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.18 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Andrew Gough wrote:
.... All measured MTF charts are done in 1-3metre range, and as such are pretty much useless for determining infinity focus performance.
AFAIK, all MTF tests are done for infinity focus, using specialized optical test devices. The results are representative of performance at infinity focus.
See "Zeiss, How to Read MTF Curves", https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln30_en_web_special_mtf_01.pdf
Also, it's important to note that different sources use different conventions and show curves for different resolutions. For example, Leica shows curves for 5, 10, 20, and 40 lpmm, while Zeiss (and old photodo) shows curves for 10, 20, and 40 lpmm; Canon shows 10 and 30 lpmm (with two sets of curves, black for wide open and blue for f/8; and the Lens Authority curves at TDP (tests courtesy of Roger and Brandon, hosted by Bryan C.) show 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 lpmm curves. All of these sources except the last (LA) use dashed lines for tangential resolution and solid lines for sagittal (normal) resolution. The LA curves use solid lines for tangential and dashed lines for sagittal, which conforms is the conventional notation of the optics community (ref. Brandon Dube).
.... All measured MTF charts are done in 1-3metre range, and as such are pretty much useless for determining infinity focus performance.
AFAIK, all MTF tests are done for infinity focus, using specialized optical test devices. The results are representative of performance at infinity focus.
See "Zeiss, How to Read MTF Curves", https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln30_en_web_special_mtf_01.pdf
Also, it's important to note that different sources use different conventions and show curves for different resolutions. For example, Leica shows curves for 5, 10, 20, and 40 lpmm, while Zeiss (and old photodo) shows curves for 10, 20, and 40 lpmm; Canon shows 10 and 30 lpmm (with two sets of curves, black for wide open and blue for f/8; and the Lens Authority curves at TDP (tests courtesy of Roger and Brandon, hosted by Bryan C.) show 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 lpmm curves. All of these sources except the last (LA) use dashed lines for tangential resolution and solid lines for sagittal (normal) resolution. The LA curves use solid lines for tangential and dashed lines for sagittal, which conforms is the conventional notation of the optics community (ref. Brandon Dube).
Apr 27, 2016 at 10:45 AM
p.18 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Andrew Gough wrote:
Philip,
Your review is partially accurate, but I would be careful making assumptions from MTF charts. All measured MTF charts are done in 1-3metre range, and as such are pretty much useless for determining infinity focus performance.
all zeiss MTFs are measured at infinity (except in the case of certain macros where additional MTFs are measured at short focal distances). leica has also stated that they measure their MTFs at infinity in their own literature.
i believe you are thinking of the imatest measurements of MTF50 that are often used by testing sites, those must be done in the 1-3 meter range and require the lens be attached to a camera rather than an optical bench.
Philip,
Your review is partially accurate, but I would be careful making assumptions from MTF charts. All measured MTF charts are done in 1-3metre range, and as such are pretty much useless for determining infinity focus performance.
all zeiss MTFs are measured at infinity (except in the case of certain macros where additional MTFs are measured at short focal distances). leica has also stated that they measure their MTFs at infinity in their own literature.
i believe you are thinking of the imatest measurements of MTF50 that are often used by testing sites, those must be done in the 1-3 meter range and require the lens be attached to a camera rather than an optical bench.
Apr 27, 2016 at 10:48 AM
p.18 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Andrew Gough wrote:
Philip,
Your review is partially accurate, but I would be careful making assumptions from MTF charts. All measured MTF charts are done in 1-3metre range, and as such are pretty much useless for determining infinity focus performance. 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...Show more →
Thanks for posting the MTF comparison. I believe they are measured at infinity though.
The Leica 28-90 is a much more useful range. They are all excellent optics but the other two seem to be more flat field.
You wrote 28-90/3.5 but I believe it's 28-90/2.8-4.5. Is that correct?
The CY 35-70 I tested is excellent at f/8 at infinity distances and is my recommendation for the price. I can't believe I paid $320 for mine in mint condition. My adapter was overpriced though.
Philip,
Your review is partially accurate, but I would be careful making assumptions from MTF charts. All measured MTF charts are done in 1-3metre range, and as such are pretty much useless for determining infinity focus performance. 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...Show more →
Thanks for posting the MTF comparison. I believe they are measured at infinity though.
The Leica 28-90 is a much more useful range. They are all excellent optics but the other two seem to be more flat field.
You wrote 28-90/3.5 but I believe it's 28-90/2.8-4.5. Is that correct?
The CY 35-70 I tested is excellent at f/8 at infinity distances and is my recommendation for the price. I can't believe I paid $320 for mine in mint condition. My adapter was overpriced though.
Apr 27, 2016 at 11:11 AM
p.18 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
While I haven't compared the two directly, from my research into manual standard zoom lenses I'd expect the Zeiss C/Y 35-70/3.4 to have mildly stronger edges at high resolution than the Leica R 35-70/4, although the Leica appears to have much better handling of specular highlights, such as sunlit reflections on foliage. The Leica keeps these areas tight, retaining a sense of brightness, while the Zeiss -- or at least the samples I've seen -- blooms the light. In that way, I think the Leica is a better daytime/bright sun lens, but the Zeiss is likely better for at night (because I think that's how eyes generally work: bright light means small pupils and sharp sight while low light means large pupils and subjectively blooming light sources). Also, the Zeiss is likely better for moderate contrast lighting, such as most landscapes are dominated by. I've never found my Leica to fall short in that area, but I'm less technically demanding than most of you. :-)
Personally, I think the Leica brings two interesting benefits aside from its optics: one is the 2-ring design, the other is the family of similar lenses. The 21-35, 35-70/4, 80-200/4, 16-18-21, and 28-35-50 all appear to have been designed with the same technology and aberration balancing philosophy. So, if one liked the 35-70/4, one could go from 16mm to 200mm with images rendered in a similar manner. On the other hand, the Zeiss is an absurdly good value, and the GM appears to be excellent as well, so much so that I think all of these lenses are comfortably in the category of "great lenses, choose between them based on your preferences and applications rather that what other people prefer for their style and use."
Cheers,
Jon
Personally, I think the Leica brings two interesting benefits aside from its optics: one is the 2-ring design, the other is the family of similar lenses. The 21-35, 35-70/4, 80-200/4, 16-18-21, and 28-35-50 all appear to have been designed with the same technology and aberration balancing philosophy. So, if one liked the 35-70/4, one could go from 16mm to 200mm with images rendered in a similar manner. On the other hand, the Zeiss is an absurdly good value, and the GM appears to be excellent as well, so much so that I think all of these lenses are comfortably in the category of "great lenses, choose between them based on your preferences and applications rather that what other people prefer for their style and use."
Cheers,
Jon
Apr 27, 2016 at 11:40 AM
p.18 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Faul post, sry
Edited on Apr 27, 2016 at 03:23 PM · View previous versions
Edited on Apr 27, 2016 at 03:23 PM · View previous versions
Apr 27, 2016 at 02:40 PM
p.18 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I just tested the CY 28/2.8 against the FE 28/2. Another surprise from Zeiss (Contax)
Both lenses are not great at f/2.8 towards the edges but the Contax prime is excellent at f/8 and f/11 (just like the 35-70/3.4). Starting at f/4 it's very sharp with great micro-contrast in the center and mid-field. Much more detail and contrast than the FE 28/2 at infinity distances.
What I love about it is the color. It's rich and saturated even with horrible lighting. You can even see that in the histogram. To me, the FE 28/2 colors are greenish and lifeless in comparison..and I really like this lens.
Something else I noticed is that the FE 28 is wider than 28. I would say 26mm. The Contax seems to be a true 28. It should make a great combo to the 35-70/3.4.
Ok images!!! I will post the crops soon.
Both lenses are not great at f/2.8 towards the edges but the Contax prime is excellent at f/8 and f/11 (just like the 35-70/3.4). Starting at f/4 it's very sharp with great micro-contrast in the center and mid-field. Much more detail and contrast than the FE 28/2 at infinity distances.
What I love about it is the color. It's rich and saturated even with horrible lighting. You can even see that in the histogram. To me, the FE 28/2 colors are greenish and lifeless in comparison..and I really like this lens.
Something else I noticed is that the FE 28 is wider than 28. I would say 26mm. The Contax seems to be a true 28. It should make a great combo to the 35-70/3.4.
Ok images!!! I will post the crops soon.
Apr 27, 2016 at 02:42 PM
p.18 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
To start, here is the extreme edge area. (both at f/8)
To me, the CY 28/2.8 has better resolution and contrast. The FE 28/2 looks a bit fuzzy on this area.
I took about 5 images from the FE 28/2 and they all look the same. This is surprising to me. The Contax could even be better than the GM at f/8 because the FE 28/2 and GM were pretty close.
CY Distagon 28/2.8 left (f/11) and FE 28/2 right (f/8) (extreme edges)
These are the best apertures for this area of the image field.
LR sharpening: 40, 0.7, 25, 0 (No color or exposure changes)
I used my Novoflex adapter -- now flocked
To me, the CY 28/2.8 has better resolution and contrast. The FE 28/2 looks a bit fuzzy on this area.
I took about 5 images from the FE 28/2 and they all look the same. This is surprising to me. The Contax could even be better than the GM at f/8 because the FE 28/2 and GM were pretty close.
CY Distagon 28/2.8 left (f/11) and FE 28/2 right (f/8) (extreme edges)
These are the best apertures for this area of the image field.
LR sharpening: 40, 0.7, 25, 0 (No color or exposure changes)
I used my Novoflex adapter -- now flocked
 |
||
 |
||
|
Apr 27, 2016 at 02:53 PM
p.18 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Bingo this would hold me until we see a Loxia 28. I just want a fill lens when I don't take the zoom
Apr 27, 2016 at 03:03 PM
p.18 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Looks good Fred. Of course the 28mm + 35-70mm + adapter is just about the same weight as the GM.... and the GM still gives you 24mm.
Apr 27, 2016 at 03:04 PM
p.18 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Or get the Zeiss CY 28-85 and add 70-85 to the packade. Less weight too (compared to GM), and for like 10% of the price of the GM colossus.
I started off with the Contax CY 28-85 when I still shot with Canon some years ago. Moving over to Sony A7's size became a be bigger factor so I got the Contax CY 35-70. Having used both I'd argue that the 28-85 is at least as good as the 35-70. Same beautiful rendering and more interesting short DOF/bokeh/3D possibilities with 28mm slightly faster at F/3.3.
And it is cheaper than the 35-70 - one reason probably being much less known. It's bigger than the 35-70, almost imposing on an A7 (730g). But on the other hand you get 28-35 + 70-85. Equal or better quality - for less money.
I dont spend that much time interpreting MTF-charts but here they are (F/8, 35/28mm - 50/50mm - 70/85mm)
35-70 (left) and 28-85 (right)
35-70_vs_28_85 600w by Wilhelm Frank - Stockholm, on Flickr
I started off with the Contax CY 28-85 when I still shot with Canon some years ago. Moving over to Sony A7's size became a be bigger factor so I got the Contax CY 35-70. Having used both I'd argue that the 28-85 is at least as good as the 35-70. Same beautiful rendering and more interesting short DOF/bokeh/3D possibilities with 28mm slightly faster at F/3.3.
And it is cheaper than the 35-70 - one reason probably being much less known. It's bigger than the 35-70, almost imposing on an A7 (730g). But on the other hand you get 28-35 + 70-85. Equal or better quality - for less money.
I dont spend that much time interpreting MTF-charts but here they are (F/8, 35/28mm - 50/50mm - 70/85mm)
35-70 (left) and 28-85 (right)
35-70_vs_28_85 600w by Wilhelm Frank - Stockholm, on FlickrApr 27, 2016 at 03:22 PM
p.18 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Looks like Fred has more testing to do.
Apr 27, 2016 at 03:31 PM
p.18 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
Bingo this would hold me until we see a Loxia 28. I just want a fill lens when I don't take the zoom
The only thing is: The extreme corners don't look great until f/8. Just like the CY 35-70/3.4 @35mm. However at f/8 it could be even better than the GM. However, the GM is great even at f/4 and f/5.6 is its sweet spot at 28mm. For landscapes, if you stay at f/8 and f/11 it's golden.
So, for landscapes it could be an alternative. I would say that at f/8 and f/11, it's excellent throughout the entire image field.
I will post some center and mid-field crops.
Bingo this would hold me until we see a Loxia 28. I just want a fill lens when I don't take the zoom
The only thing is: The extreme corners don't look great until f/8. Just like the CY 35-70/3.4 @35mm. However at f/8 it could be even better than the GM. However, the GM is great even at f/4 and f/5.6 is its sweet spot at 28mm. For landscapes, if you stay at f/8 and f/11 it's golden.
So, for landscapes it could be an alternative. I would say that at f/8 and f/11, it's excellent throughout the entire image field.
I will post some center and mid-field crops.
Apr 27, 2016 at 03:36 PM
p.18 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I did a little comparison of my own, The Canon FD 35-70mm f4 against the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8 on my a7r. This sections shows them compared at 35mm. I might redo it as I don't think there is enough distance and there's a bit more foliage blocking the scene than I would like, but the comparison works at least against each other. All I can say is, at the $40 these lenses go for the Canon FD 35-70mm is quite impressive, and I like mine a lot more IQ-wise than the Minolta MD 35-70mm f3.5 I also briefly owned. The FD also has a short MFD of 0.5m throughout the range.
Left: Sony 24-70mm, Right Canon FD 35-70mm
Left: Sony 24-70mm, Right Canon FD 35-70mm
Apr 27, 2016 at 03:39 PM
p.18 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
To start, here is the extreme edge area. (both at f/8)
To me, the CY 28/2.8 has better resolution and contrast. The FE 28/2 looks a bit fuzzy on this area.
I took about 5 images from the FE 28/2 and they all look the same. This is surprising to me. The Contax could even be better than the GM at f/8 because the FE 28/2 and GM were pretty close.
Contax 28 left and FE 28 right (extreme edges at f/8)
LR sharpening: 40, 0.7, 25, 0 (No color or exposure changes)
BTW: The Contax infinity was just a tiny tad before...Show more →
I think it would be fair to remove the CA for the Distagon as well. The Sony's CA are removed automatically and you can't suppress that correction (at least with LR). Btw: was the Distortion of the FE 2/28 corrected?
On the 24MP a7 I can see a small advantage or the Distagon at around r=18mm but I am surprised how significant the difference is in your comparison. The annoying thing about the Distagon is that the extreme corners are plain soft because of field curvature and they are quite good with the FE 2/28. Because of the extreme corners I prefer the Pentax K 3.5/28 for my landscape photography.
To start, here is the extreme edge area. (both at f/8)
To me, the CY 28/2.8 has better resolution and contrast. The FE 28/2 looks a bit fuzzy on this area.
I took about 5 images from the FE 28/2 and they all look the same. This is surprising to me. The Contax could even be better than the GM at f/8 because the FE 28/2 and GM were pretty close.
Contax 28 left and FE 28 right (extreme edges at f/8)
LR sharpening: 40, 0.7, 25, 0 (No color or exposure changes)
BTW: The Contax infinity was just a tiny tad before...Show more →
I think it would be fair to remove the CA for the Distagon as well. The Sony's CA are removed automatically and you can't suppress that correction (at least with LR). Btw: was the Distortion of the FE 2/28 corrected?
On the 24MP a7 I can see a small advantage or the Distagon at around r=18mm but I am surprised how significant the difference is in your comparison. The annoying thing about the Distagon is that the extreme corners are plain soft because of field curvature and they are quite good with the FE 2/28. Because of the extreme corners I prefer the Pentax K 3.5/28 for my landscape photography.
Apr 27, 2016 at 03:43 PM
p.18 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Schlotkins wrote:
Looks good Fred. Of course the 28mm + 35-70mm + adapter is just about the same weight as the GM.... and the GM still gives you 24mm.
The GM zoom is definitely the best option IMO. If you have one, don't look any further.
However, those who want a better alternative to the FE 28/2 for landscapes, the CY 28/2.8 is excellent. I paid $250 for it (Buy. & Sell board)
This could be an excellent, light and compact landscape kit:
CV 15/4.5 III (choppy-like), Loxia 21/2.8, CY 28/2.8 and CY 35-70/3.4
Looks good Fred. Of course the 28mm + 35-70mm + adapter is just about the same weight as the GM.... and the GM still gives you 24mm.
The GM zoom is definitely the best option IMO. If you have one, don't look any further.
However, those who want a better alternative to the FE 28/2 for landscapes, the CY 28/2.8 is excellent. I paid $250 for it (Buy. & Sell board)
This could be an excellent, light and compact landscape kit:
CV 15/4.5 III (choppy-like), Loxia 21/2.8, CY 28/2.8 and CY 35-70/3.4
Apr 27, 2016 at 03:44 PM
p.18 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
The only thing is: The extreme corners don't look great until f/8. Just like the CY 35-70/3.4 @35mm. However at f/8 it could be even better than the GM. However, the GM is great even at f/4 and f/5.6 is its sweet spot at 28mm. For landscapes, if you stay at f/8 and f/11 it's golden.
So, for landscapes it could be an alternative. I would say that at f/8 and f/11, it's excellent throughout the entire image field.
I will post some center and mid-field crops.
Fred:
Did you ever test the 70-200 @70 vs the contax?
Thanks,
Chris
GMPhotography wrote
Bingo this would hold me until we see a Loxia 28. I just want a fill lens when I don't take the zoomSo, for landscapes it could be an alternative. I would say that at f/8 and f/11, it's excellent throughout the entire image field.
I will post some center and mid-field crops.
Fred:
Did you ever test the 70-200 @70 vs the contax?
Thanks,
Chris
Apr 27, 2016 at 03:45 PM
p.18 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Hi Philip,
I have all in-camera corrections turned "off".
I didn't not correct for CA, vignetting or distortion for these crops.
The FE 28/2 has much bigger distortion. From the crops you can see the difference in FL. I would say about 2mm uncorrected.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
To me, the CY 28/2.8 has better resolution and contrast. The FE 28/2 looks a bit fuzzy on this area.
I took about 5 images from the FE 28/2 and they all look the same. This is surprising to me. The Contax could even be better than the GM at f/8 because the FE 28/2 and GM were pretty close.
Contax 28 left and FE 28 right (extreme edges at f/8)
LR sharpening: 40, 0.7, 25, 0 (No color or exposure changes)
BTW: The Contax infinity was just a tiny tad before the hard stop and surprisingly the entire image field looks good at that position. (center, mid and corners)
This was using my Novoflex adapter -- now flockedI think it would be fair to remove the CA for the Distagon as well. The Sony's CA are removed automatically and you can't suppress that correction (at least with LR). Btw: was the Distortion of the FE 2/28 corrected?
On the 24MP a7 I can see a small advantage or the Distagon at around r=18mm but I am surprised how significant the difference is in your comparison. The annoying thing about the Distagon is that the extreme corners are plain soft because of field curvature and they are quite good with the FE 2/28. Because of the extreme corners...Show more →
I have all in-camera corrections turned "off".
I didn't not correct for CA, vignetting or distortion for these crops.
The FE 28/2 has much bigger distortion. From the crops you can see the difference in FL. I would say about 2mm uncorrected.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote
To start, here is the extreme edge area. (both at f/8)To me, the CY 28/2.8 has better resolution and contrast. The FE 28/2 looks a bit fuzzy on this area.
I took about 5 images from the FE 28/2 and they all look the same. This is surprising to me. The Contax could even be better than the GM at f/8 because the FE 28/2 and GM were pretty close.
Contax 28 left and FE 28 right (extreme edges at f/8)
LR sharpening: 40, 0.7, 25, 0 (No color or exposure changes)
BTW: The Contax infinity was just a tiny tad before the hard stop and surprisingly the entire image field looks good at that position. (center, mid and corners)
This was using my Novoflex adapter -- now flocked
On the 24MP a7 I can see a small advantage or the Distagon at around r=18mm but I am surprised how significant the difference is in your comparison. The annoying thing about the Distagon is that the extreme corners are plain soft because of field curvature and they are quite good with the FE 2/28. Because of the extreme corners...Show more →
Apr 27, 2016 at 03:51 PM
p.18 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I did but forgot to post it. I will find it. I think the Contax had the edge but not by much.
Schlotkins wrote:
The only thing is: The extreme corners don't look great until f/8. Just like the CY 35-70/3.4 @35mm. However at f/8 it could be even better than the GM. However, the GM is great even at f/4 and f/5.6 is its sweet spot at 28mm. For landscapes, if you stay at f/8 and f/11 it's golden.
So, for landscapes it could be an alternative. I would say that at f/8 and f/11, it's excellent throughout the entire image field.
I will post some center and mid-field crops.Fred:
Did you ever test the 70-200 @70 vs the contax?
Thanks,
Chris
Schlotkins wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote
GMPhotography wrote
Bingo this would hold me until we see a Loxia 28. I just want a fill lens when I don't take the zoomSo, for landscapes it could be an alternative. I would say that at f/8 and f/11, it's excellent throughout the entire image field.
I will post some center and mid-field crops.
Did you ever test the 70-200 @70 vs the contax?
Thanks,
Chris
Apr 27, 2016 at 03:52 PM
p.18 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
CENTER AREA:
CY 28/2.8 (LEFT)
FE 28/2 (RIGHT)
To me, the Zeiss has more micro-contrast at all apertures, warmer cast and at f/11 less diffraction. What do you think?
CY 28/2.8 (LEFT)
FE 28/2 (RIGHT)
To me, the Zeiss has more micro-contrast at all apertures, warmer cast and at f/11 less diffraction. What do you think?
|
||
 |
||
|
Apr 27, 2016 at 04:17 PM
p.18 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Philip,
I have all in-camera corrections turned "off".
I didn't not correct for CA, vignetting or distortion for these crops.
The FE 28/2 has much bigger distortion. From the crops you can see the difference in FL. I would say about 2mm uncorrected.
To me, the CY 28/2.8 has better resolution and contrast. The FE 28/2 looks a bit fuzzy on this area.
I took about 5 images from the FE 28/2 and they all look the same. This is surprising to me. The Contax could even be better than the GM at f/8 because the FE 28/2 and GM were pretty close.
Contax 28 left and FE 28 right (extreme edges at f/8)
LR sharpening: 40, 0.7, 25, 0 (No color or exposure changes)
BTW: The Contax infinity was just a tiny tad before the hard stop and surprisingly the entire image field looks good at that position. (center, mid and corners)
This was using my Novoflex adapter -- now flockedI think it would be fair to remove the CA for the Distagon as well. The Sony's CA are removed automatically and you can't suppress that correction (at least with LR). Btw: was the Distortion of the FE 2/28 corrected?
On the 24MP a7 I can see a small advantage or the Distagon at around r=18mm but I am surprised how significant the difference is in your comparison. The annoying thing about the Distagon is that the extreme corners are plain soft because of field curvature and they are quite good with the FE 2/28. Because of the extreme corners I prefer the Pentax K 3.5/28 for my landscape photography.
HI Fred.
Are the crops you have posted the corners or the edges?
If it's the corners, the copy of the contax you have is a lot better there than the one Philip tested - and maybe the FE worse!
About a year ago I tested by Zuiko 28/3.5 and found slightly better corners at f8 than my FE (but only slightly)
I will go look for those crops...
Hi Philip,
I have all in-camera corrections turned "off".
I didn't not correct for CA, vignetting or distortion for these crops.
The FE 28/2 has much bigger distortion. From the crops you can see the difference in FL. I would say about 2mm uncorrected.
Phillip Reeve wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
To start, here is the extreme edge area. (both at f/8)To me, the CY 28/2.8 has better resolution and contrast. The FE 28/2 looks a bit fuzzy on this area.
I took about 5 images from the FE 28/2 and they all look the same. This is surprising to me. The Contax could even be better than the GM at f/8 because the FE 28/2 and GM were pretty close.
Contax 28 left and FE 28 right (extreme edges at f/8)
LR sharpening: 40, 0.7, 25, 0 (No color or exposure changes)
BTW: The Contax infinity was just a tiny tad before the hard stop and surprisingly the entire image field looks good at that position. (center, mid and corners)
This was using my Novoflex adapter -- now flocked
On the 24MP a7 I can see a small advantage or the Distagon at around r=18mm but I am surprised how significant the difference is in your comparison. The annoying thing about the Distagon is that the extreme corners are plain soft because of field curvature and they are quite good with the FE 2/28. Because of the extreme corners I prefer the Pentax K 3.5/28 for my landscape photography.
HI Fred.
Are the crops you have posted the corners or the edges?
If it's the corners, the copy of the contax you have is a lot better there than the one Philip tested - and maybe the FE worse!
About a year ago I tested by Zuiko 28/3.5 and found slightly better corners at f8 than my FE (but only slightly)
I will go look for those crops...
Apr 27, 2016 at 04:17 PM