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.13 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
My feeling is with the GM is that it's so good it's worth the weight and size. I even bought abigger bag but the real key is its range as Fred mention those areas are really really good. Throw a 21 and 50 into the mix and your good to go. The 85 GM also but now given the quality of the zoom it's my new landscape lens. I did not plan on that but it is now.
Apr 24, 2016 at 06:59 PM
p.13 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
My feeling is with the GM is that it's so good it's worth the weight and size. I even bought abigger bag but the real key is its range as Fred mention those areas are really really good. Throw a 21 and 50 into the mix and your good to go. The 85 GM also but now given the quality of the zoom it's my new landscape lens. I did not plan on that but it is now.
Agree. A f/2.8 mid-range zoom with this IQ had to be big. I don't mind carrying big lenses as long as they deliver and the GM does. It would be great to have a more compact f/4 version with similar IQ for those who don't need a fast lens.
Perhaps we will see f/4 GM lenses. Why not?
My feeling is with the GM is that it's so good it's worth the weight and size. I even bought abigger bag but the real key is its range as Fred mention those areas are really really good. Throw a 21 and 50 into the mix and your good to go. The 85 GM also but now given the quality of the zoom it's my new landscape lens. I did not plan on that but it is now.
Agree. A f/2.8 mid-range zoom with this IQ had to be big. I don't mind carrying big lenses as long as they deliver and the GM does. It would be great to have a more compact f/4 version with similar IQ for those who don't need a fast lens.
Perhaps we will see f/4 GM lenses. Why not?
Apr 24, 2016 at 07:28 PM
p.13 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Agree. A f/2.8 mid-range zoom with this IQ had to be big. I don't mind carrying big lenses as long as they deliver and the GM does. It would be great to have a more compact f/4 version with similar IQ for those who don't need a fast lens.
Perhaps we will see f/4 GM lenses. Why not?
Why not? I think just because of market labelling. Sony's relationship with Zeiss would get sticky if they made GM a obviously more premium brand than Zeiss by replacing a Zeiss with a similarly specced but better GM. You can see that they are already confused about this with their distinction between GM as "ultimate resolution and bokeh" vs Zeiss as "ultimate resolution and contrast".
In reality I think the Zeiss brand will be used for shorter lenses, and for slower zooms of premium quality. Basically for premium lenses that aren't absolutely huge.
If I'm right about that an improved F4 lens would be a ZE II or some such. It could of course be larger. I think the compromises in the existing F4 24-70 are largely due to it's size - when they designed the first lenses they were thinking of the FE system as being all about compactness. When it came out I was amazed they had squeezed a constant aperture 24-70 into a 67mm filter thread...
Of course this is all just marketing and nomenclature talk. I agree that the substance of what you say is right: we might get refreshed premium slower zooms with all the tech in the GM at some point. Not soon though. Too many gaps to fill. And I"m guessing that a 24-105 will come first (interesting question is whether that will be an affordable relatively compact Sony branded lens with dodgy edges like the Canon STM, or a bigger and better Zeiss branded one - hopefully big enough to be of genuinely premium quality. But that won't be smaller than the Sigma, which is not small.)
GMPhotography wrote
My feeling is with the GM is that it's so good it's worth the weight and size. I even bought abigger bag but the real key is its range as Fred mention those areas are really really good. Throw a 21 and 50 into the mix and your good to go. The 85 GM also but now given the quality of the zoom it's my new landscape lens. I did not plan on that but it is now.Perhaps we will see f/4 GM lenses. Why not?
Why not? I think just because of market labelling. Sony's relationship with Zeiss would get sticky if they made GM a obviously more premium brand than Zeiss by replacing a Zeiss with a similarly specced but better GM. You can see that they are already confused about this with their distinction between GM as "ultimate resolution and bokeh" vs Zeiss as "ultimate resolution and contrast".
In reality I think the Zeiss brand will be used for shorter lenses, and for slower zooms of premium quality. Basically for premium lenses that aren't absolutely huge.
If I'm right about that an improved F4 lens would be a ZE II or some such. It could of course be larger. I think the compromises in the existing F4 24-70 are largely due to it's size - when they designed the first lenses they were thinking of the FE system as being all about compactness. When it came out I was amazed they had squeezed a constant aperture 24-70 into a 67mm filter thread...
Of course this is all just marketing and nomenclature talk. I agree that the substance of what you say is right: we might get refreshed premium slower zooms with all the tech in the GM at some point. Not soon though. Too many gaps to fill. And I"m guessing that a 24-105 will come first (interesting question is whether that will be an affordable relatively compact Sony branded lens with dodgy edges like the Canon STM, or a bigger and better Zeiss branded one - hopefully big enough to be of genuinely premium quality. But that won't be smaller than the Sigma, which is not small.)
Apr 24, 2016 at 07:44 PM
p.13 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
DavidBM wrote:
Agree. A f/2.8 mid-range zoom with this IQ had to be big. I don't mind carrying big lenses as long as they deliver and the GM does. It would be great to have a more compact f/4 version with similar IQ for those who don't need a fast lens.
Perhaps we will see f/4 GM lenses. Why not?Why not? I think just because of market labelling. Sony's relationship with Zeiss would get sticky if they made GM a obviously more premium brand than Zeiss by replacing a Zeiss with a similarly specced but better GM. You can see that they are already confused about this with their distinction between GM as "ultimate resolution and bokeh" vs Zeiss as "ultimate resolution and contrast".
In reality I think the Zeiss brand will be used for shorter lenses, and for slower zooms of premium quality. Basically for premium lenses that aren't absolutely huge.
If I'm right about that an improved F4 lens...Show more →
Makes sense David. Too bad their f/4 ZA didn't get good corners. Like you wrote, compactness could have played a compromise role for this lens but the trend now is going bigger for better IQ.
The FE 24-70/4 ZA is still amazing in the center and very good at 35mm and 50mm at f/8... but we've been too spoiled -- we want sharpness center to corners, small size and low price.
I think the new f/2.8 GM bought Zeiss so time to come up with a f/4 version II.
Fred Miranda wrote
GMPhotography wrote
My feeling is with the GM is that it's so good it's worth the weight and size. I even bought abigger bag but the real key is its range as Fred mention those areas are really really good. Throw a 21 and 50 into the mix and your good to go. The 85 GM also but now given the quality of the zoom it's my new landscape lens. I did not plan on that but it is now.Perhaps we will see f/4 GM lenses. Why not?
In reality I think the Zeiss brand will be used for shorter lenses, and for slower zooms of premium quality. Basically for premium lenses that aren't absolutely huge.
If I'm right about that an improved F4 lens...Show more →
Makes sense David. Too bad their f/4 ZA didn't get good corners. Like you wrote, compactness could have played a compromise role for this lens but the trend now is going bigger for better IQ.
The FE 24-70/4 ZA is still amazing in the center and very good at 35mm and 50mm at f/8... but we've been too spoiled -- we want sharpness center to corners, small size and low price.
I think the new f/2.8 GM bought Zeiss so time to come up with a f/4 version II.
Apr 24, 2016 at 07:56 PM
p.13 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
They should have made the Zony 24-70 F4 a no compromises 35-70 f4 or even a 28-70 f4. Hopefully they will make a Batis 35-70 f4.
Apr 24, 2016 at 08:25 PM
p.13 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Little OT but I returned my 3rd now 28mm F2. I just can't warm up to it. I thought maybe on the A6300 it be okay, well I tested it this morning against the A7rII with the GM zoom at 42 mm and the GM just blows its doors offf, I did not even process the files. Yes F 8 it's good but I'm so spoiled and I admit having all this other glass so dang good. I still want to get a 28mm but not sure what I want to be honest. I don't want to spend Leica R 28 money either , so will see. I thought about the VC 28 ultron ,Zeiss 28 2.8 and a few others but will see . I wish Sigma had a 28 with there new adapter. I will just wait having the Zoom now allows that to happen.
Apr 24, 2016 at 08:35 PM
p.13 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
Little OT but I returned my 3rd now 28mm F2. I just can't warm up to it. I thought maybe on the A6300 it be okay, well I tested it this morning against the A7rII with the GM zoom at 42 mm and the GM just blows its doors offf, I did not even process the files. Yes F 8 it's good but I'm so spoiled and I admit having all this other glass so dang good. I still want to get a 28mm but not sure what I want to be honest. I don't want to spend Leica R...Show more →
Yes, for great sharpness across the field, the FE 28 is a f/8-11 lens...but the GM has slightly more resolution in the corners.
I will be testing the CY 28/2.8 next week. Let's see how it performs against the FE 28/2.
If it's bad, our best bet could be the Zeiss 28/2 (SLR) but it's not field curvature free...
Perhaps you already have the best 28mm in your GM!
Little OT but I returned my 3rd now 28mm F2. I just can't warm up to it. I thought maybe on the A6300 it be okay, well I tested it this morning against the A7rII with the GM zoom at 42 mm and the GM just blows its doors offf, I did not even process the files. Yes F 8 it's good but I'm so spoiled and I admit having all this other glass so dang good. I still want to get a 28mm but not sure what I want to be honest. I don't want to spend Leica R...Show more →
Yes, for great sharpness across the field, the FE 28 is a f/8-11 lens...but the GM has slightly more resolution in the corners.
I will be testing the CY 28/2.8 next week. Let's see how it performs against the FE 28/2.
If it's bad, our best bet could be the Zeiss 28/2 (SLR) but it's not field curvature free...
Perhaps you already have the best 28mm in your GM!
Apr 24, 2016 at 08:44 PM
p.13 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
That's it Fred I think we do in 28mm on test the zoom was really really nice. Be nice sometimes not to take the zoom but a small kit. I had the Zeiss 28 ZE F2 and it was a great lens , stop down to 5.6 or so for the corners as it does have field curvature. I never tried the one your testing so maybe that is a option if it turns out good. My other issue is focusing the Sony 28f2 just feels like nothing is there. I did have the famous Hollywood but it's so expensive now.
Apr 24, 2016 at 08:53 PM
p.13 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Someone gotta try the Otus 28
Apr 24, 2016 at 09:05 PM
p.13 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Leica R 28 version II is another contender. Still wondering if I should have sold mine,...
Apr 24, 2016 at 09:11 PM
p.13 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Like to have mine back
Luvwine wrote:
Leica R 28 version II is another contender. Still wondering if I should have sold mine,...
Luvwine wrote:
Leica R 28 version II is another contender. Still wondering if I should have sold mine,...
Apr 24, 2016 at 09:14 PM
p.13 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
That's it Fred I think we do in 28mm on test the zoom was really really nice. Be nice sometimes not to take the zoom but a small kit. I had the Zeiss 28 ZE F2 and it was a great lens , stop down to 5.6 or so for the corners as it does have field curvature. I never tried the one your testing so maybe that is a option if it turns out good. My other issue is focusing the Sony 28f2 just feels like nothing is there. I did have the famous Hollywood but it's so expensive...Show more →
There are areas where the FE 28/2 beats the GM zoom:
1) Flare resistance: This lens is very flare resistant. It's almost impossible to make it flare and contrast does not get affected with the sun on or close to the frame. This is a big plus for landscapes.
2) It's a stop faster than the zoom and very good in the center at f/2 (mid-zone good).
3) Size and weight: If 28 is one of the your most used FLs, it's a good lighter alternative.
I did have issues with QC with this lens though. I went through a couple to get a well-centered one.
For landscapes it performs best at f/8 at infinity for even resolution throughout the frame and also to lessen LaCA which is quite heavy until f/4. The GM zoom has slightly more resolution at the extreme edges but they are actually very similar.
It's going to be fun to test it against the CY 28/2.8. However, from their MTF charts and Philip's review, the Contax is already dead in the water...
That's it Fred I think we do in 28mm on test the zoom was really really nice. Be nice sometimes not to take the zoom but a small kit. I had the Zeiss 28 ZE F2 and it was a great lens , stop down to 5.6 or so for the corners as it does have field curvature. I never tried the one your testing so maybe that is a option if it turns out good. My other issue is focusing the Sony 28f2 just feels like nothing is there. I did have the famous Hollywood but it's so expensive...Show more →
There are areas where the FE 28/2 beats the GM zoom:
1) Flare resistance: This lens is very flare resistant. It's almost impossible to make it flare and contrast does not get affected with the sun on or close to the frame. This is a big plus for landscapes.
2) It's a stop faster than the zoom and very good in the center at f/2 (mid-zone good).
3) Size and weight: If 28 is one of the your most used FLs, it's a good lighter alternative.
I did have issues with QC with this lens though. I went through a couple to get a well-centered one.
For landscapes it performs best at f/8 at infinity for even resolution throughout the frame and also to lessen LaCA which is quite heavy until f/4. The GM zoom has slightly more resolution at the extreme edges but they are actually very similar.
It's going to be fun to test it against the CY 28/2.8. However, from their MTF charts and Philip's review, the Contax is already dead in the water...
Apr 24, 2016 at 11:57 PM
p.13 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I agree with all that's been said about the C/Y 35-70/3.4, a wonderful performer, but IMO not that well balanced for the A7, maybe better on the larger, heavier A7RII
gyoung143 wrote:
...... I have been using a 40mm Ultron SLII in F mount and am reasonably happy with it,
I've also got this, but my copy doesn't impress me until F/8-11. sadly the F/2-2.8 bokeh is also not that pleasant, I will probably sell it.
billsnature wrote
For landscape (remember f8 and be there) any thoughts on:
...... Nikon 100mm E series or 105 f2.5...
The Nikon E 100/2.8 is up with the best once stopped down to F/8-11. Not very impressive until F/8 though. Also has a yellow/green signature.
The N AiS 105/2.5 is also up with the best from wide (if you get a good copy)
Jannik Peters wrote
...Maybe the Minolta MD 4/200 could do it for you if you remove the chromatic aberrations in the postprocessing.
I prefer both the OM Z 200/4 and 200/5 to my MD Tele Rokkor. The MD has stronger CA and poorer edges/corners than either of the OMs. The 200/5 is a little gem. I have it in both single coated and a rare MC version. The SC is fractionally sharper, but flares easily, the MC has better colour and contrast and is resistant to flare. As I only carry a 200mm "just in case", the OM Z 200/5 is ideal, being so small and light.
gyoung143 wrote:
...... I have been using a 40mm Ultron SLII in F mount and am reasonably happy with it,
I've also got this, but my copy doesn't impress me until F/8-11. sadly the F/2-2.8 bokeh is also not that pleasant, I will probably sell it.
billsnature wrote
For landscape (remember f8 and be there) any thoughts on:
...... Nikon 100mm E series or 105 f2.5...
The Nikon E 100/2.8 is up with the best once stopped down to F/8-11. Not very impressive until F/8 though. Also has a yellow/green signature.
The N AiS 105/2.5 is also up with the best from wide (if you get a good copy)
Jannik Peters wrote
...Maybe the Minolta MD 4/200 could do it for you if you remove the chromatic aberrations in the postprocessing.
I prefer both the OM Z 200/4 and 200/5 to my MD Tele Rokkor. The MD has stronger CA and poorer edges/corners than either of the OMs. The 200/5 is a little gem. I have it in both single coated and a rare MC version. The SC is fractionally sharper, but flares easily, the MC has better colour and contrast and is resistant to flare. As I only carry a 200mm "just in case", the OM Z 200/5 is ideal, being so small and light.
Apr 25, 2016 at 01:54 AM
p.13 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
Little OT but I returned my 3rd now (FE) 28mm F2. I just can't warm up to it......
I agree, I've just returned my 4th (and last copy!)
Ist was soft all down left edge until F8, 2nd very poor top left corner until F8, 3rd very poor top right corner until F8, 4th copy...just plain bad everywhere even stopped down! (1st and 4th were "mint used/OB", 2nd and 3rd new)
From the "good parts" of the first three copies, I can tell that a good all-over copy would be very good indeed...and I do like its rendering.
However, the distortion is huge, and as I'm still on Lr 5.7, which doesn't cater for it, adding the distortion control is a pain,(FE 28-135 + 12 distortion seems best), and as it's the only lens I need Lr6 for, it's just not worth the cost of upgrade.
It's not been mentioned yet, but I'd like to add my praise for the close focussing NAiS 28/2.8. I prefer it to the C/Y 28/2.8, for all but infinity focus.
Edited on Apr 25, 2016 at 02:21 AM · View previous versions
Little OT but I returned my 3rd now (FE) 28mm F2. I just can't warm up to it......
I agree, I've just returned my 4th (and last copy!)
Ist was soft all down left edge until F8, 2nd very poor top left corner until F8, 3rd very poor top right corner until F8, 4th copy...just plain bad everywhere even stopped down! (1st and 4th were "mint used/OB", 2nd and 3rd new)
From the "good parts" of the first three copies, I can tell that a good all-over copy would be very good indeed...and I do like its rendering.
However, the distortion is huge, and as I'm still on Lr 5.7, which doesn't cater for it, adding the distortion control is a pain,(FE 28-135 + 12 distortion seems best), and as it's the only lens I need Lr6 for, it's just not worth the cost of upgrade.
It's not been mentioned yet, but I'd like to add my praise for the close focussing NAiS 28/2.8. I prefer it to the C/Y 28/2.8, for all but infinity focus.
Edited on Apr 25, 2016 at 02:21 AM · View previous versions
Apr 25, 2016 at 02:16 AM
p.13 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
There are areas where the FE 28/2 beats the GM zoom:
1) Flare resistance: This lens is very flare resistant. It's almost impossible to make it flare and contrast does not get affected with the sun on or close to the frame. This is a big plus for landscapes.
2) It's a stop faster than the zoom and very good in the center at f/2 (mid-zone good).
3) Size and weight: If 28 is one of the your most used FLs, it's a good lighter alternative.
I did have issues with QC with this lens though. I went through a couple to get...Show more →
Interesting I sold my FE28 when I bought the GM but that is because I have the Leica Q which is of course 28mm and just stunning. I don't know about flare as I haven't had the GM for long enough to test it but from what I am seeing the
GM is sharper across the frame at 2.8 than the FE28 and I prefer the GM's rendering. If I didn't have the Q I would definitely have kept the FE28. For serious, studied landscape work I would use the Loxia 50 and 21 and the CV15 but as a general walkabout landscape lens of just one lens and body I think the GM is going to be hard to beat
GMPhotography wrote
That's it Fred I think we do in 28mm on test the zoom was really really nice. Be nice sometimes not to take the zoom but a small kit. I had the Zeiss 28 ZE F2 and it was a great lens , stop down to 5.6 or so for the corners as it does have field curvature. I never tried the one your testing so maybe that is a option if it turns out good. My other issue is focusing the Sony 28f2 just feels like nothing is there. I did have the famous Hollywood but it's so expensive now.1) Flare resistance: This lens is very flare resistant. It's almost impossible to make it flare and contrast does not get affected with the sun on or close to the frame. This is a big plus for landscapes.
2) It's a stop faster than the zoom and very good in the center at f/2 (mid-zone good).
3) Size and weight: If 28 is one of the your most used FLs, it's a good lighter alternative.
I did have issues with QC with this lens though. I went through a couple to get...Show more →
Interesting I sold my FE28 when I bought the GM but that is because I have the Leica Q which is of course 28mm and just stunning. I don't know about flare as I haven't had the GM for long enough to test it but from what I am seeing the
GM is sharper across the frame at 2.8 than the FE28 and I prefer the GM's rendering. If I didn't have the Q I would definitely have kept the FE28. For serious, studied landscape work I would use the Loxia 50 and 21 and the CV15 but as a general walkabout landscape lens of just one lens and body I think the GM is going to be hard to beat
Apr 25, 2016 at 02:17 AM
p.13 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Otus 28mm blows anything out of the water at the moment. But the friggin´price :/
Apr 25, 2016 at 05:41 AM
p.13 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
MJKoski wrote:
Otus 28mm blows anything out of the water at the moment. But the friggin´price :/
Yes the price and the weight. 28mm is an out and about fl for me, and I wouldn't want to cart that around.
Pleeeeeeeease give us Otus quality in, say, an f3.5 28. It could be three times as big as an OM 28 f3.5 which is a very nice lens, and still be small - so it ought to be essentially perfect. And you should be able to do it for half the price of Otus....
Otus 28mm blows anything out of the water at the moment. But the friggin´price :/
Yes the price and the weight. 28mm is an out and about fl for me, and I wouldn't want to cart that around.
Pleeeeeeeease give us Otus quality in, say, an f3.5 28. It could be three times as big as an OM 28 f3.5 which is a very nice lens, and still be small - so it ought to be essentially perfect. And you should be able to do it for half the price of Otus....
Apr 25, 2016 at 06:18 AM
p.13 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Interesting thread. It got me thinking about adapters. Like many of you, I have been using very low priced adapters, perhaps best described as "cheap." My 50/1.7 C/Y never had a great fit on its Fotasy adapter so based on the discussions here, I ordered a Rayqual adapter and I need to confess, it made a world of difference. It feels like a native lens now and the insecure fit is a thing of the past. I don't have any testing to prove it, but the edges look improved in the images.
Apr 25, 2016 at 09:23 AM
p.13 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The 1.7/50 is another sleeper. Mine is tack sharp stopped down. I doubt that the Loxia is much sharper.
Apr 25, 2016 at 09:36 AM
p.13 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Jannik Peters wrote:
The 1.7/50 is another sleeper. Mine is tack sharp stopped down. I doubt that the Loxia is much sharper.
Jannik,
At which aperture does it get sharp in the corners? For the Loxia is about f/5.6 but best at f/8.
The both share the same planar design but I believe the Loxia has less elements and groups.
I have seen some bad examples of LoCA with the Contax and it's not the case with the Loxia. Then there is bokeh and sunstar shape to consider.
The 1.7/50 is another sleeper. Mine is tack sharp stopped down. I doubt that the Loxia is much sharper.
Jannik,
At which aperture does it get sharp in the corners? For the Loxia is about f/5.6 but best at f/8.
The both share the same planar design but I believe the Loxia has less elements and groups.
I have seen some bad examples of LoCA with the Contax and it's not the case with the Loxia. Then there is bokeh and sunstar shape to consider.
Apr 25, 2016 at 09:49 AM