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.22 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
For me 35-70 is a tough call and one big reason is there is no Loxia 28 in the line up. So you need to cover that focal length. Well at least I do
Apr 29, 2016 at 10:20 PM
p.22 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
For me 35-70 is a tough call and one big reason is there is no Loxia 28 in the line up. So you need to cover that focal length. Well at least I do
the problem with 35-70 is that it's easy to cover that with just 2 primes that are smaller combined than the zoom and not feel there is any hole in your lineup.
For me 35-70 is a tough call and one big reason is there is no Loxia 28 in the line up. So you need to cover that focal length. Well at least I do
the problem with 35-70 is that it's easy to cover that with just 2 primes that are smaller combined than the zoom and not feel there is any hole in your lineup.
Apr 29, 2016 at 11:36 PM
p.22 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I received my CY 100/3.5 today and tested it against the FE 70-200/4 "G" @100mm.
At infinity they were not too different, meaning one was not much better than the other. That is great news because the CY 100mm is about the size of my Loxia 21mm!
At the edges, there is a lot of LaCA in the CY images. The G zoom is almost free of it.
The G is more flat field and performs best at f/5.6-f/8. The CY is sharp in the center and edges but the mid-field is in a different focus plane. (probably wavy field curvature). It's...Show more →
Did your C/y do better in the extreme corners at f8 over the zoom? Mine did, but I'm not sure I have the sharpest copy of the FE70-200.
Apr 30, 2016 at 01:06 AM
p.22 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
lol
The great majority of photographers got used to shooting with the 24-70 zoom range and now it's hard to give this up, even if it means better IQ. Even on this thread, where most sympathize with the CY 35-70mm, this seems to be evident.
I own, use, and really like the results from the CY 35-70. And I just picked up a CY 28 off of eBay. Now the next question is whether I pick up a FE 16-35 f/4, or the Loxia 21, as summer backpacking in the Sierras beckons.
philip_pj wrote
They did not reply to me - I figure they marked me out as some kind of retro crank. lol.The great majority of photographers got used to shooting with the 24-70 zoom range and now it's hard to give this up, even if it means better IQ. Even on this thread, where most sympathize with the CY 35-70mm, this seems to be evident.
I own, use, and really like the results from the CY 35-70. And I just picked up a CY 28 off of eBay. Now the next question is whether I pick up a FE 16-35 f/4, or the Loxia 21, as summer backpacking in the Sierras beckons.
Apr 30, 2016 at 01:08 AM
p.22 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
sebboh wrote:
the problem with 35-70 is that it's easy to cover that with just 2 primes that are smaller combined than the zoom and not feel there is any hole in your lineup.
I've replaced the CZ 35-70/3.4 CY by the EF 40/2.8 and CV 75/2.5, in my lightweight landscape kit for Canon cameras. At f/8 and infinity focus, these primes have better IQ than the CZ zoom, and their combined weight and volume are less than the single CZ zoom lens.
the problem with 35-70 is that it's easy to cover that with just 2 primes that are smaller combined than the zoom and not feel there is any hole in your lineup.
I've replaced the CZ 35-70/3.4 CY by the EF 40/2.8 and CV 75/2.5, in my lightweight landscape kit for Canon cameras. At f/8 and infinity focus, these primes have better IQ than the CZ zoom, and their combined weight and volume are less than the single CZ zoom lens.
Apr 30, 2016 at 05:40 AM
p.22 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
While I agree that the corners of the CY 35-70 at 70mm. are good but not great and the CV75 will be probably better there, my experience with the Canon EF 40/2.8 was short lived and not very satisfactory. Certainly my copy of the Contax 35-70 would eat it for breakfast in no time, both in the center and the edges at f/8. I remember also that f/5.6 was the best aperture of my Vario Sonnar at all focals. where it performed flawlessly from center to edge at 35-60mm. F/8 was very good also but a tad worse than f/5.6; while f/11 showed already diffraction effects.
Seeing that Fred and others here prefer f/8, I wonder if I owned a "Choppy"-Vario Sonar ?. ( No, I didn't cut anything
)
Seeing that Fred and others here prefer f/8, I wonder if I owned a "Choppy"-Vario Sonar ?. ( No, I didn't cut anything
)Apr 30, 2016 at 06:52 AM
p.22 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
artur5 wrote:
While I agree that the corners of the CY 35-70 at 70mm. are good but not great and the CV75 will be probably better there, my experience with the Canon EF 40/2.8 was short lived and not very satisfactory. Certainly my copy of the Contax 35-70 would eat it for breakfast in no time, ...
Too bad. My Contax 35-70/3.4 CY is no slouch. Here's a summary table for my recent tests at 35mm (and 40mm), where the Contax zoom is in a virtual dead heat with the Zeiss 35/2 ZE; both are slightly bested by the EF 40/2.8 (using LiveView manual focus).
(* means tie)
Lens relative performance at f/8 and infinity focus
While I agree that the corners of the CY 35-70 at 70mm. are good but not great and the CV75 will be probably better there, my experience with the Canon EF 40/2.8 was short lived and not very satisfactory. Certainly my copy of the Contax 35-70 would eat it for breakfast in no time, ...
Too bad. My Contax 35-70/3.4 CY is no slouch. Here's a summary table for my recent tests at 35mm (and 40mm), where the Contax zoom is in a virtual dead heat with the Zeiss 35/2 ZE; both are slightly bested by the EF 40/2.8 (using LiveView manual focus).
(* means tie)
© jcolwell 2016
Lens relative performance at f/8 and infinity focus
Apr 30, 2016 at 08:16 AM
p.22 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
sebboh wrote:
the problem with 35-70 is that it's easy to cover that with just 2 primes that are smaller combined than the zoom and not feel there is any hole in your lineup.
Maybe two primes can essentially cover the C/Y35-70 range, but I like the flexibility of the zoom without having to change lens, including all the in between focal lengths. The reality of the field is you can't always "zoom with your feet," and even with the A7rii the less cropping I have to do the better. I also like the quality I get out of the 35-70 without putting much of a hole in my wallet. Price-performance it's an amazing deal. Even just discussing performance alone it holds up very well, as has been noted.
With all the ultimate lens floating around here, there has been little mention, rightly so, of the FE24-70/4. While it is not the best landscape lens I surprisingly find my copy much better at shorter distances than at infinity. When I need a flexible AF lens for general picture-taking I do use that lens. When I am doing serious landscape work out comes the C/Y. I feel no need for a 28, but am looking at something wider, not being entirely satisfied with the FD 24/2.8.
GMPhotography wrote
For me 35-70 is a tough call and one big reason is there is no Loxia 28 in the line up. So you need to cover that focal length. Well at least I doMaybe two primes can essentially cover the C/Y35-70 range, but I like the flexibility of the zoom without having to change lens, including all the in between focal lengths. The reality of the field is you can't always "zoom with your feet," and even with the A7rii the less cropping I have to do the better. I also like the quality I get out of the 35-70 without putting much of a hole in my wallet. Price-performance it's an amazing deal. Even just discussing performance alone it holds up very well, as has been noted.
With all the ultimate lens floating around here, there has been little mention, rightly so, of the FE24-70/4. While it is not the best landscape lens I surprisingly find my copy much better at shorter distances than at infinity. When I need a flexible AF lens for general picture-taking I do use that lens. When I am doing serious landscape work out comes the C/Y. I feel no need for a 28, but am looking at something wider, not being entirely satisfied with the FD 24/2.8.
Apr 30, 2016 at 08:31 AM
p.22 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
My Pentax 645 35mm is sharper than both c/y 35-70 3.4 I've tested against it @f8. I usally take the c/y (a really amazing lens) first because it's more convenient.
Canon 40mm pancake is a great lens, but it isn't 35mm, otherwise I would have kept mine.
Canon 40mm pancake is a great lens, but it isn't 35mm, otherwise I would have kept mine.
Apr 30, 2016 at 08:37 AM
p.22 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
TakenWild wrote:
...Canon 40mm pancake is a great lens, but it isn't 35mm, otherwise I would have kept mine.
My 'normal' landscape kit is a combination of ZE, TS-E, and M645 + Mirex lenses. I use the EF 40/2.8 when being really small is a high priority.
...Canon 40mm pancake is a great lens, but it isn't 35mm, otherwise I would have kept mine.
My 'normal' landscape kit is a combination of ZE, TS-E, and M645 + Mirex lenses. I use the EF 40/2.8 when being really small is a high priority.
Apr 30, 2016 at 08:43 AM
p.22 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Michael Everet wrote:
the problem with 35-70 is that it's easy to cover that with just 2 primes that are smaller combined than the zoom and not feel there is any hole in your lineup.Maybe two primes can essentially cover the C/Y35-70 range, but I like the flexibility of the zoom without having to change lens, including all the in between focal lengths. The reality of the field is you can't always "zoom with your feet," and even with the A7rii the less cropping I have to do the better. I also like the quality I get out of the 35-70 without putting much of a hole in my wallet. Price-performance it's an amazing deal. Even just discussing performance alone it holds up very well, as has been noted.
With all the ultimate...Show more →
Quite a few photographers, including most landscape photographers I know, are no longer shooting primes for the most part on digital cameras in the MFT to medium format range, for pretty much the reasons you mention. There are two main reasons:
1. The continuous focal length range adjustment is extremely useful for composition. When shooting with a prime and moving forward/backward to get your primary subject to fill the frame the way you wish, you simply have to accept the subsequent effect on the size of foreground and background in the frame, or even the appearance/disappearance of foreground elements. With the zoom you have more control over these relationships, since you add an additional precisely regulated variable to your compositional control.
2. In situations where your ideal composition does not conform to the angles of view provided by the primes you are carrying you may end up having to crop in post unless you are willing to settle for a less than idea framing. With a zoom you "crop in camera" at the time of the exposure. In the former case you will necessarily lose some resolution in your final print. In the latter you retain the full resolution of the original. When you crop the prime shot, any difference between its resolution and that of the prime diminishes and can even reverse.
And there are, of course, those frequent situations in which zooming with your feet is simply impractical or even impossible. They are pretty common, actually.
Today there are outstanding zoom lenses that produce excellent resolution and very low levels of distortion and other image artifacts. It turns out whatever disadvantages they may have or that some imagine them to have, the results are as good as anything else.
There are situations in which primes are indispensable still. Clearly if you actually need extraordinary large maximum aperture you'll need primes to get there. For some kinds of very quick photography — such as street photography, in some cases — it is better to have fewer variables to think about, and a prime eliminates one. (A prime and a small camera also reduce the photographer's intrusion into her/his surroundings and this may affect the resulting photographs.)
Dan
sebboh wrote
GMPhotography wrote
For me 35-70 is a tough call and one big reason is there is no Loxia 28 in the line up. So you need to cover that focal length. Well at least I doWith all the ultimate...Show more →
Quite a few photographers, including most landscape photographers I know, are no longer shooting primes for the most part on digital cameras in the MFT to medium format range, for pretty much the reasons you mention. There are two main reasons:
1. The continuous focal length range adjustment is extremely useful for composition. When shooting with a prime and moving forward/backward to get your primary subject to fill the frame the way you wish, you simply have to accept the subsequent effect on the size of foreground and background in the frame, or even the appearance/disappearance of foreground elements. With the zoom you have more control over these relationships, since you add an additional precisely regulated variable to your compositional control.
2. In situations where your ideal composition does not conform to the angles of view provided by the primes you are carrying you may end up having to crop in post unless you are willing to settle for a less than idea framing. With a zoom you "crop in camera" at the time of the exposure. In the former case you will necessarily lose some resolution in your final print. In the latter you retain the full resolution of the original. When you crop the prime shot, any difference between its resolution and that of the prime diminishes and can even reverse.
And there are, of course, those frequent situations in which zooming with your feet is simply impractical or even impossible. They are pretty common, actually.
Today there are outstanding zoom lenses that produce excellent resolution and very low levels of distortion and other image artifacts. It turns out whatever disadvantages they may have or that some imagine them to have, the results are as good as anything else.
There are situations in which primes are indispensable still. Clearly if you actually need extraordinary large maximum aperture you'll need primes to get there. For some kinds of very quick photography — such as street photography, in some cases — it is better to have fewer variables to think about, and a prime eliminates one. (A prime and a small camera also reduce the photographer's intrusion into her/his surroundings and this may affect the resulting photographs.)
Dan
Apr 30, 2016 at 08:50 AM
p.22 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Best reason you can't walk off a cliff. Kinda hurts. Lol
Apr 30, 2016 at 09:05 AM
p.22 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Michael Everet wrote:
Maybe two primes can essentially cover the C/Y35-70 range, but I like the flexibility of the zoom without having to change lens, including all the in between focal lengths. The reality of the field is you can't always "zoom with your feet," and even with the A7rii the less cropping I have to do the better. I also like the quality I get out of the 35-70 without putting much of a hole in my wallet. Price-performance it's an amazing deal. Even just discussing performance alone it holds up very well, as has been noted.
it's very convenient to not have to change lenses i'll agree, most will still have to change lenses with the a 35-70mm though.
for landscape, i personally find stitching gives me better iq and lighter weight than carrying a zoom and allows me to frame exactly the way i want. stitching does add a fair bit of time to shooting and processing though. i cover the 35-90mm range with a contax g 45 and contax g 90, which actually cost less than the c/y 35-70mm usually goes for.
Maybe two primes can essentially cover the C/Y35-70 range, but I like the flexibility of the zoom without having to change lens, including all the in between focal lengths. The reality of the field is you can't always "zoom with your feet," and even with the A7rii the less cropping I have to do the better. I also like the quality I get out of the 35-70 without putting much of a hole in my wallet. Price-performance it's an amazing deal. Even just discussing performance alone it holds up very well, as has been noted.
it's very convenient to not have to change lenses i'll agree, most will still have to change lenses with the a 35-70mm though.
for landscape, i personally find stitching gives me better iq and lighter weight than carrying a zoom and allows me to frame exactly the way i want. stitching does add a fair bit of time to shooting and processing though. i cover the 35-90mm range with a contax g 45 and contax g 90, which actually cost less than the c/y 35-70mm usually goes for.
Apr 30, 2016 at 09:11 AM
p.22 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
GMPhotography wrote:
Best reason you can't walk off a cliff. Kinda hurts. Lol
Best reason you can't walk off a cliff. Kinda hurts. Lol
Apr 30, 2016 at 09:15 AM
p.22 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
TakenWild wrote:
At infinity they were not too different, meaning one was not much better than the other. That is great news because the CY 100mm is about the size of my Loxia 21mm!
At the edges, there is a lot of LaCA in the CY images. The G zoom is almost free of it.
The G is more flat field and performs best at f/5.6-f/8. The CY is sharp in the center and edges but the mid-field is in a different focus plane. (Seems to be wavy field curvature even though it's unusual to see this at this FL).
It's sweet spot is f/8.
At f/8 and smaller, aside from CA and field curvature more prominent on the prime, they are both excellent. As a tele landscape lens, it's very compact and packs great micro-contrast.Did your C/y do better in the extreme corners at f8 over the zoom? Mine did, but I'm not sure I have the sharpest copy of the FE70-200.
The CY does slightly better at the extreme corners at f/4 and f/5.6 but loses at the mid-field. At f/8 both are pretty similar.
Check your comparison towards the mid-field area wide-open, the CY 100/3.5 seems to have wavy field curvature. If I focus on the mid-field, center and corners get slightly out of focus and vice-versa.
I'd say both are excellent at f/8, but the CY needs post correction for CA. I'd would say the zoom's FL sweet spot is around 100-135mm, so it gave the CY prime a hard time.
Fred Miranda wrote
I received my CY 100/3.5 today and tested it against the FE 70-200/4 "G" @100mm.At infinity they were not too different, meaning one was not much better than the other. That is great news because the CY 100mm is about the size of my Loxia 21mm!
At the edges, there is a lot of LaCA in the CY images. The G zoom is almost free of it.
The G is more flat field and performs best at f/5.6-f/8. The CY is sharp in the center and edges but the mid-field is in a different focus plane. (Seems to be wavy field curvature even though it's unusual to see this at this FL).
It's sweet spot is f/8.
At f/8 and smaller, aside from CA and field curvature more prominent on the prime, they are both excellent. As a tele landscape lens, it's very compact and packs great micro-contrast.
The CY does slightly better at the extreme corners at f/4 and f/5.6 but loses at the mid-field. At f/8 both are pretty similar.
Check your comparison towards the mid-field area wide-open, the CY 100/3.5 seems to have wavy field curvature. If I focus on the mid-field, center and corners get slightly out of focus and vice-versa.
I'd say both are excellent at f/8, but the CY needs post correction for CA. I'd would say the zoom's FL sweet spot is around 100-135mm, so it gave the CY prime a hard time.
Apr 30, 2016 at 09:18 AM
p.22 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I just have to say the canon 35 f2 IS is a very very sharp lens
Apr 30, 2016 at 09:48 AM
p.22 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
TakenWild wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
I received my CY 100/3.5 today and tested it against the FE 70-200/4 "G" @100mm.At infinity they were not too different, meaning one was not much better than the other. That is great news because the CY 100mm is about the size of my Loxia 21mm!
At the edges, there is a lot of LaCA in the CY images. The G zoom is almost free of it.
The G is more flat field and performs best at f/5.6-f/8. The CY is sharp in the center and edges but the mid-field is in a different focus plane. (Seems to be wavy field curvature even though it's unusual to see this at this FL).
It's sweet spot is f/8.
At f/8 and smaller, aside from CA and field curvature more prominent on the prime, they are both excellent. As a tele landscape lens, it's very compact and packs great micro-contrast.
Check your comparison towards the mid-field area wide-open, the CY 100/3.5 seems to have wavy field curvature. If I focus on the mid-field, center and corners get slightly out of focus and vice-versa.
I'd say both are excellent at f/8, but the CY needs post correction for CA. I'd would say the zoom's FL sweet spot is around 100-135mm, so it gave the CY prime a hard time.
Yes, looking at my midfields and they the FE does seem sharper @5.6. Centres the same. And edges to the C/y.
I'll have to test @f8-11.
The FE 70-200 is staying home and the C/Y 100 3.5 is coming with me to Iceland and hiking in the Dolomites next month! It's a great little lens!
Apr 30, 2016 at 10:28 AM
p.22 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Since there was some interest in the Contax 28mm options and Freds comparison of the Distagon 2.8/28mm, my review of it's bigger brother could be interesting for you:
http://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-zeiss-distagon-t-28mm-f2-0-aeg-cy/
In my opinion, also not the perfect landscape lens but probably a little better extreme corner sharpness than the 2.8/28. Its, biggest strength is it's awesome close up rendering.
http://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-zeiss-distagon-t-28mm-f2-0-aeg-cy/
In my opinion, also not the perfect landscape lens but probably a little better extreme corner sharpness than the 2.8/28. Its, biggest strength is it's awesome close up rendering.
Apr 30, 2016 at 02:05 PM
p.22 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I love my 35-70. I'm on my third copy (first sold for funds, second dropped on a rock) and I keep coming back 
The macro and at least moderate zoom make it very versatile for hiking. Here are a couple of shots from this week in Berchtesgaden, Germany.
Schneibstein in Berchtesgaden by Johann D, on Flickr
Berchtesgaden Walk by Johann D, on Flickr
Nationalpark Berchtesgaden Directions by Johann D, on Flickr
The macro and at least moderate zoom make it very versatile for hiking. Here are a couple of shots from this week in Berchtesgaden, Germany.
Schneibstein in Berchtesgaden by Johann D, on FlickrBerchtesgaden Walk by Johann D, on FlickrNationalpark Berchtesgaden Directions by Johann D, on FlickrApr 30, 2016 at 05:19 PM
p.22 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
TakenWild wrote:
Canon 40mm pancake is a great lens, but it isn't 35mm, otherwise I would have kept mine.
I don't have much of a problem with it being 40mm (vs 35mm), and it is a great lens, but it doesn't have the kind of rendering that I want and that I've seen (second-hand) out of the 35-70.
Canon 40mm pancake is a great lens, but it isn't 35mm, otherwise I would have kept mine.
I don't have much of a problem with it being 40mm (vs 35mm), and it is a great lens, but it doesn't have the kind of rendering that I want and that I've seen (second-hand) out of the 35-70.
Apr 30, 2016 at 05:23 PM