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.31 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
There's a couple of other normal legacy zooms worth checking out that are significantly less expensive options than the Zeiss 35-70 or 28-85, both two-touch, both as strong or stronger landscapers, depending on the focal length, and are both better general purpose zooms. First is the Canon nFD 28-85/4, which offers a constant aperture, a constant MFD of .5m, and has a built-in flare stopper in the rear group that does its job well. Like the Contax 28-85, distortion and vignetting are high at the wide end, but there's less transverse CA. It has a nice, generous sweet spot from 35-75. The front barrel rotates during focusing, so using filters can be a challenge, and the dedicated hood is big, but I found it to also be unnecessary, and, while it looks like a big lens, the 485g weight makes it easy to carry. Watch out for haze, which is usually a sign the cemented doublet in the rear groups is starting to separate. Also, the bearings on the zoom mechanism have a history of failing, so watch for ones that say "zoom stiff." Mine squeaks a little if I turn the ring quickly, so it may be failing, but it's still smooth.
Use of that lens has been replaced by my second suggestion, the Nikon AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D. I've had this lens for about three months now, and it has become a constant companion. It's stronger than either the Zeiss or Canon at the wide end, and that performance advantage is a constant up to about 70mm, where its performance falls more in line with the other zooms. It has a constant .6m MFD, but also a macro mode you can engage at 50mm that brings the magnification ratio down to a little closer than 1:3, and gets to 1:2 at the long end. Flare resistance with the sun is probably its biggest weakness, and I really wish there was a way to transplant the the flare stopper from the Canon, but CA is low until you get into the tele range at landscape distances, where you'll have somewhat significant, but still correctable, transverse magenta CA. Distortion on the wide end is about as bad as the Zeiss, but after about 30mm, it gets much better behaved in this regard and is overall very low distortion for its range. You can use it on a dumb adapter (it's a screw-driven lens, so focusing is still helicoid-based and there's an aperture ring with indented full-stops). If you want to get more of out the lens, like EXIF, 5-axis IBIS, half or third stops on the aperture, and profiled corrections in LR CC, you can mate it the the (heavy and expensive) Commlite Pro adapter.
Use of that lens has been replaced by my second suggestion, the Nikon AF 28-105/3.5-4.5D. I've had this lens for about three months now, and it has become a constant companion. It's stronger than either the Zeiss or Canon at the wide end, and that performance advantage is a constant up to about 70mm, where its performance falls more in line with the other zooms. It has a constant .6m MFD, but also a macro mode you can engage at 50mm that brings the magnification ratio down to a little closer than 1:3, and gets to 1:2 at the long end. Flare resistance with the sun is probably its biggest weakness, and I really wish there was a way to transplant the the flare stopper from the Canon, but CA is low until you get into the tele range at landscape distances, where you'll have somewhat significant, but still correctable, transverse magenta CA. Distortion on the wide end is about as bad as the Zeiss, but after about 30mm, it gets much better behaved in this regard and is overall very low distortion for its range. You can use it on a dumb adapter (it's a screw-driven lens, so focusing is still helicoid-based and there's an aperture ring with indented full-stops). If you want to get more of out the lens, like EXIF, 5-axis IBIS, half or third stops on the aperture, and profiled corrections in LR CC, you can mate it the the (heavy and expensive) Commlite Pro adapter.
Jan 24, 2021 at 04:04 PM
p.31 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
You can tell about "performance" (which means "sharpness" anyway) all day long - what people like the OP and me are after is not only sharpness but rendering and color. I have tested enough lenses to know that (older) Zeiss lenses have that special "sauce" which makes images simply look good. The Minolta MD 35-70 f3.5 Macro, for instance, is another lens you forgot to mention which is most probably sharper than your Canon, very small and light and cheap. A rather well known sleeper among vintage lens aficionados. But the rendering of the CY zooms is simply special in comparison to the Minolta, and that's why I prefer to schlep the rather unwieldy CY 28-85 on hikes to the Minolta which is a great lens but collects dust at home. And that's also (together with the much better build quality) the reason why people pay more for the CYs. Simple as that.
Jan 24, 2021 at 10:43 PM
p.31 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
hasenbein wrote:
You can tell about "performance" (which means "sharpness" anyway) all day long - what people like the OP and me are after is not only sharpness but rendering and color. I have tested enough lenses to know that (older) Zeiss lenses have that special "sauce" which makes images simply look good. The Minolta MD 35-70 f3.5 Macro, for instance, is another lens you forgot to mention which is most probably sharper than your Canon, very small and light and cheap. A rather well known sleeper among vintage lens aficionados. But the rendering of the CY zooms is simply special in...Show more →
No, performance isn't simply sharpness. It's resolution, yes, including resolution over distance, but it's also correction for aberrations, how correctable the remaining aberrations are with modern software, performance with various lighting conditions, focus transitions, bokeh, and the haptics in use. OOC color can be a consideration if you're not profiling for consistency among all your lenses, but it's also the simplest thing to normalize among various lenses.
As far as the Minolta goes, it is a very good lens past 35mm. Flare resistance and CA are certainly on par with the Canon and better than either of the Zeiss zooms (and the Nikon with the sun in the frame), and from 40-70mm, overall resolution is very solid, but I would take the bet that the resolution is higher than the Canon from 35-70. It's an impressive zoom.
Mid-distance at 85...
a7_FD28-85_Not_Forgotten_4 by Bradley Clemens, on Flickr
Mid-distance at 35...
a7_FD28-85_Not_Forgotten by Bradley Clemens, on Flickr
Close to hyperfocal at 28...
a7_FD28-85_Flags by Bradley Clemens, on Flickr
You can tell about "performance" (which means "sharpness" anyway) all day long - what people like the OP and me are after is not only sharpness but rendering and color. I have tested enough lenses to know that (older) Zeiss lenses have that special "sauce" which makes images simply look good. The Minolta MD 35-70 f3.5 Macro, for instance, is another lens you forgot to mention which is most probably sharper than your Canon, very small and light and cheap. A rather well known sleeper among vintage lens aficionados. But the rendering of the CY zooms is simply special in...Show more →
No, performance isn't simply sharpness. It's resolution, yes, including resolution over distance, but it's also correction for aberrations, how correctable the remaining aberrations are with modern software, performance with various lighting conditions, focus transitions, bokeh, and the haptics in use. OOC color can be a consideration if you're not profiling for consistency among all your lenses, but it's also the simplest thing to normalize among various lenses.
As far as the Minolta goes, it is a very good lens past 35mm. Flare resistance and CA are certainly on par with the Canon and better than either of the Zeiss zooms (and the Nikon with the sun in the frame), and from 40-70mm, overall resolution is very solid, but I would take the bet that the resolution is higher than the Canon from 35-70. It's an impressive zoom.
Mid-distance at 85...
a7_FD28-85_Not_Forgotten_4 by Bradley Clemens, on FlickrMid-distance at 35...
a7_FD28-85_Not_Forgotten by Bradley Clemens, on FlickrClose to hyperfocal at 28...
a7_FD28-85_Flags by Bradley Clemens, on FlickrJan 25, 2021 at 02:36 PM
p.31 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The CY 35-70 is a most unusual lens. Designed by Lothar Kolsch (forgive me the missing umlaut) of later Leica fame, it features rather low edge acutance (10 lpmm) but very high detail resolution (40 lpmm) for its day. A lot of each person's reactions are dictated by their needs. Mine are: broad daylight tonal separation, strong colour/contrast performance, clean attractive neutrals, and low field curvature - to let this documentary style work well in flat washed out light. These criteria are strong determinants of 3D, IMO. Here are two out of Sony's great a900 camera.
..
..
Jan 25, 2021 at 07:46 PM
p.31 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
For landscapes, I want the 'walk into the scene' look, even with high UV. Colour is strong OOC but can be increased significantly and still remain authentic and credible - no mean feat and something many popular recent lenses cannot match. The separation pulls apart the tones in rock surfaces and leads to greater image depth perception.
a7II - CY 35-70
a7II - CY 35-70
a7r - CY 35-70
a7II - CY 35-70
a7II - CY 35-70
a7r - CY 35-70
Jan 25, 2021 at 08:12 PM
p.31 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Does that mean nobody else has noticed the purple fringing/chromatic aberrations in general shooting? It appears that this lens is generally used for one purpose: landscapes at f/8-f/11.
Also, for the member that PM'ed me that lives near me that has a copy of this zoom that offered to let me compare to his copy I can't PM you back yet because not enough posts.
it features rather low edge acutance (10 lpmm) but very high detail resolution (40 lpmm) for its day
Can you explain that better. Looking at the MTF I don't see low 10lpmm when it comes to the MTF. I do see high 40lpmm especially for a zoom. How could high detail resolution be high but low detail resolution low? If it can resolve fine detail well how could it resolve less fine detail poorly?
Also, for the member that PM'ed me that lives near me that has a copy of this zoom that offered to let me compare to his copy I can't PM you back yet because not enough posts.
it features rather low edge acutance (10 lpmm) but very high detail resolution (40 lpmm) for its day
Can you explain that better. Looking at the MTF I don't see low 10lpmm when it comes to the MTF. I do see high 40lpmm especially for a zoom. How could high detail resolution be high but low detail resolution low? If it can resolve fine detail well how could it resolve less fine detail poorly?
Jan 26, 2021 at 09:07 AM
p.31 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
cbass wrote:
Does that mean nobody else has noticed the purple fringing/chromatic aberrations in general shooting? It appears that this lens is generally used for one purpose: landscapes at f/8-f/11.
Yes, landscapes @ f/8-f/11 is where the CY 35-70 shines. It also does have some CA.
I've just had a look at some shots taken with a 24 MP Sony A7 where I am 100% sure that I used the CY 35-70. But, the CA is very well defined and cleans up really well with the CA correction in the RAW converter.
Does that mean nobody else has noticed the purple fringing/chromatic aberrations in general shooting? It appears that this lens is generally used for one purpose: landscapes at f/8-f/11.
Yes, landscapes @ f/8-f/11 is where the CY 35-70 shines. It also does have some CA.
I've just had a look at some shots taken with a 24 MP Sony A7 where I am 100% sure that I used the CY 35-70. But, the CA is very well defined and cleans up really well with the CA correction in the RAW converter.
Jan 26, 2021 at 11:12 AM
p.31 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here are the center crops at 50mm.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/50-THUMB.jpg
CENTER at 50mm
FE 24-70/2.8GM | C/Y 35-70/3.4
https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/gmvscy-CENTER-50.jpg
FE 24-70/2.8GM | C/Y 35-70/3.4
I assume this test was done on the same day? Why are there yellows in the C/Y 35-70/3.4 that look more green in the FE 24-70/2.8GM ?
Here are the center crops at 50mm.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/50-THUMB.jpg
https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/gmvscy-CENTER-50.jpg
I assume this test was done on the same day? Why are there yellows in the C/Y 35-70/3.4 that look more green in the FE 24-70/2.8GM ?
Jan 27, 2021 at 10:41 AM
p.31 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
cbass wrote:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/50-THUMB.jpg
CENTER at 50mm
FE 24-70/2.8GM | C/Y 35-70/3.4
https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/gmvscy-CENTER-50.jpg
FE 24-70/2.8GM | C/Y 35-70/3.4 I assume this test was done on the same day? Why are there yellows in the C/Y 35-70/3.4 that look more green in the FE 24-70/2.8GM ?
This was done a long time ago but yes, same exact scene (likely a minute apart). Different color rendering.
Fred Miranda wrote
Here are the center crops at 50mm.https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/50-THUMB.jpg
https://www.fredmiranda.com/Buzz/gmvscy-CENTER-50.jpg
This was done a long time ago but yes, same exact scene (likely a minute apart). Different color rendering.
Jan 27, 2021 at 10:46 AM
p.31 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Interesting. So that means the C/Y 35-70/3.4 is somehow able to distinguish color shades better or was that due to lighting conditions changing?
Jan 27, 2021 at 11:09 AM
p.31 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The Contax C/Y lenses have relatively high saturation in reds, and so will render 'the same scene' differently than a lens with different characteristics. For landscapes, I usually reach for Zeiss ZE lenses, which have a consistent and I think more realistic colour rendition, much like Canon L (both fairly evenly-saturated, with stronger blue/green for ZE and stronger reds for L), and with higher contrast than Pentax-K and Olympus OM, for example. The Mamiya 645 N lenses that I use with a Mirex adapter are somewhere between Zeiss/Canon and Pentax/Oly (i.e. good colour sat, good contrast), while Leica-R is on the other side of Contax (i.e. even higher red saturation, with fairly high contrast).
OTOH, I also shoot with the Contax PC-Distagon 35/2.8, VarioSonnar 35-70/3.4, Planar 50/1.4, and Sonnar 100/3.5. Often, I will use the PC-Distagon alongside some Zeiss ZE, Canon L and/or M645, and the Contax colour stands out as being different. Plus, it's an incredibly sharp lens. I also have used Fujifilm X-Pro/XE/X100-series cameras and XF lenses, and they are much more saturated in blue/green.
Anyway, long story short, yes; lenses with different colour characteristics will capture particular scene colour-schemes 'better' than lenses with different characteristics. I think this is similar to using different styles of film (whatever that was) for different colour-schemes: e.g. wedding photography with Astia, vs landscapes with E100 or with Velvia. I would often use Astia for landscapes and sea scapes (or anything), when I expect the lighting to be diffuse, or misty, or (damn) foggy. Similarly, today I like to pick the lens according to the scene.
OTOH, I also shoot with the Contax PC-Distagon 35/2.8, VarioSonnar 35-70/3.4, Planar 50/1.4, and Sonnar 100/3.5. Often, I will use the PC-Distagon alongside some Zeiss ZE, Canon L and/or M645, and the Contax colour stands out as being different. Plus, it's an incredibly sharp lens. I also have used Fujifilm X-Pro/XE/X100-series cameras and XF lenses, and they are much more saturated in blue/green.
Anyway, long story short, yes; lenses with different colour characteristics will capture particular scene colour-schemes 'better' than lenses with different characteristics. I think this is similar to using different styles of film (whatever that was) for different colour-schemes: e.g. wedding photography with Astia, vs landscapes with E100 or with Velvia. I would often use Astia for landscapes and sea scapes (or anything), when I expect the lighting to be diffuse, or misty, or (damn) foggy. Similarly, today I like to pick the lens according to the scene.
Jan 27, 2021 at 11:47 AM
p.31 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
One last question. Has anyone used the CY 34-70/3.4 with the Mutar I 2x teleconverter? How does it work with the teleconverter? Is it better to just crop over using the teleconverter to extend range?
Jan 27, 2021 at 03:04 PM
p.31 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I will say look at the Leica 35-70 f/4. It is even better IMO than the CY - and i LOVE the Contax. I sold my camera but kept the Leica, it is that good!
Jan 27, 2021 at 04:02 PM
p.31 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
billsnature wrote:
To Guy and Fred and anyone else who owns or has owned even more lenses that I have...
What is your ultimate f8 and be there lnadscape kit now that you have seen the new 24-70GM?
the obvious are CV 15 - Loxia 21mm then what? .......
24 - 28mm - Contenders are Batis 25 or CY 28mm f2.8 or 24-70 GM
35mm - Loxia 35 or Sony 35 or Contax 35-70 or 24-70 GM
50mm Loxia 50 or Sony 55mm or Contax 35-70 or or 24-70GM
Short tele - Batis 85, Contax 35-70, Canon 70-200 f4 IS, Sony 90mm, 85 GM?
Especially interested in your...Show more →
WOW!! I am quoting myself here like a time machine. I was the OP of this thread back in 2016. I am not sure how this got rejuvenated to come up in 2021, but I can share what I have learned since I asked the question as I bought and sold a lot of stuff over that period of time.
Since 2016 I bought and sold the Contax 35-70 3 times. I don't own one now, but every time I look through older shots, I can pick them out despite not having an EXTF and wonder why I sold it.
Bought and sold Loxia 21 and 50mm, bought and sold 27-70 GM, bought and sold Leica R 35-70 f4, bought and sold CV 40mm.
My current landscape kit is 12-24 G, 16-35GM Tamron 35mm f2.8 CV 50mm APO Sony 24-105 f4 G and the Tamron 70-180 and Sony 100-400 GM on the Tele end.
Upgrades I a still pondering ... 1) sell 12-24G for either Sigma 14-24 DG DN or the Sony 12-24GM 2) Try the Sigma 24-70 DG DN and see if it is an upgrade to the Sony 24-105mm
Lenses I am always intrigued by are the Loxia 25 and 85mm but haven't tried.
My biggest learning is that while I love the Contax 35-70mm the Contax 100mm f3.5 and the Leica R 35-70 f4, I just can't live with EXTF info especially on the zoom lenses.
To Guy and Fred and anyone else who owns or has owned even more lenses that I have...
What is your ultimate f8 and be there lnadscape kit now that you have seen the new 24-70GM?
the obvious are CV 15 - Loxia 21mm then what? .......
24 - 28mm - Contenders are Batis 25 or CY 28mm f2.8 or 24-70 GM
35mm - Loxia 35 or Sony 35 or Contax 35-70 or 24-70 GM
50mm Loxia 50 or Sony 55mm or Contax 35-70 or or 24-70GM
Short tele - Batis 85, Contax 35-70, Canon 70-200 f4 IS, Sony 90mm, 85 GM?
Especially interested in your...Show more →
WOW!! I am quoting myself here like a time machine. I was the OP of this thread back in 2016. I am not sure how this got rejuvenated to come up in 2021, but I can share what I have learned since I asked the question as I bought and sold a lot of stuff over that period of time.
Since 2016 I bought and sold the Contax 35-70 3 times. I don't own one now, but every time I look through older shots, I can pick them out despite not having an EXTF and wonder why I sold it.
Bought and sold Loxia 21 and 50mm, bought and sold 27-70 GM, bought and sold Leica R 35-70 f4, bought and sold CV 40mm.
My current landscape kit is 12-24 G, 16-35GM Tamron 35mm f2.8 CV 50mm APO Sony 24-105 f4 G and the Tamron 70-180 and Sony 100-400 GM on the Tele end.
Upgrades I a still pondering ... 1) sell 12-24G for either Sigma 14-24 DG DN or the Sony 12-24GM 2) Try the Sigma 24-70 DG DN and see if it is an upgrade to the Sony 24-105mm
Lenses I am always intrigued by are the Loxia 25 and 85mm but haven't tried.
My biggest learning is that while I love the Contax 35-70mm the Contax 100mm f3.5 and the Leica R 35-70 f4, I just can't live with EXTF info especially on the zoom lenses.
Jan 27, 2021 at 06:44 PM
p.31 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Colours are definitely vivid OOC with the 35-70, but they can be pushed hard when needed because they remain stable with high levels of 'saturation' (really chroma in my case, I use Joe Holmes profiles which expand the gamut wall as chroma is increased). The 35-70 produces gorgeous creams the like of which I have not seen in other lenses, and it shows more shades of green than many later mainstream lenses (examples below -vs- Sony's 55/1.8).
These are key tones for me, in Tibetan structures and of course green dominates so much in open field photography. You see a lot of green 'monotone' images out there, virtually no separation, every leaf and blade of grass or moss is the same. It's artistic but 3D/reality is lacking. I want 'realistic with appeal', the doco look so I need good blue-green separation and (even more) good yellow-green separation.
The ZEF series I place between the organic CY range signature and the 'too cool for school' wide Loxias - a steady progression by Zeiss in not my favored direction, but good for the wallet. We all shoot in different light and tastes are going to vary widely. CV are my new standard colour lenses, quite phenomenal in fact; them plus the SL Leicas.
FE 55/1.8 - poor green-blue and poor cream-white separation
CY 35-70 note wide range of tones in green-blue and cream-whites
cream walls of monastery (35-70)
guide waiting for me, monastery on hillside (35-70)
These are key tones for me, in Tibetan structures and of course green dominates so much in open field photography. You see a lot of green 'monotone' images out there, virtually no separation, every leaf and blade of grass or moss is the same. It's artistic but 3D/reality is lacking. I want 'realistic with appeal', the doco look so I need good blue-green separation and (even more) good yellow-green separation.
The ZEF series I place between the organic CY range signature and the 'too cool for school' wide Loxias - a steady progression by Zeiss in not my favored direction, but good for the wallet. We all shoot in different light and tastes are going to vary widely. CV are my new standard colour lenses, quite phenomenal in fact; them plus the SL Leicas.
FE 55/1.8 - poor green-blue and poor cream-white separation
CY 35-70 note wide range of tones in green-blue and cream-whites
cream walls of monastery (35-70)
guide waiting for me, monastery on hillside (35-70)
Jan 27, 2021 at 11:37 PM
p.31 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Dustin Gent wrote:
I will say look at the Leica 35-70 f/4. It is even better IMO than the CY - and i LOVE the Contax. I sold my camera but kept the Leica, it is that good!
How is the Leica better? That is a Leica R lens?
I will say look at the Leica 35-70 f/4. It is even better IMO than the CY - and i LOVE the Contax. I sold my camera but kept the Leica, it is that good!
How is the Leica better? That is a Leica R lens?
Jan 28, 2021 at 08:23 PM
p.31 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
cbass wrote:
How is the Leica better? That is a Leica R lens?
I find the output overall better, and the Leica is bit sharper lens. I find f/5.6 the sweet spot on that lens. Crazy thing is the Leica creates amazing sunstars wide open - although that is all personal preference. I may end up buying another Contax 35-70 and shoot with both, that is how much I love both of them.
And if I wouldn't have ever come across the Leica R image thread in the alt forum, I would still have the CY. It was worth the 2.5x price tag for me.
Dustin Gent wrote
I will say look at the Leica 35-70 f/4. It is even better IMO than the CY - and i LOVE the Contax. I sold my camera but kept the Leica, it is that good!I find the output overall better, and the Leica is bit sharper lens. I find f/5.6 the sweet spot on that lens. Crazy thing is the Leica creates amazing sunstars wide open - although that is all personal preference. I may end up buying another Contax 35-70 and shoot with both, that is how much I love both of them.
And if I wouldn't have ever come across the Leica R image thread in the alt forum, I would still have the CY. It was worth the 2.5x price tag for me.
Jan 28, 2021 at 08:56 PM
p.31 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I did some additional testing with my copy. Hopefully posting this is ok as this is the Sony Forum and I am using a Fuji camera.
This is at f/8 @ 35mm. Fuji X-T1 so 16mp APS-C sensor. Lens was mounted to a speed booster: Lens Turbo II so additional optics were introduced and as such will have an impact either positive or negative.
If 35mm is the weak end, then this is world class weak. Everything is sharp from corner to corner. Interesting is that the depth from the building to the mountain is significant yet if you pixel peep you can see ducks on the water where the water ends. Literally everything has high detail from near to far.
For those who want to pixel peep the full resolution image:
https://flic.kr/p/2kwW95V
This is at f/8 @ 35mm. Fuji X-T1 so 16mp APS-C sensor. Lens was mounted to a speed booster: Lens Turbo II so additional optics were introduced and as such will have an impact either positive or negative.
 |
||
| https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50889529261_a1db2dbceb_b.jpg | ||
|
If 35mm is the weak end, then this is world class weak. Everything is sharp from corner to corner. Interesting is that the depth from the building to the mountain is significant yet if you pixel peep you can see ducks on the water where the water ends. Literally everything has high detail from near to far.
For those who want to pixel peep the full resolution image:
https://flic.kr/p/2kwW95V
Jan 29, 2021 at 10:28 PM
p.31 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
At 50mm, I would not hesitate to use the C/Y 35-70 starting at f/5.6. The level of micro-contrast is high and very similar to the Loxias. Colors are a bit more saturated. It pretty much matched my best 50mm landscape lens. (Loxia 50/2)
There is slight improvement at f/8 towards the very edges of the frame but f/5.6 is very good at this FL. I would say, set the lens to f/8 and forget about it.
To me, I don't know why I got this lens. Peer pressure!
I already have the Loxia 50/2 and use my RX1RII for...Show more →
I really enjoyed this thread Fred, thank you.
Thats what I use your 15, Loxia 21 and the C/Y 35/70 & 100-300
Sample from the 35-70
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2jocrd6]
At 50mm, I would not hesitate to use the C/Y 35-70 starting at f/5.6. The level of micro-contrast is high and very similar to the Loxias. Colors are a bit more saturated. It pretty much matched my best 50mm landscape lens. (Loxia 50/2)
There is slight improvement at f/8 towards the very edges of the frame but f/5.6 is very good at this FL. I would say, set the lens to f/8 and forget about it.
To me, I don't know why I got this lens. Peer pressure!
I already have the Loxia 50/2 and use my RX1RII for...Show more →
I really enjoyed this thread Fred, thank you.
Thats what I use your 15, Loxia 21 and the C/Y 35/70 & 100-300
Sample from the 35-70
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2jocrd6]
Feb 15, 2021 at 10:04 PM
p.31 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote:
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
Here's one from my C/Y 28, since you also discussed it, as you say f8/11 and its perfect for city and landscapes, what I enjoy shooting. I especially enjoy the rendering of the C/Y, Loxia, and Voigtlander lenses..
[url=https://flic.kr/p/PW7bK2]
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.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
Here's one from my C/Y 28, since you also discussed it, as you say f8/11 and its perfect for city and landscapes, what I enjoy shooting. I especially enjoy the rendering of the C/Y, Loxia, and Voigtlander lenses..
[url=https://flic.kr/p/PW7bK2]
Feb 16, 2021 at 01:18 AM