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.32 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Edited below...please delete this one, Fred.
Edited on Feb 17, 2021 at 12:24 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Feb 17, 2021 at 12:24 AM · View previous versions
Feb 16, 2021 at 07:16 PM
p.32 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
@cbass, I use the Mutar I with the CY35-70 and 85/1.4. It works surprisingly well as long as you're in good light, of course. It doesn't get much love online, but I have never been let down. You can grab them from reputable dealers on auction sites for around $40 which is a steal IMHO.
Edited on Feb 17, 2021 at 12:20 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Feb 17, 2021 at 12:20 AM · View previous versions
Feb 16, 2021 at 07:17 PM
p.32 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
First two are with the CY 35-70, last one is with the Leica 35-70. Leica just seems sharper throughout the range - plus front element doesn't rotate when zooming; although I don't use filters much.
I had the Minolta 35-70 version (second version - there are three as far as I know, the first one isn't as good), then bought the CY. Had that several years and then finally bought the Leica. Will never sell the Leica lol. I don't even have a camera right now, that is how good it is - although I doubt there are copy variations between the Leica's. I know there are between the Contax - I had two at the same time at one point and tested both of them; and my tests are done in what I usually shoot (landscapes right now)
The last image I don't think I added any sharpening to. Think I shot that one at f/5.6
I had the Minolta 35-70 version (second version - there are three as far as I know, the first one isn't as good), then bought the CY. Had that several years and then finally bought the Leica. Will never sell the Leica lol. I don't even have a camera right now, that is how good it is - although I doubt there are copy variations between the Leica's. I know there are between the Contax - I had two at the same time at one point and tested both of them; and my tests are done in what I usually shoot (landscapes right now)
The last image I don't think I added any sharpening to. Think I shot that one at f/5.6
Feb 16, 2021 at 08:15 PM
p.32 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Excellent pictures. It's hard to know for sure as they are pictures of different scenes. However, since you owned the lenses I believe you.
If you were to generalize which is dangerous to do because lenses stand alone, then I would say that's not surprising. Leica lenses generally do a bit better wide open over Zeiss. They also have slight sharpness advantages at infinity. The issue is for that extra bit the Leica's will generally cost you a lot more.
The Contax at most focal lengths cleans up by f/4 which is the max aperture of the Leica. The MTF charts look neck and neck for both at f/8.
I have been spending more time with the Contax and I will need to do more controlled testing but I found something surprising. I am using it on a speed booster (lens turbo II) so perhaps that makes a difference. However, my results are reversed from Fred Miranda's. At 35mm my copy cleans up very nicely by f/4 and by f/8 is pretty much excellent. 50mm seems to be the sweet spot on the lens where it performs the best. 70mm, however, the corners are softer. I don't think they get excellent until almost f/8. In the earlier testing it seemed that his was stronger at 70mm than 35mm and for me it seems to be the opposite.
If you were to generalize which is dangerous to do because lenses stand alone, then I would say that's not surprising. Leica lenses generally do a bit better wide open over Zeiss. They also have slight sharpness advantages at infinity. The issue is for that extra bit the Leica's will generally cost you a lot more.
The Contax at most focal lengths cleans up by f/4 which is the max aperture of the Leica. The MTF charts look neck and neck for both at f/8.
I have been spending more time with the Contax and I will need to do more controlled testing but I found something surprising. I am using it on a speed booster (lens turbo II) so perhaps that makes a difference. However, my results are reversed from Fred Miranda's. At 35mm my copy cleans up very nicely by f/4 and by f/8 is pretty much excellent. 50mm seems to be the sweet spot on the lens where it performs the best. 70mm, however, the corners are softer. I don't think they get excellent until almost f/8. In the earlier testing it seemed that his was stronger at 70mm than 35mm and for me it seems to be the opposite.
Feb 16, 2021 at 08:53 PM
p.32 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I don't have the Contax, but i do own the GM and the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 art, on my copies, the Sigma is way better at infinity (gm a little better close up). Sigma is sharp all way up to corners at F8, unlike Gmaster and basically all other standard zooms. It's a tiny little bit softer then Sigma 14-24mm but that lens is brilliant.
I trust this Sigma all day on my camera when travelling, and i'm very picky about standard zooms (they must take 61 megapixel (a7R4) sharp images even in corners, this doenst have to be wide open but at F5.6 and especially F8 i require this (at infinity and all focal lengths).
The Gmaster is prime sharp in 35-46mm (sharper then Sigma even), but more CA everywhere. But at 24mm even though reviews claim different Sigma is sharper (to my eye much less astigmatism in corners), at 70mm the Sigma is a night and day difference sharper then the Gmaster.
I suspect there are better copies of the GM out there, but i still think the Sigma beats those. The sigma also has a very nice colour tint, a bit saturated (i like that) so more colours then say Sony 35mm F1.8, but without being overdone. Especially OOC images take advantage of this. CA is superior low (big advantage over GM) at 24mm vignetting is very high, F8 cures this though mostly. Contrast is also better on Sigma imo.
So there you have it: my own opinion is that the Sigma is the ultimate landscape lens.
I trust this Sigma all day on my camera when travelling, and i'm very picky about standard zooms (they must take 61 megapixel (a7R4) sharp images even in corners, this doenst have to be wide open but at F5.6 and especially F8 i require this (at infinity and all focal lengths).
The Gmaster is prime sharp in 35-46mm (sharper then Sigma even), but more CA everywhere. But at 24mm even though reviews claim different Sigma is sharper (to my eye much less astigmatism in corners), at 70mm the Sigma is a night and day difference sharper then the Gmaster.
I suspect there are better copies of the GM out there, but i still think the Sigma beats those. The sigma also has a very nice colour tint, a bit saturated (i like that) so more colours then say Sony 35mm F1.8, but without being overdone. Especially OOC images take advantage of this. CA is superior low (big advantage over GM) at 24mm vignetting is very high, F8 cures this though mostly. Contrast is also better on Sigma imo.
So there you have it: my own opinion is that the Sigma is the ultimate landscape lens.
Feb 17, 2021 at 05:25 AM
p.32 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
When shooting 50 for landscape, I favor the Zeiss ZE/ZF 50/2 MP, a lighter high performing option is the Leica M 50/2 v4 pre-ASPH. Mine is good across the frame by f/4, so f/8 is perfect. With adapter weighs about as much as just the Zeiss lens, and I can put it in my pocket in a ziplock bag, if I am unsure I’ll need a 50.
Feb 22, 2021 at 11:01 PM
p.32 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
If it's only about highest resolving power at landscape apertures (tested on Sony α7R IV), these are currently the optimal native lenses:
Zooms
Ultra wide
1. Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM
2. Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN A
3. Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 GM
4. Sony 12-24mm f/4 G
Standard wide to short tele
1. Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN A
2. Sony 24-105mm f/4 G OSS
? (future) Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN C
Short to mid tele
1. Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 DI III VXD
2. Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS
3. Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 DI III RXD
? (future) Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG DN S (probably the best option)
Long tele
1. Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS
2. Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS
3. Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS C
Primes
Ultra wide
1. Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4 Nokton / Zeiss Loxia 21mm f/2.8
2. Sony 20mm f/1.8 G
3. Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG A
4. Zeiss Batis 18mm f/2.8 / Tokina Firin 20mm f/2 AF / Tamron 20mm f/2.8 DI III OSD M1:2
? (future) Sony 16mm f/1.8 GM (probably the best widest prime option)
Standard wide
1. Zeiss Loxia 25mm f/2.5
2. Sony 24mm f/1.4 GM / Tamron 24mm f/2.8 DI III OSD M1:2
3. Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG A / Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2
Wide
1. Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DG DN A
2. Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN C
3. Samyang AF 35mm f/1.8 / Sony 35mm f/1.8 / Tamron 35mm f/2.8 DI III OSD M1:2 / Kipon Iberit 35mm f/2.4
? (future) Voigtländer 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar (probably the best option)
? (future) Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN A (perhaps as good as the recent GM)
"Standard"
1. Voigtländer 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar
2. Zeiss Loxia 50mm f/2 / Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 / Mitakon 50mm f/0.95
3. Sony Zeiss 50mm f/1.4
Short tele
Voigtländer 65mm f/2 Macro APO-Lanthar, Sigma 65mm f/2 DG DN C, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN A, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG A, Sony 90mm f/2.8 G Macro OSS, Kipin Iberit 90mm f/2.4, Sony 100mm f/2.8 T/5.6 STF GM, Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro, Sigma 105mm f/1.4 DG A, Voigtländer 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar, Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM, Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG A, Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8
Not sure of this order, but they can all use take advantage of most if not all of the potential of the sensor.
Tele
Sony 600mm f/4 GM OSS, Sony 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS
Of course there are differences to spot when inspected closely, but these are just generalisations of the current highest resolving lenses that are native to the Sony FE mount. There can also be sample variation. There are other options as well, but these are the ones that came to my mind. One can surely adapt lenses as well, but I'm not so familiar with those. Therefore, I'm just focused on native lenses, whether it's first- or third party options. I think that a zoom kit with 3 zooms would be the most flexible option for landscapes (I would opt for GM 12-24mm, DN 24-70mm and GM 100-400mm). I do however get why many would want a prime kit or at least some primes in their kit. Primes from Cosina as Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses simply have mechanical perfection, and a lot of people prefer how they render colour and details. In general, proper made primes are usually superior to their zoom counterparts, especially on high resolution sensors. Sadly, there are no primes in the 12-19mm range yet, though, that can compare to the GM 12-24mm and DN 14-24mm.
Personal kit and reality
My personal optimal kit for just landscapes would probably be like something like this:
12mm (if someone were to make one that can rival the GM 12-24mm and 14-24mm at their widest)
20/21mm (either the Voigtländer 21mm Nokton, Zeiss Loxia 21mm or an updated lens)
35mm (probably the upcoming Voigtländer 35mm APO)
75mm (if Voigtländer were to make an APO like this)
100-300/400mm (probably the Contax one)
What I probably would use in reality due to other aspects:
14/12-24mm (using the Sigma, but might get the GM)
24/28-70mm (maybe the future Sigma 28-70mm DN)
35mm (a future Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DN or the GM. Would love the CV 35mm APO, but I also need AF for other aspects, and I'm not sure if I can justify both yet)
85mm (Sigma DN)
100-400mm (Sony GM)
Zooms
Ultra wide
1. Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM
2. Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN A
3. Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 GM
4. Sony 12-24mm f/4 G
Standard wide to short tele
1. Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN A
2. Sony 24-105mm f/4 G OSS
? (future) Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN C
Short to mid tele
1. Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 DI III VXD
2. Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS
3. Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 DI III RXD
? (future) Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG DN S (probably the best option)
Long tele
1. Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS
2. Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS
3. Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS C
Primes
Ultra wide
1. Voigtländer 21mm f/1.4 Nokton / Zeiss Loxia 21mm f/2.8
2. Sony 20mm f/1.8 G
3. Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG A
4. Zeiss Batis 18mm f/2.8 / Tokina Firin 20mm f/2 AF / Tamron 20mm f/2.8 DI III OSD M1:2
? (future) Sony 16mm f/1.8 GM (probably the best widest prime option)
Standard wide
1. Zeiss Loxia 25mm f/2.5
2. Sony 24mm f/1.4 GM / Tamron 24mm f/2.8 DI III OSD M1:2
3. Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG A / Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2
Wide
1. Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DG DN A
2. Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN C
3. Samyang AF 35mm f/1.8 / Sony 35mm f/1.8 / Tamron 35mm f/2.8 DI III OSD M1:2 / Kipon Iberit 35mm f/2.4
? (future) Voigtländer 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar (probably the best option)
? (future) Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN A (perhaps as good as the recent GM)
"Standard"
1. Voigtländer 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar
2. Zeiss Loxia 50mm f/2 / Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 / Mitakon 50mm f/0.95
3. Sony Zeiss 50mm f/1.4
Short tele
Voigtländer 65mm f/2 Macro APO-Lanthar, Sigma 65mm f/2 DG DN C, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN A, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG A, Sony 90mm f/2.8 G Macro OSS, Kipin Iberit 90mm f/2.4, Sony 100mm f/2.8 T/5.6 STF GM, Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro, Sigma 105mm f/1.4 DG A, Voigtländer 110mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar, Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM, Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG A, Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8
Not sure of this order, but they can all use take advantage of most if not all of the potential of the sensor.
Tele
Sony 600mm f/4 GM OSS, Sony 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS
Of course there are differences to spot when inspected closely, but these are just generalisations of the current highest resolving lenses that are native to the Sony FE mount. There can also be sample variation. There are other options as well, but these are the ones that came to my mind. One can surely adapt lenses as well, but I'm not so familiar with those. Therefore, I'm just focused on native lenses, whether it's first- or third party options. I think that a zoom kit with 3 zooms would be the most flexible option for landscapes (I would opt for GM 12-24mm, DN 24-70mm and GM 100-400mm). I do however get why many would want a prime kit or at least some primes in their kit. Primes from Cosina as Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses simply have mechanical perfection, and a lot of people prefer how they render colour and details. In general, proper made primes are usually superior to their zoom counterparts, especially on high resolution sensors. Sadly, there are no primes in the 12-19mm range yet, though, that can compare to the GM 12-24mm and DN 14-24mm.
Personal kit and reality
My personal optimal kit for just landscapes would probably be like something like this:
12mm (if someone were to make one that can rival the GM 12-24mm and 14-24mm at their widest)
20/21mm (either the Voigtländer 21mm Nokton, Zeiss Loxia 21mm or an updated lens)
35mm (probably the upcoming Voigtländer 35mm APO)
75mm (if Voigtländer were to make an APO like this)
100-300/400mm (probably the Contax one)
What I probably would use in reality due to other aspects:
14/12-24mm (using the Sigma, but might get the GM)
24/28-70mm (maybe the future Sigma 28-70mm DN)
35mm (a future Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DN or the GM. Would love the CV 35mm APO, but I also need AF for other aspects, and I'm not sure if I can justify both yet)
85mm (Sigma DN)
100-400mm (Sony GM)
Feb 24, 2021 at 05:36 AM
p.32 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Frederik0711 wrote:
If it's only about highest resolving power at landscape apertures (tested on Sony α7R IV), these are currently the optimal native lenses:
Zooms
Ultra wide
1. Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM
2. Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN A
3. Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 GM
4. Sony 12-24mm f/4 G
Standard wide to short tele
1. Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN A
2. Sony 24-105mm f/4 G OSS
? (future) Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN C
Short to mid tele
1. Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 DI III VXD
2. Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS
3. Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 DI III RXD
? (future) Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG DN S (probably the best option)
Long tele
1. Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM...Show more →
Are these your ratings?
If it's only about highest resolving power at landscape apertures (tested on Sony α7R IV), these are currently the optimal native lenses:
Zooms
Ultra wide
1. Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM
2. Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN A
3. Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 GM
4. Sony 12-24mm f/4 G
Standard wide to short tele
1. Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN A
2. Sony 24-105mm f/4 G OSS
? (future) Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN C
Short to mid tele
1. Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 DI III VXD
2. Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS
3. Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 DI III RXD
? (future) Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG DN S (probably the best option)
Long tele
1. Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM...Show more →
Are these your ratings?
Feb 24, 2021 at 05:26 PM
p.32 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I don't know how the CZ 35-70 holds up at 61 MP, and I'm sure newer lenses can out resolve it, but I'm happy keeping my CZ 35-70 in my landscape kit as my standard zoom.
I prefer wide and tele zooms for most of my landscape shooting, so the $400, ~500g, weather averse, joy to focus, and beautifully rendering 35-70 is both on my currently owned and ideal kit lists. I want to have the 16-35 and 100-400 GMs flanking it to round out my landscape kit though.
I prefer wide and tele zooms for most of my landscape shooting, so the $400, ~500g, weather averse, joy to focus, and beautifully rendering 35-70 is both on my currently owned and ideal kit lists. I want to have the 16-35 and 100-400 GMs flanking it to round out my landscape kit though.
Feb 24, 2021 at 06:07 PM
p.32 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
DaveFP wrote:
Are these your ratings?
It's general ratings of the resolving power of certain lenses that I have tested, and all the results, I have read on reviews. All of the tests were made on the Sony a7R IV, as it's currently the highest potential to reach in terms of resolution on Sony, which makes it easier to differentiate the differences between lenses. The list is only about resolving power. A proper test would include test images, comparisons and comments, but these are just general observations that I noted. There are many other factors that have an impact on choosing a lens as well, of course. Some of the lenses are so close stopped down, but minimal differences will be noted when inspected closely, and sample variation can also kick in.
Are these your ratings?
It's general ratings of the resolving power of certain lenses that I have tested, and all the results, I have read on reviews. All of the tests were made on the Sony a7R IV, as it's currently the highest potential to reach in terms of resolution on Sony, which makes it easier to differentiate the differences between lenses. The list is only about resolving power. A proper test would include test images, comparisons and comments, but these are just general observations that I noted. There are many other factors that have an impact on choosing a lens as well, of course. Some of the lenses are so close stopped down, but minimal differences will be noted when inspected closely, and sample variation can also kick in.
Feb 25, 2021 at 01:41 AM
p.32 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Matti6950 wrote:
I don't have the Contax, but i do own the GM and the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 art, on my copies, the Sigma is way better at infinity (gm a little better close up). Sigma is sharp all way up to corners at F8, unlike Gmaster and basically all other standard zooms. It's a tiny little bit softer then Sigma 14-24mm but that lens is brilliant.
Is the Sigma that better than the GM? I wanted to buy the Sony because it's got better AF and better bokeh (so they say), but I'm told it might come out with a mkII version soon, although I can't find any rumor online.
I don't have the Contax, but i do own the GM and the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 art, on my copies, the Sigma is way better at infinity (gm a little better close up). Sigma is sharp all way up to corners at F8, unlike Gmaster and basically all other standard zooms. It's a tiny little bit softer then Sigma 14-24mm but that lens is brilliant.
Is the Sigma that better than the GM? I wanted to buy the Sony because it's got better AF and better bokeh (so they say), but I'm told it might come out with a mkII version soon, although I can't find any rumor online.
Feb 25, 2021 at 03:43 AM
p.32 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
pierr wrote
Is the Sigma that better than the GM? I wanted to buy the Sony because it's got better AF and better bokeh (so they say), but I'm told it might come out with a mkII version soon, although I can't find any rumor online.
Both the Sigma 24-70 Art and the 28-70 Contemporary outshine the Sony 24-70GM in most reviews. That's the general consensus anyway. I personally own the 24-70 Art and I'm very happy with it for all applications. The Sony is getting dated, and it might indeed be getting an updated release but Sony hasn't said anything about that at all. Both the 24-70GM and 85GM are falling behind the rest of the competition and their price is no longer warranted.
Is the Sigma that better than the GM? I wanted to buy the Sony because it's got better AF and better bokeh (so they say), but I'm told it might come out with a mkII version soon, although I can't find any rumor online.
Both the Sigma 24-70 Art and the 28-70 Contemporary outshine the Sony 24-70GM in most reviews. That's the general consensus anyway. I personally own the 24-70 Art and I'm very happy with it for all applications. The Sony is getting dated, and it might indeed be getting an updated release but Sony hasn't said anything about that at all. Both the 24-70GM and 85GM are falling behind the rest of the competition and their price is no longer warranted.
Feb 25, 2021 at 03:51 AM
p.32 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Frederik0711 wrote:
It's general ratings of the resolving power of certain lenses that I have tested, and all the results, I have read on reviews. All of the tests were made on the Sony a7R IV, as it's currently the highest potential to reach in terms of resolution on Sony, which makes it easier to differentiate the differences between lenses. The list is only about resolving power. A proper test would include test images, comparisons and comments, but these are just general observations that I noted. There are many other factors that have an impact on choosing a lens as well, of...Show more →
Gotcha; thanks.
DaveFP wrote
Are these your ratings?Gotcha; thanks.
Feb 25, 2021 at 05:48 AM
p.32 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
pierr wrote:
Is the Sigma that better than the GM? I wanted to buy the Sony because it's got better AF and better bokeh (so they say), but I'm told it might come out with a mkII version soon, although I can't find any rumor online.
Actually the bokeh is better on the Sigma (a surprise for me and many reviewers). That being said Gmaster ain't bad (a lot of DSLR 24-70mm F2.8 zooms have worse bokeh and that is the time lens was made. Sony GM has faster AF, however it's not top of the line so to speak. I'm sure the newer 16-35mm is faster, and the 100-400mm GM is way faster in AF.
As for sharpness my copy may be a bit on the bad side, still the best of best images of GM i found on the net are just scraping (not there yet but close) prime sharp 42 megapixel images. Only the camera labs sample tested on Sony A7RIV review seems to be a step above, still even that copy i find the Sigma better, and on some images the corners (sometimes even center) is softer.
While the Sigma is a tad softer then say top line 70-200mm lenses, or their mirrorless DG DN 14-24mm art, wich really is brilliant, it's so close, that knowing standard zooms are by far the most difficult to make, that Sigma did amazing job. Colours, contrast, sharpness all good, and that at all focal length stopped down (wide open APS-C Frame is very sharp).
If you want ultra sharp 24-70mm with superior AF, i think only new 24-70mm GM mark II can fill your needs. Meanwhile the Sigma is darn close, at an in my opinion insanely low price of 1100-1200€.
Matti6950 wrote
I don't have the Contax, but i do own the GM and the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 art, on my copies, the Sigma is way better at infinity (gm a little better close up). Sigma is sharp all way up to corners at F8, unlike Gmaster and basically all other standard zooms. It's a tiny little bit softer then Sigma 14-24mm but that lens is brilliant.Actually the bokeh is better on the Sigma (a surprise for me and many reviewers). That being said Gmaster ain't bad (a lot of DSLR 24-70mm F2.8 zooms have worse bokeh and that is the time lens was made. Sony GM has faster AF, however it's not top of the line so to speak. I'm sure the newer 16-35mm is faster, and the 100-400mm GM is way faster in AF.
As for sharpness my copy may be a bit on the bad side, still the best of best images of GM i found on the net are just scraping (not there yet but close) prime sharp 42 megapixel images. Only the camera labs sample tested on Sony A7RIV review seems to be a step above, still even that copy i find the Sigma better, and on some images the corners (sometimes even center) is softer.
While the Sigma is a tad softer then say top line 70-200mm lenses, or their mirrorless DG DN 14-24mm art, wich really is brilliant, it's so close, that knowing standard zooms are by far the most difficult to make, that Sigma did amazing job. Colours, contrast, sharpness all good, and that at all focal length stopped down (wide open APS-C Frame is very sharp).
If you want ultra sharp 24-70mm with superior AF, i think only new 24-70mm GM mark II can fill your needs. Meanwhile the Sigma is darn close, at an in my opinion insanely low price of 1100-1200€.
Feb 27, 2021 at 04:23 AM
p.32 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I doubt any of the modern zooms are better the CY 35-70 at f8. Especially from 40-70mm. But they are obviously far more versatile and user friendly. I think it would hold up from 40-70mm on 61mp very well.
I mostly use my CY 35-70 of my original A7 IR converted camera. It’s a fantastic lens for IR photography. I just leave it on that camera most of the time.
I mostly use my CY 35-70 of my original A7 IR converted camera. It’s a fantastic lens for IR photography. I just leave it on that camera most of the time.
Feb 27, 2021 at 06:32 AM
p.32 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
TakenWild wrote:
I doubt any of the modern zooms are better the CY 35-70 at f8. Especially from 40-70mm...
In most cases, yes, but the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II is usefully better than the CV 35-70/3.4 C/Y, at f/8 and infinity focus.
I doubt any of the modern zooms are better the CY 35-70 at f8. Especially from 40-70mm...
In most cases, yes, but the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II is usefully better than the CV 35-70/3.4 C/Y, at f/8 and infinity focus.
Feb 27, 2021 at 12:10 PM
p.32 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
jcolwell wrote:
TakenWild wrote
I doubt any of the modern zooms are better the CY 35-70 at f8. Especially from 40-70mm...Facepalm. Apples to oranges.
Feb 27, 2021 at 12:45 PM
p.32 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
TakenWild wrote:
I doubt any of the modern zooms are better the CY 35-70 at f8. Especially from 40-70mm...
jcolwell wrote:
In most cases, yes, but the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II is usefully better than the CV 35-70/3.4 C/Y, at f/8 and infinity focus.
hasenbein wrote:
Facepalm. Apples to oranges.
I made a direct comparison of the exact situation under discussion. Face your own palm.
I doubt any of the modern zooms are better the CY 35-70 at f8. Especially from 40-70mm...
jcolwell wrote:
In most cases, yes, but the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II is usefully better than the CV 35-70/3.4 C/Y, at f/8 and infinity focus.
hasenbein wrote:
Facepalm. Apples to oranges.
I made a direct comparison of the exact situation under discussion. Face your own palm.
Feb 27, 2021 at 01:10 PM
p.32 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Literally the wrong focal range, doesn’t even overlap. Face palm yourself
jcolwell wrote:
TakenWild wrote
I doubt any of the modern zooms are better the CY 35-70 at f8. Especially from 40-70mm...jcolwell wrote
In most cases, yes, but the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II is usefully better than the CV 35-70/3.4 C/Y, at f/8 and infinity focus.hasenbein wrote
Facepalm. Apples to oranges.Feb 27, 2021 at 02:35 PM
p.32 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
pierr wrote:
Is the Sigma that better than the GM? I wanted to buy the Sony because it's got better AF and better bokeh (so they say), but I'm told it might come out with a mkII version soon, although I can't find any rumor online.
I recently had the sigma art and bought the Sony gm cause I got a good deal on a used one and was curious. Sigma is sharper when pixel peeping, bokeh is about the same, and af is about the same. Where I thought the Sony was better was color rendering (much less warm / yellow), punchier colors/better contrast, and the zoom ring was much tighter (my sigma would slip at certain steep angles while there is no slip on the Sony). Size wise, the Sigma is slightly smaller but not enough to make a difference.
I kept the Sony GM because I found Sony colors to be superior out of the box and even after post processing. Zoom ring stiffness was also weirdly a huge plus since I use this for some close up photography with a tripod.
I think a GM ii would eventually make sense but really would just come down to optimizing for sharpness. Every other attribute generally performs quite well with no complaints from me.
Matti6950 wrote
I don't have the Contax, but i do own the GM and the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 art, on my copies, the Sigma is way better at infinity (gm a little better close up). Sigma is sharp all way up to corners at F8, unlike Gmaster and basically all other standard zooms. It's a tiny little bit softer then Sigma 14-24mm but that lens is brilliant.I recently had the sigma art and bought the Sony gm cause I got a good deal on a used one and was curious. Sigma is sharper when pixel peeping, bokeh is about the same, and af is about the same. Where I thought the Sony was better was color rendering (much less warm / yellow), punchier colors/better contrast, and the zoom ring was much tighter (my sigma would slip at certain steep angles while there is no slip on the Sony). Size wise, the Sigma is slightly smaller but not enough to make a difference.
I kept the Sony GM because I found Sony colors to be superior out of the box and even after post processing. Zoom ring stiffness was also weirdly a huge plus since I use this for some close up photography with a tripod.
I think a GM ii would eventually make sense but really would just come down to optimizing for sharpness. Every other attribute generally performs quite well with no complaints from me.
Feb 27, 2021 at 02:50 PM