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.30 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I am guessing no one has tried the CY 35-70 on a modded sensor? Also, gorgeous car shots Frank!
Mar 01, 2018 at 02:48 PM
p.30 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
A lens little discussed here is the C/Y S-Planar 60/2.8. At infinity @f5.6 and f8 it performs like the C/Y 35-70 @ 60mm f5.6 and f8. But it offers 1:1 macro!!! Also corner sharpness of the S-Planar 60/2.8 matches the C/Y 35-70. As a landscape lens my S-Planar 60mm beats both my C/Y 1.7 50mm and Pentax M 1.7 50mm @ f5.6 and f8 with regard to over all sharpness as well as corner sharpness. Of course with the 60mm you have no 35-59mm but macro 1:1. If you use the 60mm with the Loxia 21mm you have a versatile landscape duo offering 1:1 macro.
C/Y 35-70 @60mm@ f8
_DSC6811 by Karl Ludwig, auf Flickr
C/Y S-Planar AEG 60/2.8 @f8
_DSC6884 by Karl Ludwig, auf Flickr
Edited on Sep 10, 2018 at 05:54 AM · View previous versions
C/Y 35-70 @60mm@ f8
_DSC6811 by Karl Ludwig, auf FlickrC/Y S-Planar AEG 60/2.8 @f8
_DSC6884 by Karl Ludwig, auf FlickrEdited on Sep 10, 2018 at 05:54 AM · View previous versions
Sep 09, 2018 at 11:16 PM
p.30 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Seem to be getting off track here. Since it's supposed to be ultimate LANDSCAPE lens kit !
For me it's Loxia 21m and Zony 55mm. I love using the 100-400GM too. For an UWA I'm undecided.
For me it's Loxia 21m and Zony 55mm. I love using the 100-400GM too. For an UWA I'm undecided.
Sep 10, 2018 at 04:06 AM
p.30 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The 35-70 is stuck on my A7RII like glue, I am in love. I only picked up my first camera <12 months ago, so I am still learning about legacy lenses and some of their characteristics, but I am convinced of the 3D effect of Zeiss lenses.
After lurking in this forum for a while, my landscape kit consists of a Loxia 21, CY 35-70, and CY 80-200. I am very happy with this 3 lens kit in terms of image quality, price, and size. I could see myself adding a Laowa 15 or 10-18 and swap for a CY 100-300 if money wasn't an issue, but unfortunately it is.
After lurking in this forum for a while, my landscape kit consists of a Loxia 21, CY 35-70, and CY 80-200. I am very happy with this 3 lens kit in terms of image quality, price, and size. I could see myself adding a Laowa 15 or 10-18 and swap for a CY 100-300 if money wasn't an issue, but unfortunately it is.
Sep 10, 2018 at 12:34 PM
p.30 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Good to see some people 'see' the images the 35-70 produces. Great images, Wilhelm! Among the older experts, the 35-70 had a reputation for its truly surprising bokeh, something I've seen using it at 60-70mm in well lit open streets. These shots of yours show the effect perfectly. If focused quite near (say 5-10m) you get this extraordinary part-focus background which has saved many shots for me over the years.
I've always loved pure optical lenses' bokeh (no asph in this one, try to find another mid zoom you can say that about). It's one reason why many feel the 35-70 is a set of primes in a zooms' clothing, the bokeh puts all mid zooms I've seen to shame. Last thing to note here is that the low 10 lpmm figures give images this very old-fashioned lack of 'edginess/bite' to large edges while delivering very good detail and lack of curvature .. Zeiss went this way with the Contarex range in the 1950's when many other makers were still a gleam in their start-up capitalists' eyes (Canon only became 'Canon' in 1947). That over-reliance on edge performance is what signals 'digital' to the viewer's eye..like all fads it will pass, in fact is already on the way out for the better lens producers where it matters - portraits.
Back on track, a couple more casual roadside efforts of mid-2018 below. Also to add that using a high res sensor bothers the lens not at all, in fact it verifies what Hubert Nasse used to say: that (well-behaved) lenses of lesser performance improve markedly on high resolution cameras - the sensor amplifies their sound image performance. This is also why many of Zeiss's Milvus lenses (such as the extraordinary 35/1.4 - see the full aperture series at link below) have near perfect flat MTF lines (no curvature!), they were made for high res.
I suspect this is also why CZ are now moving towards natural smoothness and away from outright sharpness - which is a real limiting factor when you think about it, if designers pursue this imaging cul-de-sac to the detriment of all else. You end up with dreadfully unbalanced lens IQ. Yes, it's the modern universal mid zoom I am talking about, full of asph and weird glass, but still need 'corrections' which are, if anything, proliferating as time goes by. I don't want 'computer lenses', thank you, with algo-determined enhanced DOF among other imaging atrocities.
There is so much more to the final image than that, like character, contrast, depth of color response, fade characteristics. It's all in the viewing response, not the lens reviewer's response. Sometimes have to go through the hard times to realise what you lost was what worked best.
Milvus 35/1.4 MTF: https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20171005_1042-ZeissMilvus35f1_4-MTF.html
I've always loved pure optical lenses' bokeh (no asph in this one, try to find another mid zoom you can say that about). It's one reason why many feel the 35-70 is a set of primes in a zooms' clothing, the bokeh puts all mid zooms I've seen to shame. Last thing to note here is that the low 10 lpmm figures give images this very old-fashioned lack of 'edginess/bite' to large edges while delivering very good detail and lack of curvature .. Zeiss went this way with the Contarex range in the 1950's when many other makers were still a gleam in their start-up capitalists' eyes (Canon only became 'Canon' in 1947). That over-reliance on edge performance is what signals 'digital' to the viewer's eye..like all fads it will pass, in fact is already on the way out for the better lens producers where it matters - portraits.
Back on track, a couple more casual roadside efforts of mid-2018 below. Also to add that using a high res sensor bothers the lens not at all, in fact it verifies what Hubert Nasse used to say: that (well-behaved) lenses of lesser performance improve markedly on high resolution cameras - the sensor amplifies their sound image performance. This is also why many of Zeiss's Milvus lenses (such as the extraordinary 35/1.4 - see the full aperture series at link below) have near perfect flat MTF lines (no curvature!), they were made for high res.
I suspect this is also why CZ are now moving towards natural smoothness and away from outright sharpness - which is a real limiting factor when you think about it, if designers pursue this imaging cul-de-sac to the detriment of all else. You end up with dreadfully unbalanced lens IQ. Yes, it's the modern universal mid zoom I am talking about, full of asph and weird glass, but still need 'corrections' which are, if anything, proliferating as time goes by. I don't want 'computer lenses', thank you, with algo-determined enhanced DOF among other imaging atrocities.
There is so much more to the final image than that, like character, contrast, depth of color response, fade characteristics. It's all in the viewing response, not the lens reviewer's response. Sometimes have to go through the hard times to realise what you lost was what worked best.
Milvus 35/1.4 MTF: https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20171005_1042-ZeissMilvus35f1_4-MTF.html
Sep 10, 2018 at 04:12 PM
p.30 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The C/Y 35-70 is a spectacular lens, as the many photos have shown.
Finding one in mint condition is difficult, though not impossible.
However, it will be useless if you need/want 24 or 28. So, you will be stuck with having to buy another lens.
Then again, buying a mint 35-70, a very good CY 28 likely will cost you less than the 24-70 GM...
an unexpected benefit of going toe C/Y route is that you can pick up a Contax film body for 100 bucks and take photos with film...just like the old pros used to do
Finding one in mint condition is difficult, though not impossible.
However, it will be useless if you need/want 24 or 28. So, you will be stuck with having to buy another lens.
Then again, buying a mint 35-70, a very good CY 28 likely will cost you less than the 24-70 GM...
an unexpected benefit of going toe C/Y route is that you can pick up a Contax film body for 100 bucks and take photos with film...just like the old pros used to do
Sep 11, 2018 at 09:09 AM
p.30 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The 35-70 + RX is magic I will say 
. And they are magic by themselves too!
Also finding a mint C/Y takes a little patience, but the one I ended up with is in immaculate shape, minus some dust particles in it. I am betting the price will be going up on the C/Y lenses if the fit the new Nikon and Canon mirrorless easily.
. And they are magic by themselves too! Also finding a mint C/Y takes a little patience, but the one I ended up with is in immaculate shape, minus some dust particles in it. I am betting the price will be going up on the C/Y lenses if the fit the new Nikon and Canon mirrorless easily.
Sep 11, 2018 at 09:27 AM
p.30 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Any 35-70 zoom is too limiting for me. Given the choice, I would take a couple high quality primes in that range over a zoom, regardless of manufacture. Actually, I'd take a high quality 35mm f/1.4 over the CY 35-70.
With the options of either the CY 35-70 or Sony 24-70 GM, I again have to opt out. My choice is #1) the Sony 24-105G, and #2) Canon 24-70/2.8L II.
These are just my choices -- it's all about what keeps the enthusiasm alive. There are no wrong answers.
With the options of either the CY 35-70 or Sony 24-70 GM, I again have to opt out. My choice is #1) the Sony 24-105G, and #2) Canon 24-70/2.8L II.
These are just my choices -- it's all about what keeps the enthusiasm alive. There are no wrong answers.
Sep 11, 2018 at 10:37 AM
p.30 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
This thread started when the FE 24-70GM was released and way before Tamron's 28-75/2.8...I think the Tamron would compete better with the CY 35-70/3.4 for its weight and range. The Tamron is lighter (considering the Contax needs an adapter), has similar contrast and less field curvature.
Sep 11, 2018 at 10:46 AM
p.30 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I agree, I was really tempted to get the C/Y 35-70, but now I'm much more inclined to save a bit and go for the more modern Tamron, at the end you get a more useful focal range, more than one stop faster lens, native AF and sharpenss that should be basically at least in the same league, so really difficult to give it all up just for the "Zeiss look" (as much as I like them of course).
Sep 11, 2018 at 11:03 AM
p.30 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Tirpitz666 wrote:
I agree, I was really tempted to get the C/Y 35-70, but now I'm much more inclined to save a bit and go for the more modern Tamron, at the end you get a more useful focal range, more than one stop faster lens, native AF and sharpenss that should be basically at least in the same league, so really difficult to give it all up just for the "Zeiss look" (as much as I like them of course).
You do get a macro mode on the CY 35-70, better bokeh and better manual focus as well. As a landscaper, I really dislike the fly-by-wire. Both are pretty reasonable choices though. I personally think the 35-70 is one of the three zooms that really blew me away. Good to have choices!
I agree, I was really tempted to get the C/Y 35-70, but now I'm much more inclined to save a bit and go for the more modern Tamron, at the end you get a more useful focal range, more than one stop faster lens, native AF and sharpenss that should be basically at least in the same league, so really difficult to give it all up just for the "Zeiss look" (as much as I like them of course).
You do get a macro mode on the CY 35-70, better bokeh and better manual focus as well. As a landscaper, I really dislike the fly-by-wire. Both are pretty reasonable choices though. I personally think the 35-70 is one of the three zooms that really blew me away. Good to have choices!
Sep 11, 2018 at 12:47 PM
p.30 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
for me personally, I haven't either A) used autofocus or B) ever needed it for landscapes. That is all I shoot, and I will say I find it so much better focusing with a true manual lens than with an AF lens in manual mode. Not that silky smooth action.
I know it is cheesy to say, but there is a satisfaction I get to using the CYZ that I have never gotten out of any lens before. I feel like a kid on Christmas morning when I am using these lenses, and I don't know why. Sure the range is limited, but the results are worth it.
Someday I may look into the Contax 28-85 3.3-f4 at some point to compare, but adds weight.
From the sounds of the Tamron, you can't go wrong with any choice. Just make a list of what you WANT, and see what checks most of those off. If you can get a CYZ 35-70 AND CYZ 100-300 for same price as the Tamron.......
I know it is cheesy to say, but there is a satisfaction I get to using the CYZ that I have never gotten out of any lens before. I feel like a kid on Christmas morning when I am using these lenses, and I don't know why. Sure the range is limited, but the results are worth it.
Someday I may look into the Contax 28-85 3.3-f4 at some point to compare, but adds weight.
From the sounds of the Tamron, you can't go wrong with any choice. Just make a list of what you WANT, and see what checks most of those off. If you can get a CYZ 35-70 AND CYZ 100-300 for same price as the Tamron.......
Sep 11, 2018 at 04:20 PM
p.30 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Don't get me wrong, if the only thing you are shooting are landscapes, guess that the C/Y 35-70 is definitely hard to beat, especially considering the price/performance ratio.
I'm a great fan of MF lenses in general and C/Y Zeiss lenses in particular, I got the 100-300, 35 1.4, and had the 28 F2.8, 50 1.4 and 85 2.8 (all sold to fund the Sony 12-24, but I liked them a lot), what I was saying is that for me is harder to justify the purchase of the 35-70 with my current lens lineup and that with a lens like the Tamron I'll instead gain a lot of flexibility in terms of possible lens uses, not only landscaping but even events, weddings, sports, etc., everything for which AF (and speed) is an absolute must
I'm a great fan of MF lenses in general and C/Y Zeiss lenses in particular, I got the 100-300, 35 1.4, and had the 28 F2.8, 50 1.4 and 85 2.8 (all sold to fund the Sony 12-24, but I liked them a lot), what I was saying is that for me is harder to justify the purchase of the 35-70 with my current lens lineup and that with a lens like the Tamron I'll instead gain a lot of flexibility in terms of possible lens uses, not only landscaping but even events, weddings, sports, etc., everything for which AF (and speed) is an absolute must
Sep 11, 2018 at 05:11 PM
p.30 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Tirpitz666 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, if the only thing you are shooting are landscapes, guess that the C/Y 35-70 is definitely hard to beat, especially considering the price/performance ratio.
I'm a great fan of MF lenses in general and C/Y Zeiss lenses in particular, I got the 100-300, 35 1.4, and had the 28 F2.8, 50 1.4 and 85 2.8 (all sold to fund the Sony 12-24, but I liked them a lot), what I was saying is that for me is harder to justify the purchase of the 35-70 with my current lens lineup and that with a lens like the...Show more →
Oh yeah, if you are shooting events and such where AF and need a faster lens, yeah I fully agree!
Don't get me wrong, if the only thing you are shooting are landscapes, guess that the C/Y 35-70 is definitely hard to beat, especially considering the price/performance ratio.
I'm a great fan of MF lenses in general and C/Y Zeiss lenses in particular, I got the 100-300, 35 1.4, and had the 28 F2.8, 50 1.4 and 85 2.8 (all sold to fund the Sony 12-24, but I liked them a lot), what I was saying is that for me is harder to justify the purchase of the 35-70 with my current lens lineup and that with a lens like the...Show more →
Oh yeah, if you are shooting events and such where AF and need a faster lens, yeah I fully agree!
Sep 11, 2018 at 06:27 PM
p.30 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I've always thought of it as:
Traveling and doing exclusively landscapes with a tripod? Get the 35-70
Need flexibility in low light, AF, and weight/size/cost advantages? Get the Tamron
Need flexibility in low light, AF, and don't mind trading weight/size/cost for IQ? Get the GM
Are none of these applicable? You're probably a prime guy
Traveling and doing exclusively landscapes with a tripod? Get the 35-70
Need flexibility in low light, AF, and weight/size/cost advantages? Get the Tamron
Need flexibility in low light, AF, and don't mind trading weight/size/cost for IQ? Get the GM
Are none of these applicable? You're probably a prime guy
Sep 11, 2018 at 08:53 PM
p.30 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Yeah I agree, pretty sums up well the conundrum
The macro capability of the 35-70 is a nice bonus of course, but luckily having the TAP, I get it basically with every lens I attach to it
The macro capability of the 35-70 is a nice bonus of course, but luckily having the TAP, I get it basically with every lens I attach to it
Sep 12, 2018 at 01:36 AM
p.30 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Something else to consider when shooting landscapes is field curvature which I remember the C/Y 35-70 being hard to focus at infinity.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1423138/8&year=2016#13522730
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1423138/8&year=2016#13522730
Sep 14, 2018 at 12:24 PM
p.30 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I recently purchased the 35-70 as well as the 28-85. My 35-70 has more chromatic aberrations than the 28-85. I did at test with both set to 50mm and I believe f/5.6 and the 35-70 had much worse CA. Is that expected or should I search for another copy?
Jan 24, 2021 at 10:15 AM
p.30 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
That is strange. I also have both, and the 35-70 is definitely better at CA than the 28-85. So probably there is something wrong with your 35-70.
That said, as you probably also already have discovered, the two lenses are really different beasts. The 35-70 is for optimal sharpness and detail with strong contrast; the 28-85 is a character lens with a much more "painterly" rendering and especially shines wide open with VERY smooth bokeh, while the 35-70's bokeh is nothing to write home about.
That said, as you probably also already have discovered, the two lenses are really different beasts. The 35-70 is for optimal sharpness and detail with strong contrast; the 28-85 is a character lens with a much more "painterly" rendering and especially shines wide open with VERY smooth bokeh, while the 35-70's bokeh is nothing to write home about.
Jan 24, 2021 at 12:17 PM
p.30 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Indeed they are different beasts. You can see it from the MTF. The 28-85 is sharper into the corners wide open while the 35-70 has pretty weak corners wide open and drops off quickly from the center. Stopped down it all changes. The 28-85 drops rapidly after a certain point while the 35-70 is able to maintain corner sharpness to the very end. The 28-85 is actually a nice APS-C lens other than its massive size. The corners do not drop off before that.
Unfortunately, I don't think the MTF tells you anything about CA. I am also not convinced I have a bad 35-70 copy either because at f/8 the lens performs exceptionally well. Then again the 35-70 should have an edge in central sharpness over the 28-85 even wide open, but on my copies it seems the 28-85 may edge it out surprisingly. Although honestly we are really splitting hairs here because they are extremely close.
Here is a set of pictures that shows this. However, I have also noticed this when shooting subjects especially wide open on the 35-70.
Vario Sonnar 28-85
https://flic.kr/p/2kvkCUf
Vario Sonnar 35-70
https://flic.kr/p/2kvgwtd
You should be able to download the full resolution to pixel peep. Look at the chrome nut tool in the 35-70. It has strong purple fringing.
In the field stopped down to f/8-f/11 the 35-70 appears to perform as expected. Maybe I should stick in this range and not worry about it? I am curious though if they have noticed this on their copies of the 35-70.
Unfortunately, I don't think the MTF tells you anything about CA. I am also not convinced I have a bad 35-70 copy either because at f/8 the lens performs exceptionally well. Then again the 35-70 should have an edge in central sharpness over the 28-85 even wide open, but on my copies it seems the 28-85 may edge it out surprisingly. Although honestly we are really splitting hairs here because they are extremely close.
Here is a set of pictures that shows this. However, I have also noticed this when shooting subjects especially wide open on the 35-70.
Vario Sonnar 28-85
https://flic.kr/p/2kvkCUf
Vario Sonnar 35-70
https://flic.kr/p/2kvgwtd
You should be able to download the full resolution to pixel peep. Look at the chrome nut tool in the 35-70. It has strong purple fringing.
In the field stopped down to f/8-f/11 the 35-70 appears to perform as expected. Maybe I should stick in this range and not worry about it? I am curious though if they have noticed this on their copies of the 35-70.
 |
||
| https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50798437841_8540a7dac6_b.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50854911512_2ec1f9b947_b.jpg | ||
|
Jan 24, 2021 at 02:04 PM