 groups, Zeiss often spread the correction over more elements than most others, a design preference of theirs. Leica's 35-70/4 and Minolta's 35-70/3.5 are both 8 elements / 7 groups designs.
[Canon's 24-70/2.8 II turns the amp up to eleven - 23 elements / 18 groups, with predictable consequences for picture quality.]
The CY is a harmonious compromise between old world low element count lenses, and having enough correction for the jobs Zeiss surely knew it would be used for. It has the charm, tonal separation and transmission characteristics of many fine film era primes (plain spherical glass) with a high degree of technical performance / aberration control. These type of lenses thrive on digital, esp the wide DR Sonys. Couple of foibles, no big things. High hit rate, very good bokeh.
Carl Zeiss made around 20,000 of them. It's old - batches assigned in 1986 and 1994, design appears to be 1982. Other (mostly) rounded CY production numbers might be of interest:
Planar 50/1.4: over 200,000; Sonnar 85/2.8: around 19,000; Sonnar 100/3.5: 7,070, Planar 100/2: 6000.
And the VS 100-300? A total of 2,373 - in one batch, in 1996.
The key with the CY 35-70 is its signature color-contrast look, it's well sharp enough. It's not a really complex design, at 10 elements / 10 groups, Zeiss often spread the correction over more elements than most others, a design preference of theirs. Leica's 35-70/4 and Minolta's 35-70/3.5 are both 8 elements / 7 groups designs.
[Canon's 24-70/2.8 II turns the amp up to eleven - 23 elements / 18 groups, with predictable consequences for picture quality.]
The CY is a harmonious compromise between old world low element count lenses, and having enough correction for the jobs Zeiss surely knew it would be used for. It has the charm, tonal separation and transmission characteristics of many fine film era primes (plain spherical glass) with a high degree of technical performance / aberration control. These type of lenses thrive on digital, esp the wide DR Sonys. Couple of foibles, no big things. High hit rate, very good bokeh.
Carl Zeiss made around 20,000 of them. It's old - batches assigned in 1986 and 1994, design appears to be 1982. Other (mostly) rounded CY production numbers might be of interest:
Planar 50/1.4: over 200,000; Sonnar 85/2.8: around 19,000; Sonnar 100/3.5: 7,070, Planar 100/2: 6000.
And the VS 100-300? A total of 2,373 - in one batch, in 1996.
Apr 24, 2016 at 03:44 AM
p.12 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Very interesting info Philip. Do you have manufacture numbers for more of them? I've been using CY's for quite long, started off on Canon but then moved to A7 followed by A7II. I'm now into my 2nd 35-70, first was a bit decentered. One big reason to like CY's is, as said, the bokeh.
Pseudo-landscape, CY35-70
DSC02251 1500 by Wilhelm Frank - Stockholm, on Flickr
Pseudo-landscape, CY35-70
DSC02251 1500 by Wilhelm Frank - Stockholm, on FlickrApr 24, 2016 at 09:37 AM
p.12 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I went to a camera shop in Tokyo and played around with a Sigma 24-35/2, big surprise, this lens seems very sharp, even at f2.2 @24mm (the snap I took show very high resolution but probably with some astigmatism) , wondering if it's a good lens for landscape/cityscape.
My CY 35-70/3.4 Lens + AdapterS combo is de-centered (don't know where the problem is) so it's not good for landscape, so I took some Sakura instead..
My CY 35-70/3.4 Lens + AdapterS combo is de-centered (don't know where the problem is) so it's not good for landscape, so I took some Sakura instead..
 |
||
| http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1709/26344006720_a770a64597_b.jpg | ||
|
Apr 24, 2016 at 09:39 AM
p.12 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
ytwong wrote:
I went to a camera shop in Tokyo and played around with a Sigma 24-35/2, big surprise, this lens seems very sharp, even at f2.2 @24mm (the snap I took show very high resolution but probably with some astigmatism) , wondering if it's a good lens for landscape/cityscape.
My CY 35-70/3.4 Lens + AdapterS combo is de-centered (don't know where the problem is) so it's not good for landscape, so I took some Sakura instead..
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1709/26344006720_a770a64597_b.jpg
Try changing your adapter. Sometimes the adapter is the culprit. (the mounts are not completely parallel)
I went to a camera shop in Tokyo and played around with a Sigma 24-35/2, big surprise, this lens seems very sharp, even at f2.2 @24mm (the snap I took show very high resolution but probably with some astigmatism) , wondering if it's a good lens for landscape/cityscape.
My CY 35-70/3.4 Lens + AdapterS combo is de-centered (don't know where the problem is) so it's not good for landscape, so I took some Sakura instead..
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1709/26344006720_a770a64597_b.jpg
Try changing your adapter. Sometimes the adapter is the culprit. (the mounts are not completely parallel)
Apr 24, 2016 at 10:07 AM
p.12 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
philip_pj wrote:
We could expect that the level people rate a lens at, will reflect how it goes against the previous version of the later lens, together with comparisons to competing lenses of the same configuration.
The key with the CY 35-70 is its signature color-contrast look, it's well sharp enough. It's not a really complex design, at 10 elements / 10 groups, Zeiss often spread the correction over more elements than most others, a design preference of theirs. Leica's 35-70/4 and Minolta's 35-70/3.5 are both 8 elements / 7 groups designs.
[Canon's 24-70/2.8 II turns the amp up to eleven -...Show more →
Does that mean the CY 35-70/3.4 was only MM? It seems like Zeiss made the jump from AE to MM in 1984.
We could expect that the level people rate a lens at, will reflect how it goes against the previous version of the later lens, together with comparisons to competing lenses of the same configuration.
The key with the CY 35-70 is its signature color-contrast look, it's well sharp enough. It's not a really complex design, at 10 elements / 10 groups, Zeiss often spread the correction over more elements than most others, a design preference of theirs. Leica's 35-70/4 and Minolta's 35-70/3.5 are both 8 elements / 7 groups designs.
[Canon's 24-70/2.8 II turns the amp up to eleven -...Show more →
Does that mean the CY 35-70/3.4 was only MM? It seems like Zeiss made the jump from AE to MM in 1984.
Apr 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM
p.12 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The crazy thing is that since I have the Contax Zeiss N 24-85 I completely forgot about my C/Y 35/70.
Must be the range. The quality is very comparable.
While travelling, I am a big fan of zooms, because it is not so much what certain lenses can do but what you want to shoot in good quality.
Edited on Apr 24, 2016 at 10:31 AM · View previous versions
Must be the range. The quality is very comparable.
While travelling, I am a big fan of zooms, because it is not so much what certain lenses can do but what you want to shoot in good quality.
Edited on Apr 24, 2016 at 10:31 AM · View previous versions
Apr 24, 2016 at 10:15 AM
p.12 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Vcize wrote:
Impressive for the Contax once you get to F8.
Anyone know how the Contax compares with the Minolta 35-70 F3.5 version 3?
This may have been answered, I'm only up to pg7)
Just completed that test at 35mm yesterday. The MD never matches the C/Y in the far corners,(it's pretty poor wide open), but comes close everywhere else by F8.( I agree, the ergonomics and balance on the A7 are far nicer with the MD)
One difference is that the "Close-focus" function of the C/Y is at 35mm, on the MD it's at the 70mm end, indeed, at 35mm the MD has very poor minimum focus of 0.8m (31") The C/Y at 70mm, min focus is 0.7m (27")
Impressive for the Contax once you get to F8.
Anyone know how the Contax compares with the Minolta 35-70 F3.5 version 3?
This may have been answered, I'm only up to pg7)
Just completed that test at 35mm yesterday. The MD never matches the C/Y in the far corners,(it's pretty poor wide open), but comes close everywhere else by F8.( I agree, the ergonomics and balance on the A7 are far nicer with the MD)
One difference is that the "Close-focus" function of the C/Y is at 35mm, on the MD it's at the 70mm end, indeed, at 35mm the MD has very poor minimum focus of 0.8m (31") The C/Y at 70mm, min focus is 0.7m (27")
Apr 24, 2016 at 10:25 AM
p.12 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
billsnature wrote:
What is your ultimate f8 and be there lnadscape kit
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.
i'd be very tempted by this 3 zoom combo if i liked shooting zooms:
a7rII
leica WATE 16-21mm
c/y 35-70mm
c/y 100-300mm
pretty small and light considering the range covered too.
regarding the difference between the minolta MD 35-70mm f/3.5 and the c/y 35-70mm f/3.4, the contax has better corners and better contrast, but the MD is very competitive, much cheaper, and balances better on an a7*.
What is your ultimate f8 and be there lnadscape kit
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.
i'd be very tempted by this 3 zoom combo if i liked shooting zooms:
a7rII
leica WATE 16-21mm
c/y 35-70mm
c/y 100-300mm
pretty small and light considering the range covered too.
regarding the difference between the minolta MD 35-70mm f/3.5 and the c/y 35-70mm f/3.4, the contax has better corners and better contrast, but the MD is very competitive, much cheaper, and balances better on an a7*.
Apr 24, 2016 at 10:33 AM
p.12 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Many of you have mentioned flocking your lens adapters. What material do you use and how do apply it?
Apr 24, 2016 at 03:56 PM
p.12 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Chuck Eklund wrote:
Many of you have mentioned flocking your lens adapters. What material do you use and how do apply it?
I always use this: Edmund Adhesive Flock Paper
http://www.edmundoptics.com/lab-production/general-tools/light-absorbing-black-out-material/54585/
Many of you have mentioned flocking your lens adapters. What material do you use and how do apply it?
I always use this: Edmund Adhesive Flock Paper
http://www.edmundoptics.com/lab-production/general-tools/light-absorbing-black-out-material/54585/
Apr 24, 2016 at 04:43 PM
p.12 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred... Did you flock even the Novaflex adapter? I normally flock the smooth finished adapters but wasn't sure if the ribbed Novaflex needed it.
You flocked it and saw a difference?
You flocked it and saw a difference?
Apr 24, 2016 at 04:53 PM
p.12 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I always use this: Edmund Adhesive Flock Paper
http://www.edmundoptics.com/lab-production/general-tools/light-absorbing-black-out-material/54585/
Interesting. How thick is it? I use protostar telescope flocking, which is good, but just a little thick so you have to be careful with vignetting.
Chuck Eklund wrote
Many of you have mentioned flocking your lens adapters. What material do you use and how do apply it?http://www.edmundoptics.com/lab-production/general-tools/light-absorbing-black-out-material/54585/
Interesting. How thick is it? I use protostar telescope flocking, which is good, but just a little thick so you have to be careful with vignetting.
Apr 24, 2016 at 04:54 PM
p.12 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
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).I'm going to try using these 4 lenses for a while. (Landscape photography)
There's a head to head comparison of the FE 28 against the CY on Philip Reeve's site. Spoiler: hang on to your FE!
http://phillipreeve.net/blog/old-new-zeiss-2-828-vs-sony-fe-228-vs-minolta-mc-228/
TakenWild wrote
My ultimate f8 landscape kit isSony 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).
- 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)
There's a head to head comparison of the FE 28 against the CY on Philip Reeve's site. Spoiler: hang on to your FE!
http://phillipreeve.net/blog/old-new-zeiss-2-828-vs-sony-fe-228-vs-minolta-mc-228/
Apr 24, 2016 at 05:01 PM
p.12 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
DavidBM wrote:
I always use this: Edmund Adhesive Flock Paper
http://www.edmundoptics.com/lab-production/general-tools/light-absorbing-black-out-material/54585/Interesting. How thick is it? I use protostar telescope flocking, which is good, but just a little thick so you have to be careful with vignetting.
It's thin and won't have any black specs come apart from it.
Fred Miranda wrote
Chuck Eklund wrote
Many of you have mentioned flocking your lens adapters. What material do you use and how do apply it?http://www.edmundoptics.com/lab-production/general-tools/light-absorbing-black-out-material/54585/
It's thin and won't have any black specs come apart from it.
Apr 24, 2016 at 05:45 PM
p.12 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
DavidBM wrote:
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).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)There's a head to head comparison of the FE 28 against the CY on Philip Reeve's site. Spoiler: hang on to your FE!
http://phillipreeve.net/blog/old-new-zeiss-2-828-vs-sony-fe-228-vs-minolta-mc-228/
That's not encouraging but since I already bought it, I will test it out anyways.
Fred Miranda wrote
TakenWild wrote
My ultimate f8 landscape kit isSony 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).
- 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)
http://phillipreeve.net/blog/old-new-zeiss-2-828-vs-sony-fe-228-vs-minolta-mc-228/
That's not encouraging but since I already bought it, I will test it out anyways.
Apr 24, 2016 at 05:45 PM
p.12 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I have found this discussion very interesting, as I am getting ready (thinking about, anyway) to drop the 24-70 GM into my lineup and it has me re-evaluating the lenses I have, etc.
My kit is comprised of a bunch of Leitax-converted Leica lenses and now a few of the native FE lenses (16-35, 90 macro, 70-200).
I also have a few other lenses that I use occasionally, including Canon FD 50/1.2 and 85/1.2, the Contax 35-70 and the Leica 35-70 f4. Probably others that I am not thinking of at the moment...
My problem with the two 35-70 lenses that I have is not performance (both are great, but I feel I prefer the rendering of the Leica to the Contax by a considerable margin, regardless of any sharpness differences between them). My problem is that for landscape shooting, I find myself running out of range at the wide end ALL_THE_TIME... In fixed focal lengths, I have a 35mm I like a lot (Leica Summicron R) and also a 24mm (Sony/Minolta A), and I use those a lot, or if I have the 16-25 on the camera, I use the long end of that lens, which I know is not ideal.
So for me, it's really a practical issue of getting a lens that covers that 24-35mm range well (at least as well as my fixed lenses, and better than the 16-35).
I think, then, that I really have only one option in a zoom at this point; the 24-70 GM, since the 24-70 f4 is not a great performer.
I wish it weren't so BIG, though! I also wish that they actually made a decent f4 version because I really have no need for the speed and size/weight. For high speed, I'll pop the 50mm or 85mm on the camera. I think the GM highlights how big of a fail the 24-70 f4 lens really is. I wouldn't be surprised if CZ makes a mk2 version at some point soon since it is clearly beaten for performance by so many other lenses out there.
---Michael
My kit is comprised of a bunch of Leitax-converted Leica lenses and now a few of the native FE lenses (16-35, 90 macro, 70-200).
I also have a few other lenses that I use occasionally, including Canon FD 50/1.2 and 85/1.2, the Contax 35-70 and the Leica 35-70 f4. Probably others that I am not thinking of at the moment...
My problem with the two 35-70 lenses that I have is not performance (both are great, but I feel I prefer the rendering of the Leica to the Contax by a considerable margin, regardless of any sharpness differences between them). My problem is that for landscape shooting, I find myself running out of range at the wide end ALL_THE_TIME... In fixed focal lengths, I have a 35mm I like a lot (Leica Summicron R) and also a 24mm (Sony/Minolta A), and I use those a lot, or if I have the 16-25 on the camera, I use the long end of that lens, which I know is not ideal.
So for me, it's really a practical issue of getting a lens that covers that 24-35mm range well (at least as well as my fixed lenses, and better than the 16-35).
I think, then, that I really have only one option in a zoom at this point; the 24-70 GM, since the 24-70 f4 is not a great performer.
I wish it weren't so BIG, though! I also wish that they actually made a decent f4 version because I really have no need for the speed and size/weight. For high speed, I'll pop the 50mm or 85mm on the camera. I think the GM highlights how big of a fail the 24-70 f4 lens really is. I wouldn't be surprised if CZ makes a mk2 version at some point soon since it is clearly beaten for performance by so many other lenses out there.
---Michael
Apr 24, 2016 at 05:57 PM
p.12 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
mjm6 wrote:
I have found this discussion very interesting, as I am getting ready (thinking about, anyway) to drop the 24-70 GM into my lineup and it has me re-evaluating the lenses I have, etc.
My kit is comprised of a bunch of Leitax-converted Leica lenses and now a few of the native FE lenses (16-35, 90 macro, 70-200).
I also have a few other lenses that I use occasionally, including Canon FD 50/1.2 and 85/1.2, the Contax 35-70 and the Leica 35-70 f4. Probably others that I am not thinking of at the moment...
My problem with the two 35-70 lenses that I have...Show more →
Michael,
The 24-70GM covers the 24-35mm very well. It's great through the entire range but at 24, 28 and 35mm, it performs its best. 50mm is also very good starting at f/5.6 and 70mm needs f/6.3 or f/8 for the best corners. Its a really good choice but as you wrote, it's big.
I have found this discussion very interesting, as I am getting ready (thinking about, anyway) to drop the 24-70 GM into my lineup and it has me re-evaluating the lenses I have, etc.
My kit is comprised of a bunch of Leitax-converted Leica lenses and now a few of the native FE lenses (16-35, 90 macro, 70-200).
I also have a few other lenses that I use occasionally, including Canon FD 50/1.2 and 85/1.2, the Contax 35-70 and the Leica 35-70 f4. Probably others that I am not thinking of at the moment...
My problem with the two 35-70 lenses that I have...Show more →
Michael,
The 24-70GM covers the 24-35mm very well. It's great through the entire range but at 24, 28 and 35mm, it performs its best. 50mm is also very good starting at f/5.6 and 70mm needs f/6.3 or f/8 for the best corners. Its a really good choice but as you wrote, it's big.
Apr 24, 2016 at 06:45 PM