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.17 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Very dangerous path for sure. That Leica 28-90 is maybe one of the best modern day zooms. It replaced the 35-70 2.8 which on eBay I saw only for 13k if your crazy enough. I did back in the day at 6k.
Apr 26, 2016 at 10:10 PM
p.17 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Same Lens A7rII @ISO 2000. This was part of a 5000 image time-lapse.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-HQw82ST/0/X3/i-HQw82ST-X3.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-HQw82ST/0/X3/i-HQw82ST-X3.jpg
Apr 26, 2016 at 10:31 PM
p.17 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
Very dangerous path for sure. That Leica 28-90 is maybe one of the best modern day zooms. It replaced the 35-70 2.8 which on eBay I saw only for 13k if your crazy enough. I did back in the day at 6k.
Yes, you were responsible for many and addict
I remember your shots. The 35-70mm 2.8 is probably the best zoom in that range on the planet, but at 13K its way over the top for me. I have two 28-90mm's if someone is thinking of buying one.
Very dangerous path for sure. That Leica 28-90 is maybe one of the best modern day zooms. It replaced the 35-70 2.8 which on eBay I saw only for 13k if your crazy enough. I did back in the day at 6k.
Yes, you were responsible for many and addict
I remember your shots. The 35-70mm 2.8 is probably the best zoom in that range on the planet, but at 13K its way over the top for me. I have two 28-90mm's if someone is thinking of buying one.
Apr 26, 2016 at 10:37 PM
p.17 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Back to the tread, I would really like to see some shots from the 24-70mm as they are finally shipping up here.
Apr 26, 2016 at 10:39 PM
p.17 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
And, to throw a little more gasoline on the fire, if we're talking about the ultimate landscape lens, it deserves at least a mention that the Contax 35-70 can be used in conjunction with the HCam Master TS adapter to get tilt and some shift movements. It's a whole 'nother level of "alt" that hasn't drawn a lot of attention here. If you want to get into such minutae, even 2-3 degrees of tilt can make massive improvements in effective depth of field.
These days, of course, you can substitute a focal stack instead, so it's not the issue that it used to be with film.
These days, of course, you can substitute a focal stack instead, so it's not the issue that it used to be with film.
Apr 26, 2016 at 10:40 PM
p.17 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Andrew Gough wrote:
...
I have two 28-90mm's if someone is thinking of buying one.
I don't know how you guys do it. I'm an admitted cheapskate, but the thought of that much money tied up in a single lens... I'd be scared to take it out into the field. I'll have to slum it with the Contax 35-70, and perhaps the Contax 28-85 someday.
I do still wish someone would make a top-class two-touch non-rotating front element zoom that's sharp to the corners, reasonably priced and reasonably light. I'd take 35-70, 28-70, or 28-85. f/4 or similar would be fine.
GMPhotography wrote
Very dangerous path for sure. That Leica 28-90 is maybe one of the best modern day zooms.I have two 28-90mm's if someone is thinking of buying one.
I don't know how you guys do it. I'm an admitted cheapskate, but the thought of that much money tied up in a single lens... I'd be scared to take it out into the field. I'll have to slum it with the Contax 35-70, and perhaps the Contax 28-85 someday.
I do still wish someone would make a top-class two-touch non-rotating front element zoom that's sharp to the corners, reasonably priced and reasonably light. I'd take 35-70, 28-70, or 28-85. f/4 or similar would be fine.
Apr 26, 2016 at 10:49 PM
p.17 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
mhespenheide wrote:
...
I have two 28-90mm's if someone is thinking of buying one.I don't know how you guys do it. I'm an admitted cheapskate, but the thought of that much money tied up in a single lens... I'd be scared to take it out into the field. I'll have to slum it with the Contax 35-70, and perhaps the Contax 28-85 someday.
I do still wish someone would make a top-class two-touch non-rotating front element zoom that's sharp to the corners, reasonably priced and reasonably light. I'd take 35-70, 28-70, or 28-85. f/4 or similar would be fine.
you could probably pay somebody to turn the c/y 35-70mm into a two-touch with a non rotating filter ring.
Andrew Gough wrote
GMPhotography wrote
Very dangerous path for sure. That Leica 28-90 is maybe one of the best modern day zooms.I have two 28-90mm's if someone is thinking of buying one.
I do still wish someone would make a top-class two-touch non-rotating front element zoom that's sharp to the corners, reasonably priced and reasonably light. I'd take 35-70, 28-70, or 28-85. f/4 or similar would be fine.
you could probably pay somebody to turn the c/y 35-70mm into a two-touch with a non rotating filter ring.
Apr 26, 2016 at 10:53 PM
p.17 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
sebboh wrote:
you could probably pay somebody to turn the c/y 35-70mm into a two-touch with a non rotating filter ring.
Seriously? I've heard of changing mounts, even from FD to EF; I've heard of mounting a focusing helicoid... but that would seem like building a new lens with the old glass optics. Have you seen anything written up by someone doing something similar? If so, my inner engineering geek thinks that's way cool.
you could probably pay somebody to turn the c/y 35-70mm into a two-touch with a non rotating filter ring.
Seriously? I've heard of changing mounts, even from FD to EF; I've heard of mounting a focusing helicoid... but that would seem like building a new lens with the old glass optics. Have you seen anything written up by someone doing something similar? If so, my inner engineering geek thinks that's way cool.
Apr 26, 2016 at 11:23 PM
p.17 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Actually I was scared to even shoot the 35-70 at 6 grand and it was known to break down so I shot it very little and sold it to a friend soon after I got it. That's crazy money
mhespenheide wrote:
...
I have two 28-90mm's if someone is thinking of buying one.I don't know how you guys do it. I'm an admitted cheapskate, but the thought of that much money tied up in a single lens... I'd be scared to take it out into the field. I'll have to slum it with the Contax 35-70, and perhaps the Contax 28-85 someday.
I do still wish someone would make a top-class two-touch non-rotating front element zoom that's sharp to the corners, reasonably priced and reasonably light. I'd take 35-70, 28-70, or 28-85. f/4 or similar would be fine.
mhespenheide wrote:
Andrew Gough wrote
GMPhotography wrote
Very dangerous path for sure. That Leica 28-90 is maybe one of the best modern day zooms.I have two 28-90mm's if someone is thinking of buying one.
I do still wish someone would make a top-class two-touch non-rotating front element zoom that's sharp to the corners, reasonably priced and reasonably light. I'd take 35-70, 28-70, or 28-85. f/4 or similar would be fine.
Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26 PM
p.17 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Andrew Gough wrote:
Back to the tread, I would really like to see some shots from the 24-70mm as they are finally shipping up here.
If you are referring to the new GM, see here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1422120
And here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1423872
Back to the tread, I would really like to see some shots from the 24-70mm as they are finally shipping up here.
If you are referring to the new GM, see here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1422120
And here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1423872
Apr 26, 2016 at 11:27 PM
p.17 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Leica Vario-Elmarit-R 28-90mm f2.8-f4.5 may not get to the landscape starter's gate for several reasons:
(i) A frequent Leica trade off for center IQ -> massive field curvature and astigmatism is seen below 50mm - even at f8. So fine detail moves in and out of sharpness from center to 12mm (short edge) then once past 15mm jumps back up - but never loses the huge astigmatism in the outer frame. So it is pretty bad for common landscape focal lengths (28-45) but cleans up real good at 50-90mm, but then again, f4-f4.5 reduces portrait usage a fair bit - variable aperture! So the longer you go the better it gets, and it gets very good indeed.
(ii) it's chubby at 740 grams, CY is 475g. Probably expensive too, didn't check.
(iii) 28mm exhibits near kit zoom level distortion (over 3%), and tan lines for 40lpmm drop below 20% at all apertures. You don't see this very often. It happens at 35mm too. 20% is virtually *no* contrast for half of the content at that point in the image. I look for lenses that seldom fall below 60% contrast at f5.6-f8, as an example.
(iv) OK, not an impartial view here - it has Leica color, not Contax color - a preference particularly important for landscapes that require color to be strong but with good subtlety.
With a high degree of midfield curvature, you effectively roll the dice that important content falls with the curved DOF. It's often not too bad until you look closely at objects the same distance from the camera. But besides upsetting the expectations of the visual field - it otherwise takes strong drugs to do that - FC can give rise to very strange phenomena, like the rear of an animal being sharper than its front end, rocks on a rock wall give the same effect, when both are at the same distance from the camera and well inside DOF. It often hides well, and is often unnoticed. It is effectively an early onset sharpness vignette.
Here are (i) MTF for the 28-90 at 35mm and f8, (ii) MTF of the CY at 50mm at f8 - you can compare the numbers on the left scale, and (iii) a shot from the CY of a monastery head on, with frieze, front wall and people all perpendicular to the lens axis (far focused). Good FC control matters for such images, to look 'right'.
detail line pairs (bottom-most) wide apart and falling then rising. One line under 20%.
high lower line pair - very consistent across the whole frame.
(i) A frequent Leica trade off for center IQ -> massive field curvature and astigmatism is seen below 50mm - even at f8. So fine detail moves in and out of sharpness from center to 12mm (short edge) then once past 15mm jumps back up - but never loses the huge astigmatism in the outer frame. So it is pretty bad for common landscape focal lengths (28-45) but cleans up real good at 50-90mm, but then again, f4-f4.5 reduces portrait usage a fair bit - variable aperture! So the longer you go the better it gets, and it gets very good indeed.
(ii) it's chubby at 740 grams, CY is 475g. Probably expensive too, didn't check.
(iii) 28mm exhibits near kit zoom level distortion (over 3%), and tan lines for 40lpmm drop below 20% at all apertures. You don't see this very often. It happens at 35mm too. 20% is virtually *no* contrast for half of the content at that point in the image. I look for lenses that seldom fall below 60% contrast at f5.6-f8, as an example.
(iv) OK, not an impartial view here - it has Leica color, not Contax color - a preference particularly important for landscapes that require color to be strong but with good subtlety.
With a high degree of midfield curvature, you effectively roll the dice that important content falls with the curved DOF. It's often not too bad until you look closely at objects the same distance from the camera. But besides upsetting the expectations of the visual field - it otherwise takes strong drugs to do that - FC can give rise to very strange phenomena, like the rear of an animal being sharper than its front end, rocks on a rock wall give the same effect, when both are at the same distance from the camera and well inside DOF. It often hides well, and is often unnoticed. It is effectively an early onset sharpness vignette.
Here are (i) MTF for the 28-90 at 35mm and f8, (ii) MTF of the CY at 50mm at f8 - you can compare the numbers on the left scale, and (iii) a shot from the CY of a monastery head on, with frieze, front wall and people all perpendicular to the lens axis (far focused). Good FC control matters for such images, to look 'right'.
detail line pairs (bottom-most) wide apart and falling then rising. One line under 20%.
high lower line pair - very consistent across the whole frame.
Apr 26, 2016 at 11:36 PM
p.17 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
It's very expensive no question about it. But more importantly is the 35-70 F4 we where talking about earlier around 1100 dollars. That's more comparable to the Contax and more on same level that Is worth looking at.
Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44 PM
p.17 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
mhespenheide wrote:
Seriously? I've heard of changing mounts, even from FD to EF; I've heard of mounting a focusing helicoid... but that would seem like building a new lens with the old glass optics. Have you seen anything written up by someone doing something similar? If so, my inner engineering geek thinks that's way cool.
i transfer contax g optics into other lens bodies with real manual focus helicoids. this is one step further – i was actually considering having look at the contax g 35-70mm to see if i could do it to that, but then remembered that i hate using zooms. i've never taken apart this lens so i don't know how complicated it would be, but it seems relatively simple in terms of moving optical blocks as far as zooms go. i would think you just need to figure out how to mount the optical blocks into two new helicoids. you'd probably have to design the connecting pieces yourself and pay a machinist to build it, but it seems doable.
sebboh wrote
you could probably pay somebody to turn the c/y 35-70mm into a two-touch with a non rotating filter ring.i transfer contax g optics into other lens bodies with real manual focus helicoids. this is one step further – i was actually considering having look at the contax g 35-70mm to see if i could do it to that, but then remembered that i hate using zooms. i've never taken apart this lens so i don't know how complicated it would be, but it seems relatively simple in terms of moving optical blocks as far as zooms go. i would think you just need to figure out how to mount the optical blocks into two new helicoids. you'd probably have to design the connecting pieces yourself and pay a machinist to build it, but it seems doable.
Apr 26, 2016 at 11:48 PM
p.17 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
strohscw wrote:
I am torn between the Leica 35-70 f4 ROM and the Zeiss 35-70 3.4.
I read in former posts that the Zeiss should be better. When I look at the data sheets of both lenses the curves for the Leica look much better, or am I wrong.
The background of this is that I am offered both and I am not sure what would be the very best.
I would like to avoid to have to buy both and test them out against each other.
Wolfram
Buy the Contax! I had the Leica 35-70 f4 for a while also so I've used good copies of both. I'm on the road currently and I've shot so much with the Contax in the last few days. It's an astonishingly good lens! But I already knew that though :-)
Apr 27, 2016 at 04:23 AM
p.17 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Philip,
Your review is partially accurate, but I would be careful making assumptions from MTF charts. As you can see from the image that I posted above, the 28-90mm is very sharp across the frame at around 30mm at F8.
Distortion while 3% at 28mm drops to -1% by 35mm and increases to +1% @90mm. Field curvature at 28mm does in fact work to hold focus within the spherical context of a wide angle capture and aids in front to rear focus. I will demonstrate this in a photo below.
Comparing MTF's from different focal lengths is really meaningless. To help everyone on this board, I have prepared the following chart. I think that it will help, but it is only MTF and not indicative of lens performance at infinity.
The Contax displays significant corner drop of at 35mm, and this is true at short focal lengths, but as we have seen from Fred's images, it is not so at infinity. It should be remembered that the Leica 28-90 does span a much larger focal range than either of the two other lenses, and as such, it is very useful for travel.
Contax vs Leica rendering is highly subjective, and a matter of personal taste. We each prefer what we do, and there is no better choice of a lens for you than the one that you prefer. I like both, if pushed, I prefer the Leica rendition. I find that the modern Zeiss lenses are moving away from the Contax look, to more hybridized look.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-FDDNCnc/0/X3/i-FDDNCnc-X3.jpg
Edited on Apr 27, 2016 at 11:17 AM · View previous versions
Your review is partially accurate, but I would be careful making assumptions from MTF charts. As you can see from the image that I posted above, the 28-90mm is very sharp across the frame at around 30mm at F8.
Distortion while 3% at 28mm drops to -1% by 35mm and increases to +1% @90mm. Field curvature at 28mm does in fact work to hold focus within the spherical context of a wide angle capture and aids in front to rear focus. I will demonstrate this in a photo below.
Comparing MTF's from different focal lengths is really meaningless. To help everyone on this board, I have prepared the following chart. I think that it will help, but it is only MTF and not indicative of lens performance at infinity.
The Contax displays significant corner drop of at 35mm, and this is true at short focal lengths, but as we have seen from Fred's images, it is not so at infinity. It should be remembered that the Leica 28-90 does span a much larger focal range than either of the two other lenses, and as such, it is very useful for travel.
Contax vs Leica rendering is highly subjective, and a matter of personal taste. We each prefer what we do, and there is no better choice of a lens for you than the one that you prefer. I like both, if pushed, I prefer the Leica rendition. I find that the modern Zeiss lenses are moving away from the Contax look, to more hybridized look.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-FDDNCnc/0/X3/i-FDDNCnc-X3.jpg
Edited on Apr 27, 2016 at 11:17 AM · View previous versions
Apr 27, 2016 at 10:20 AM
p.17 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Leica R 28-90mm @28mm F11
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-99f8QS6/0/X3/i-99f8QS6-X3.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-99f8QS6/0/X3/i-99f8QS6-X3.jpg
Apr 27, 2016 at 10:27 AM
p.17 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The CY 35-70 is very affordable and incredibly sharp. I owned one when I had a Canon and it worked like a charm. It is slower than the others but quite versatile.
Browse through some of these pics and near the last pages are some really nice ones.
http://www.zeissimages.com/standardgallery.php?lenstype=374&showall
Browse through some of these pics and near the last pages are some really nice ones.
http://www.zeissimages.com/standardgallery.php?lenstype=374&showall
Apr 27, 2016 at 10:28 AM
p.17 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The Contax 35-70mm is a steal of a deal, it is probably the singe most best bang for the buck lens available today.
Apr 27, 2016 at 10:30 AM
p.17 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Andrew Gough wrote:
Leica R 28-90mm @28mm@ F11
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-99f8QS6/0/X3/i-99f8QS6-X3.jpg
Andrew,
We are all pretty happy with the CY 35-70. Can you stop with the Leica samples please?
Leica R 28-90mm @28mm@ F11
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-99f8QS6/0/X3/i-99f8QS6-X3.jpg
Andrew,
We are all pretty happy with the CY 35-70. Can you stop with the Leica samples please?
Apr 27, 2016 at 10:40 AM
p.17 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Well I could steal a Leica for 599 right now but no money. Argh
Apr 27, 2016 at 10:41 AM