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.15 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
sebboh wrote:
But I bet it's much, much better at f/2 than the C/Y 50/1.7 is at f/1.7 or f/2. I used to use the 50/1.7 a lot, it was my main lens on the NEX for a few months... Beautiful at f/2.8, but f/1.7 was pretty much only if I really needed to. The situation is better on FF compared to APS-C, though the corners take longer to sharpen up. My Contax G 45mm f/2 blows it away at f/1.7 and f/2, and I'm sure the Loxia would be even better.
The C/Y 50/1.4 is supposed to be somewhat better stopped down. I've got both, but never done any testing. I'm partial to the f/1.7 over the f/1.4.at f/4 and smaller the c/y 50/1.4 is a bit better than the c/y 50/1.7 around the corners. i like it's draw better for portraits at f/2 and f/2.8 as well.
the g45 is about a stop better than the c/y 50/1.7 (e.g. comparable sharpness at f/2.8 to the c/y 50/1.7 at f/4), i assume the loxia is similar.
My C/Y 50/1.4 is an AEJ with the nasty ninja star aperture. Only 6 blades, something that surprised me - I assumed, like Canon, there'd be 8 for the better 50mm. :P
Wide open, it's soft enough that it can be hard for me to get critical focus, a problem I don't have with any other 50/1.4 I've used. My 50/1.7 is also AEJ, but much newer - I'm surprised that the curved aperture blades and lack of ninja star makes that much of a difference, but they do seem to be pretty visible on the 50/1.4 when I've used it.
sebboh wrote:
Short answer: unless you're sebboh, it's not worth it.sooner or later somebody else will learn to love it...
Ha! I hope so. I tried, I really did... :P
I really loved the lens on the NEX. In fact, I was using my NEX weekend for the first time in a long time just to get some time with this lens.
arduluth wrote
Jannik Peters wrote
The 1.7/50 is another sleeper. Mine is tack sharp stopped down. I doubt that the Loxia is much sharper.The C/Y 50/1.4 is supposed to be somewhat better stopped down. I've got both, but never done any testing. I'm partial to the f/1.7 over the f/1.4.
the g45 is about a stop better than the c/y 50/1.7 (e.g. comparable sharpness at f/2.8 to the c/y 50/1.7 at f/4), i assume the loxia is similar.
My C/Y 50/1.4 is an AEJ with the nasty ninja star aperture. Only 6 blades, something that surprised me - I assumed, like Canon, there'd be 8 for the better 50mm. :P
Wide open, it's soft enough that it can be hard for me to get critical focus, a problem I don't have with any other 50/1.4 I've used. My 50/1.7 is also AEJ, but much newer - I'm surprised that the curved aperture blades and lack of ninja star makes that much of a difference, but they do seem to be pretty visible on the 50/1.4 when I've used it.
sebboh wrote:
arduluth wrote
GMPhotography wrote
A7rII unmodifiedHa! I hope so. I tried, I really did... :P
I really loved the lens on the NEX. In fact, I was using my NEX weekend for the first time in a long time just to get some time with this lens.
Apr 25, 2016 at 08:53 PM
p.15 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Jack Thompson wrote:
Thank you Fred for putting these comparisons together. I'm trying to remember which year I got my c/y 35-70 for my 5DII, maybe 2011 or 2012? And it was because of pictures posted here. My landscape kit revolved around it, and TS-Es. On the 5DII, the 35-70 was kind of a nightmare in the field, but the images were so lovely.
Switching to the A7R and later the A7RII has made its operation so much easier. After a productive year and a lot of published work, I am finding myself pondering a few things: One is that of course,...Show more →
You are of course quite right. A lot of us (or just me) really have two passions. Photography - producing memorable and moving images is for most of us the most important. And for that ultimate IQ can matter, but rarely does, since the images are so often viewed in low-rez digital formats. And even if printed large almost no one but a photographer would complain if the IQ is "good enough" But I have a secondary passion, which is making as many of those images as possible at a very high IQ; so that the probability that the occasional one I truly love can be printed large and stand scrutiny is high. This second, less important, passion is however more expensive (but less expensive in time I guess!) than the first.
But there are some interactions. Working with a zoom, trying to catch in a stressed way very ephemeral opportunities, has rarely produced my best work. That has normally come when I've gone somewhere, judged the time and light well, and slowly, careful and considerably honed in on the image I want.
If I look at my own catalogue, I rarely find a great image in a big download of images at different Fls. Instead, it's usually one of (or a focus or exposure stack of a few) only a few very similar takes, that refine down to the captures I need.
Thank you Fred for putting these comparisons together. I'm trying to remember which year I got my c/y 35-70 for my 5DII, maybe 2011 or 2012? And it was because of pictures posted here. My landscape kit revolved around it, and TS-Es. On the 5DII, the 35-70 was kind of a nightmare in the field, but the images were so lovely.
Switching to the A7R and later the A7RII has made its operation so much easier. After a productive year and a lot of published work, I am finding myself pondering a few things: One is that of course,...Show more →
You are of course quite right. A lot of us (or just me) really have two passions. Photography - producing memorable and moving images is for most of us the most important. And for that ultimate IQ can matter, but rarely does, since the images are so often viewed in low-rez digital formats. And even if printed large almost no one but a photographer would complain if the IQ is "good enough" But I have a secondary passion, which is making as many of those images as possible at a very high IQ; so that the probability that the occasional one I truly love can be printed large and stand scrutiny is high. This second, less important, passion is however more expensive (but less expensive in time I guess!) than the first.
But there are some interactions. Working with a zoom, trying to catch in a stressed way very ephemeral opportunities, has rarely produced my best work. That has normally come when I've gone somewhere, judged the time and light well, and slowly, careful and considerably honed in on the image I want.
If I look at my own catalogue, I rarely find a great image in a big download of images at different Fls. Instead, it's usually one of (or a focus or exposure stack of a few) only a few very similar takes, that refine down to the captures I need.
Apr 25, 2016 at 09:26 PM
p.15 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
Well I was after a kid lens in a way and I don't have anything AF for the A6300 except the GM bad boys and they dwarf this little camera. Maybe just grab the new Sigma 30 1.4 for the A6300 . The other thing is backup if the A7rII goes down in the middle of a gig, I got the GMs of course but a small 30 1.4 plus I can use them side by side but as soon as a 28 or great 35 come out I'm jumping all of over it. My thinking now and I did...Show more →
Guy,
Check out this thread:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1268417/9
Andrew
Well I was after a kid lens in a way and I don't have anything AF for the A6300 except the GM bad boys and they dwarf this little camera. Maybe just grab the new Sigma 30 1.4 for the A6300 . The other thing is backup if the A7rII goes down in the middle of a gig, I got the GMs of course but a small 30 1.4 plus I can use them side by side but as soon as a 28 or great 35 come out I'm jumping all of over it. My thinking now and I did...Show more →
Guy,
Check out this thread:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1268417/9
Andrew
Apr 25, 2016 at 09:41 PM
p.15 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Well even as a Pro it's been a lifelong passion and in all these years you have to do it for yourself first and foremost not for folks on the Internet . It's about YOU and whatever gets you out if the house to go forth in your passion to create ART. For me the gear and the GAS is really to stop me from burning out . Like any other job you need the interest or you will quit. So going after the best IQ is a two folded process one to create the best ARt I can and the other is purely mental. To keep me fresh and not fall into these burnout phases which admittedly I have had several where getting out of bed was just a chore to go do gigs. I don't want to burn out so we do things as a natural defense mechanism . Hobbyist in general and I know been in forums for years and after a couple years sometimes people just disappear from photography and move on to some other hobby . Which is natural and I totally understand how that happens. So you have to stay interested and driven. Now what's this have to do with gear you ask well simple it keeps you interested in new technology . Different options to shoot with and a whole host of stuff. You can't let the passion down or you will move on. Gear helps that passion and helps fuel the desire.
Apr 25, 2016 at 09:52 PM
p.15 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Thanks
Andrew Gough wrote:
It's been 12 years since I removed the fence around the pool and today I just ordered a new one for the grandkids. I'm in grandpa mode need to get camera there. LolGuy,
Check out this thread:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1268417/9
Andrew
Andrew Gough wrote:
GMPhotography wrote
Well I was after a kid lens in a way and I don't have anything AF for the A6300 except the GM bad boys and they dwarf this little camera. Maybe just grab the new Sigma 30 1.4 for the A6300 . The other thing is backup if the A7rII goes down in the middle of a gig, I got the GMs of course but a small 30 1.4 plus I can use them side by side but as soon as a 28 or great 35 come out I'm jumping all of over it. My thinking now and I did not think this before is the GM 24-70 is the main lens in my kit. I got to get my mind in that space because I don't like zooms. But this one is special and need to get mentally correct about it. I have a block in my head for zooms. I know I'm crazy. LolIt's been 12 years since I removed the fence around the pool and today I just ordered a new one for the grandkids. I'm in grandpa mode need to get camera there. Lol
Check out this thread:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1268417/9
Andrew
Apr 25, 2016 at 09:59 PM
p.15 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Jack Thompson wrote:
... I'm going to be asking myself...other than you and other hyper critical blogging photographers like you...who else gives a damn?
When it gets down to these fine distinctions in the performance of lenses, many of us are just doing it for ourselves and there's nothing wrong with that as long as we can afford it.
... I'm going to be asking myself...other than you and other hyper critical blogging photographers like you...who else gives a damn?
When it gets down to these fine distinctions in the performance of lenses, many of us are just doing it for ourselves and there's nothing wrong with that as long as we can afford it.
Apr 25, 2016 at 10:08 PM
p.15 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
arduluth wrote:
But I bet it's much, much better at f/2 than the C/Y 50/1.7 is at f/1.7 or f/2. I used to use the 50/1.7 a lot, it was my main lens on the NEX for a few months... Beautiful at f/2.8, but f/1.7 was pretty much only if I really needed to. The situation is better on FF compared to APS-C, though the corners take longer to sharpen up. My Contax G 45mm f/2 blows it away at f/1.7 and f/2, and I'm sure the Loxia would be even better.
The C/Y 50/1.4 is supposed to be somewhat better stopped down. I've got both, but never done any testing. I'm partial to the f/1.7 over the f/1.4.at f/4 and smaller the c/y 50/1.4 is a bit better than the c/y 50/1.7 around the corners. i like it's draw better for portraits at f/2 and f/2.8 as well.
the g45 is about a stop better than the c/y 50/1.7 (e.g. comparable sharpness at f/2.8 to the c/y 50/1.7 at f/4), i assume the loxia is similar.My C/Y 50/1.4 is an AEJ with the nasty ninja star aperture. Only 6 blades, something that surprised me - I assumed, like Canon, there'd be 8 for the better 50mm. :P
Wide open, it's soft enough that it can be hard for me to get critical focus, a problem I don't have with any other 50/1.4 I've used. My 50/1.7 is also AEJ, but much newer - I'm surprised that the curved aperture blades and lack of ninja star makes that much of a difference, but they do seem to be pretty visible on the 50/1.4 when I've used...Show more →Short answer: unless you're sebboh, it's not worth it.sooner or later somebody else will learn to love it...
yeah, the 6 aperture blades and ninja stars really bug me. what were they thinking.
the g28 is awesome on the NEX, that and the 40 cron were definitely my favorites.
i think having a real distance scale makes the lens easier for me to use than it is for people who have to deal with those kludgy adapters. i know where i have to set it to shoot landscape at a given aperture and don't have to deal with focusing with the crazy lens curvature.
plus, it's such a great birding lens.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7424/16215101467_b9f70545f3_b.jpg
sebboh wrote
arduluth wrote
Jannik Peters wrote
The 1.7/50 is another sleeper. Mine is tack sharp stopped down. I doubt that the Loxia is much sharper.The C/Y 50/1.4 is supposed to be somewhat better stopped down. I've got both, but never done any testing. I'm partial to the f/1.7 over the f/1.4.
the g45 is about a stop better than the c/y 50/1.7 (e.g. comparable sharpness at f/2.8 to the c/y 50/1.7 at f/4), i assume the loxia is similar.
Wide open, it's soft enough that it can be hard for me to get critical focus, a problem I don't have with any other 50/1.4 I've used. My 50/1.7 is also AEJ, but much newer - I'm surprised that the curved aperture blades and lack of ninja star makes that much of a difference, but they do seem to be pretty visible on the 50/1.4 when I've used...Show more →
sebboh wrote
arduluth wrote
GMPhotography wrote
A7rII unmodifiedyeah, the 6 aperture blades and ninja stars really bug me. what were they thinking.
the g28 is awesome on the NEX, that and the 40 cron were definitely my favorites.
i think having a real distance scale makes the lens easier for me to use than it is for people who have to deal with those kludgy adapters. i know where i have to set it to shoot landscape at a given aperture and don't have to deal with focusing with the crazy lens curvature.
plus, it's such a great birding lens.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7424/16215101467_b9f70545f3_b.jpg
Apr 25, 2016 at 10:20 PM
p.15 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Jack Thompson wrote:
Thank you Fred for putting these comparisons together. I'm trying to remember which year I got my c/y 35-70 for my 5DII, maybe 2011 or 2012? And it was because of pictures posted here. My landscape kit revolved around it, and TS-Es. On the 5DII, the 35-70 was kind of a nightmare in the field, but the images were so lovely.
Switching to the A7R and later the A7RII has made its operation so much easier. After a productive year and a lot of published work, I am finding myself pondering a few things: One is that of course,...Show more →
Jack,
I agree that the broader audience may not notice technical aspects of a landscape print but we photographers do and care about these nuances. We are proud of our craft and have a tendency to be perfectionists with our art. We care so much about color, contrast, tonal range, rendering, edge sharpness, etc..
It's not by accident you decided shooting with the A7R and later on upgraded to the A7RII. You probably care about dynamic range/resolution and know how much it improves your art with better shadows and quality prints. The same can be said about our lens choices. We all want the best IQ possible and obsess about 'extreme corners', rendering, micro-contrast, etc... To me it's pure fun.
I think it's important to know the technical aspects of our gear, what it can do and how far it can go. Testing our lenses for field curvature, astigmatism, coma, LaCA/LoCA, focus shift, sharpness/light fall-off is crucial. When taking pictures, we can focus on the artistic side with the confidence that the technical stuff was tested and we are covered.
PS: I think the 16-35/4 + 35-70/3.4 is a great quality combo choice for landscapes. At 35mm, I would use the CY zoom at f/8 or smaller. I personally prefer primes for the wider range and currently use the Zeiss 15/2.8, CV 15/4.5 and Loxia 21/2.8.
Here is an image taken recently with the Zeiss 16-35/4 at 21mm. (I was aiming for 21mm but the lens was set to 23mm)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1255248/1405#13400833
Thank you Fred for putting these comparisons together. I'm trying to remember which year I got my c/y 35-70 for my 5DII, maybe 2011 or 2012? And it was because of pictures posted here. My landscape kit revolved around it, and TS-Es. On the 5DII, the 35-70 was kind of a nightmare in the field, but the images were so lovely.
Switching to the A7R and later the A7RII has made its operation so much easier. After a productive year and a lot of published work, I am finding myself pondering a few things: One is that of course,...Show more →
Jack,
I agree that the broader audience may not notice technical aspects of a landscape print but we photographers do and care about these nuances. We are proud of our craft and have a tendency to be perfectionists with our art. We care so much about color, contrast, tonal range, rendering, edge sharpness, etc..
It's not by accident you decided shooting with the A7R and later on upgraded to the A7RII. You probably care about dynamic range/resolution and know how much it improves your art with better shadows and quality prints. The same can be said about our lens choices. We all want the best IQ possible and obsess about 'extreme corners', rendering, micro-contrast, etc... To me it's pure fun.
I think it's important to know the technical aspects of our gear, what it can do and how far it can go. Testing our lenses for field curvature, astigmatism, coma, LaCA/LoCA, focus shift, sharpness/light fall-off is crucial. When taking pictures, we can focus on the artistic side with the confidence that the technical stuff was tested and we are covered.
PS: I think the 16-35/4 + 35-70/3.4 is a great quality combo choice for landscapes. At 35mm, I would use the CY zoom at f/8 or smaller. I personally prefer primes for the wider range and currently use the Zeiss 15/2.8, CV 15/4.5 and Loxia 21/2.8.
Here is an image taken recently with the Zeiss 16-35/4 at 21mm. (I was aiming for 21mm but the lens was set to 23mm)
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1255248/1405#13400833
Apr 25, 2016 at 10:24 PM
p.15 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Beautiful shot Fred!
Honestly, I think the most important thing is - especially if you are shooting for you - you enjoy the experience and are happy with your shots. We also all have different priorities and budgets.
For me, I know that with a 24-70 GM, a 24-70 2.8 ii, a canon 16-35 f4L IS, 24 TSE II, 17 TSE, FE 55, canon 7-200 f4 IS, etc that I am getting a shot that is going to be at a minimum 90% of maximum quality even viewed 1:1. Given The largest print I have personality made is 20x24 my guess is I would rarely noticed the difference. In fact, with my equipment, the only real reason that I don't get a shot I can print large and be impressive on the wall is me.
But there are others here - like Fred and GM etc - who are way above my level and the difference between a 16-35 FE and Loxia 21 is huge to them. And I certainly appreciate that and hope to learn from them. When I go to Iceland for a 10 day photo trip in a few months, I'll probably get a 21mm and maybe a 15mm Zeiss. Along with the rest of my equipment, it's a trip and equipment that almost anyone else in the world would die for.
Chris
Honestly, I think the most important thing is - especially if you are shooting for you - you enjoy the experience and are happy with your shots. We also all have different priorities and budgets.
For me, I know that with a 24-70 GM, a 24-70 2.8 ii, a canon 16-35 f4L IS, 24 TSE II, 17 TSE, FE 55, canon 7-200 f4 IS, etc that I am getting a shot that is going to be at a minimum 90% of maximum quality even viewed 1:1. Given The largest print I have personality made is 20x24 my guess is I would rarely noticed the difference. In fact, with my equipment, the only real reason that I don't get a shot I can print large and be impressive on the wall is me.
But there are others here - like Fred and GM etc - who are way above my level and the difference between a 16-35 FE and Loxia 21 is huge to them. And I certainly appreciate that and hope to learn from them. When I go to Iceland for a 10 day photo trip in a few months, I'll probably get a 21mm and maybe a 15mm Zeiss. Along with the rest of my equipment, it's a trip and equipment that almost anyone else in the world would die for.
Chris
Apr 25, 2016 at 10:46 PM
p.15 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
No one brought this up but Leica has actually 2 35-70 R lenses. I think the F4 lens is the one to get but my memory is not serving me well exactly which one
Apr 26, 2016 at 06:53 AM
p.15 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
No one brought this up but Leica has actually 2 35-70 R lenses. I think the F4 lens is the one to get but my memory is not serving me well exactly which one
Yes it is. The other one is a Minolta clone. No slouch too, but the f/4-version is the "real" Leica lens.
No one brought this up but Leica has actually 2 35-70 R lenses. I think the F4 lens is the one to get but my memory is not serving me well exactly which one
Yes it is. The other one is a Minolta clone. No slouch too, but the f/4-version is the "real" Leica lens.
Apr 26, 2016 at 06:59 AM
p.15 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
They run around 1100 dollars on eBay . I had it briefly it was really nice. Wonder how it compares to the Contax.
Apr 26, 2016 at 07:01 AM
p.15 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Wow I had one of these . I paid 6100 for it back in the day. Now over 12 grand
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-35-70mm-f2-8-VARIO-ELMARIT-R-ROM-ASPH-LENS-11275-Very-Rare-Mint-/331840118877?hash=item4d4336605d:g:5MwAAOSwYmZXHZOy
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-35-70mm-f2-8-VARIO-ELMARIT-R-ROM-ASPH-LENS-11275-Very-Rare-Mint-/331840118877?hash=item4d4336605d:g:5MwAAOSwYmZXHZOy
Apr 26, 2016 at 07:02 AM
p.15 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
It's good too from memory. Hmmm
Jannik Peters wrote:
Yes it is. The other one is a Minolta clone. No slouch too, but the f/4-version is the "real" Leica lens.
Jannik Peters wrote:
GMPhotography wrote
No one brought this up but Leica has actually 2 35-70 R lenses. I think the F4 lens is the one to get but my memory is not serving me well exactly which oneApr 26, 2016 at 07:05 AM
p.15 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I got my eye on one. My wallet don't though. Lol
Apr 26, 2016 at 07:10 AM
p.15 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
At $1100 for the Leica, is it worth 3x the cost of the Contax? I'm kind of doubting it will be unless it provides such a special rendering. The Contax already does so well against the 24-70GM.
Apr 26, 2016 at 07:19 AM
p.15 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
They run around 1100 dollars on eBay . I had it briefly it was really nice. Wonder how it compares to the Contax.
I much prefer the Leica to the Contax for rendering. Not as sharp, but I prefer it. I still have both but find I don't use either because they are not wide enough at the wide end.
Going to sell both and get the 24-70 I think.
They run around 1100 dollars on eBay . I had it briefly it was really nice. Wonder how it compares to the Contax.
I much prefer the Leica to the Contax for rendering. Not as sharp, but I prefer it. I still have both but find I don't use either because they are not wide enough at the wide end.
Going to sell both and get the 24-70 I think.
Apr 26, 2016 at 07:20 AM
p.15 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The 24-70 is killer good. Plus you get AF when needed
Apr 26, 2016 at 07:26 AM
p.15 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
From memory it's really nice. Love to test it today against the GM 24-70. That be interesting
rji2goleez wrote:
At $1100 for the Leica, is it worth 3x the cost of the Contax? I'm kind of doubting it will be unless it provides such a special rendering. The Contax already does so well against the 24-70GM.
Apr 26, 2016 at 07:27 AM
p.15 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
The 24-70 is killer good. Plus you get AF when needed
I certainly get that and a big portion of me lusts for that lens. But being almost exclusively an MF shooter the Contax at a fraction of the cost of the GM quells my lust quite a bit. Maybe, I'm just getting too practical in my old age!
The 24-70 is killer good. Plus you get AF when needed
I certainly get that and a big portion of me lusts for that lens. But being almost exclusively an MF shooter the Contax at a fraction of the cost of the GM quells my lust quite a bit. Maybe, I'm just getting too practical in my old age!
Apr 26, 2016 at 07:28 AM