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.33 #1Contax 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.
jcolwell wrote:
I made a direct comparison of the exact situation under discussion. Face your own palm.
xpfloyd wrote:
Literally the wrong focal range, doesn’t even overlap. Face palm yourself
I believe they overlap at 70mm. N'est-ce pas?
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.
jcolwell wrote:
I made a direct comparison of the exact situation under discussion. Face your own palm.
xpfloyd wrote:
Literally the wrong focal range, doesn’t even overlap. Face palm yourself
I believe they overlap at 70mm. N'est-ce pas?
Feb 27, 2021 at 02:55 PM
p.33 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
24-70 GM is good, I think it's as good as 35-70/3.4 ( no direct comparison done) as long as the sun is not in the frame, flare is an issue. I have landscape shots from the GM which I think the technical quality is really good.
The GM makes the camera front heavy, I don't exactly like carrying that combo, and I can feel that too when adjusting on tripod head.
24-105 seems just as good as GM but I haven't use a lot and haven't really done serious landscape/cityscape shots with it.
I really enjoy using the 35-70/3.4 for landscape, hard stop infinity focus is dead on in my copy (with Raquel adaptor combo), macro mode is not bad too.
OTOH, the GM is good for some people shots too.
The GM makes the camera front heavy, I don't exactly like carrying that combo, and I can feel that too when adjusting on tripod head.
24-105 seems just as good as GM but I haven't use a lot and haven't really done serious landscape/cityscape shots with it.
I really enjoy using the 35-70/3.4 for landscape, hard stop infinity focus is dead on in my copy (with Raquel adaptor combo), macro mode is not bad too.
OTOH, the GM is good for some people shots too.
Feb 28, 2021 at 09:55 PM
p.33 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I would NEVER trust "hard stop infinity". How can I know that that is already the optimum sharpness I can achieve at infinity? Manual lenses must always be able to focus a little bit beyond infinity so that you can hit the exact point of maximum sharpness (via magnification in the viewfinder). I had to search for a shorter adapter for my CY 35-70 and CY 28-85 because both weren't adjusted right for infinity and no one in my region was able/willing to adjust the lenses. Now, with a no-name 12 bucks adapter they work properly :-)
Feb 28, 2021 at 11:03 PM
p.33 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
My CY 35 - 70 has been sitting in the closet since my Canon days. Reading some of these posts makes me want to experiment with it on my A7RIII. Anyone have recommendations as to the best adapter?
Mar 02, 2021 at 03:15 PM
p.33 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
colormuse wrote:
My CY 35 - 70 has been sitting in the closet since my Canon days. Reading some of these posts makes me want to experiment with it on my A7RIII. Anyone have recommendations as to the best adapter?
Leitax is a great one, as is Novoflex. Both are not cheap though. I have both and they are rock solid!
My CY 35 - 70 has been sitting in the closet since my Canon days. Reading some of these posts makes me want to experiment with it on my A7RIII. Anyone have recommendations as to the best adapter?
Leitax is a great one, as is Novoflex. Both are not cheap though. I have both and they are rock solid!
Mar 02, 2021 at 05:39 PM
p.33 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
"Leitax is a great one, as is Novoflex. Both are not cheap though. I have both and they are rock solid!"
I would also add Rayqual to that list of excellent and expensive. I hear that K&F concept are the best of the cheap ones.
I would also add Rayqual to that list of excellent and expensive. I hear that K&F concept are the best of the cheap ones.
Mar 02, 2021 at 06:58 PM
p.33 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Any adapter which has an OK star rating on Amazon will work. Buy a K&F, most probably it will totally suffice.
You will have to check, though, whether infinity focus is properly reached (i.e. whether you can focus slightly beyond infinity at all focal lengths stopped down). Can be a problem with these Contax zooms. If not, you will want to search for a slightly shorter adapter...
You will have to check, though, whether infinity focus is properly reached (i.e. whether you can focus slightly beyond infinity at all focal lengths stopped down). Can be a problem with these Contax zooms. If not, you will want to search for a slightly shorter adapter...
Mar 02, 2021 at 10:43 PM
p.33 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Too long an adapter is definitely a problem. There are some lens designs which will perform poorly if the adapter is too short, especially in the corners. Does anyone know if the Contax 35-70 is one of those lenses?
Mine is great from 40-70mm, but I sometimes wonder if the corner performance at 35mm isn't being impacted by my Leitax adapter which hits infinity focus well before the infinity mark.
Anyone who has tried a "longish" adapter like the Novoflex vs a "shortish" adapter see any difference?
Mine is great from 40-70mm, but I sometimes wonder if the corner performance at 35mm isn't being impacted by my Leitax adapter which hits infinity focus well before the infinity mark.
Anyone who has tried a "longish" adapter like the Novoflex vs a "shortish" adapter see any difference?
Mar 03, 2021 at 01:18 PM
p.33 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Having the slightly too short adapter hasn't degraded the performance of my Contax lenses in any detectable way.
I think the problems occur mainly with lenses which have aspherical elements and thus react very sensibly to deviations from the intended flange distance. My Contaxes don't have aspherical elements.
And corner performance at 35mm of my 35-70 is great, no problem there.
I think the problems occur mainly with lenses which have aspherical elements and thus react very sensibly to deviations from the intended flange distance. My Contaxes don't have aspherical elements.
And corner performance at 35mm of my 35-70 is great, no problem there.
Mar 03, 2021 at 01:30 PM
p.33 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
hasenbein wrote:
Having the slightly too short adapter hasn't degraded the performance of my Contax lenses in any detectable way.
I think the problems occur mainly with lenses which have aspherical elements and thus react very sensibly to deviations from the intended flange distance. My Contaxes don't have aspherical elements.
And corner performance at 35mm of my 35-70 is great, no problem there.
I think the type focusing mechanism can also play a role, lenses with an internal focusing group (in zooms or floating element in primes) can also be sensitive to flange distance.
A lot of the classic Zeiss primes and even ZE/ZF/Z* lenses use "unit-focusing" where all the glass moves in unison and flange distance doesn't matter at all here, except for focus scale accuracy and close focus distance maybe.
My 35-70 seems to move internal groups and the rear extends when zooming, so I guess it could have an impact on IQ. But my CY 35-70 is leitaxed to PK and then adapted to Sony (and inf wanders based on zoom distance) but the corners look as good or better than my Sony 24-105 at f/8.
Mar 03, 2021 at 05:43 PM
p.33 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
My Rayqual (Kindai in Japan) adapter is good, sometimes I want to get another lens to mount on it lol. The adapter just feel like part of the lens, so much better than my other adapters (like Kipon for F mount and Mamiya, Pentax 645 lens). I got the adapter and lens while traveling, was given a 2 week return window for the Contax (Map camera Tokyo) so I decided to get the best adapter I can find in the area(hopefully can rule out adapter problem).
I 've done test and the infinity focus mark on the lens works (focus in the center), although I sometimes go back a tiny little bit (really really little) for the corners so I know how I can use the hard stop infinity.
I know some lens can focus way past the infinity mark (like Nikon AI-S 180/2.8, I can only remember this ) but this Contax is not one of them so I am happy with an adapter of "just right" length.
10 lens 10 group maybe not sensitive to flange distance? No mention of focusing mechanism here
https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/contax-yashica/en/datasheet-zeiss-vario-sonnar-343570-en.pdf
I 've done test and the infinity focus mark on the lens works (focus in the center), although I sometimes go back a tiny little bit (really really little) for the corners so I know how I can use the hard stop infinity.
I know some lens can focus way past the infinity mark (like Nikon AI-S 180/2.8, I can only remember this ) but this Contax is not one of them so I am happy with an adapter of "just right" length.
10 lens 10 group maybe not sensitive to flange distance? No mention of focusing mechanism here
https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/contax-yashica/en/datasheet-zeiss-vario-sonnar-343570-en.pdf
Mar 03, 2021 at 08:51 PM
p.33 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Budget: K&F
Premium: Rayqual/Kindai
The biggest issue with the premium adapters is price. If you are patient, then you can get a much better price used. Whatever the black paint is on the Rayqual isn't very good. It shows wear quickly. That helps with getting a better price used, but doesn't impact the function.
billsnature wrote:
Too long an adapter is definitely a problem. There are some lens designs which will perform poorly if the adapter is too short, especially in the corners. Does anyone know if the Contax 35-70 is one of those lenses?
Are you sure about this?
I know rangefinder lenses will perform poorly in the corners on Sony mirrorless and they have a short adapter because the adapter makes up the difference between flange focal distances. However, this has nothing to do with how short the adapter is due to other issues.
Most adapters will be slightly shorter because if they are slightly too long it is much worse. Too short means the lens will focus past infinity. Too long means the lens will never be able to reach infinity.
The mount is not perfect either. There is variation. Sony's variation can be pretty large depending on the camera model as tested by lens rentals.
If you need the precision, then you will need to add spacers and "tune" your adapter.
Premium: Rayqual/Kindai
The biggest issue with the premium adapters is price. If you are patient, then you can get a much better price used. Whatever the black paint is on the Rayqual isn't very good. It shows wear quickly. That helps with getting a better price used, but doesn't impact the function.
billsnature wrote:
Too long an adapter is definitely a problem. There are some lens designs which will perform poorly if the adapter is too short, especially in the corners. Does anyone know if the Contax 35-70 is one of those lenses?
Are you sure about this?
I know rangefinder lenses will perform poorly in the corners on Sony mirrorless and they have a short adapter because the adapter makes up the difference between flange focal distances. However, this has nothing to do with how short the adapter is due to other issues.
Most adapters will be slightly shorter because if they are slightly too long it is much worse. Too short means the lens will focus past infinity. Too long means the lens will never be able to reach infinity.
The mount is not perfect either. There is variation. Sony's variation can be pretty large depending on the camera model as tested by lens rentals.
If you need the precision, then you will need to add spacers and "tune" your adapter.
Mar 04, 2021 at 09:05 PM
p.33 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
But for that, you need a "too short" adapter on which you then can add shims.
If you have a too long adapter, you're out of luck - you can "tune" nothing...
If you have a too long adapter, you're out of luck - you can "tune" nothing...
Mar 04, 2021 at 10:19 PM
p.33 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Have you ever gotten an adapter that was too long?
Mar 05, 2021 at 10:55 AM
p.33 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I think Rayqual pushes their adapters further to the limits than Novoflex in my experience. I have gotten Rayquals that don’t quite seem to let some lenses reach infinity. But it also allows hard stop infinity focus on some lenses. Novoflex you usually have to back off the hard stop.
cbass wrote:
Have you ever gotten an adapter that was too long?
Mar 05, 2021 at 11:00 AM
p.33 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
What the old CZ lenses delivered is not something the modern zooms can do. That individual signature is close to a definition of what a heritage character lens is. So 'what's best?' can be replaced by 'Is the look for me?'.
Some lenses have enough in them to stand the test of time. This one was produced in the 1980s, so that might suggest something. And the character lenses are all different from each other of course, very different in fact.
..
..
..
Some lenses have enough in them to stand the test of time. This one was produced in the 1980s, so that might suggest something. And the character lenses are all different from each other of course, very different in fact.
..
..
..
Mar 06, 2021 at 02:55 AM
p.33 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
So I have been using this lens since I purchased it to get a feel for it and it's interesting. It's a very good lens and it's capable of pixel level sharpness, but often you get images that appear sharp but are not pixel level sharp. It creates a pleasant image with some softness but still very high detail. It results in a rendering that I can best describe as organic. Wide open it's not the best. Mine cleans up by f/4 considerably and I would say it's great from then onward. It's not prime level sharp at least not compared to the best primes, but it's within striking distance stopped down. You won't notice it unless you pixel peep against a strong prime. Coatings are very effective. Modern level good or even better. It's almost impossible to get it to flare. It's possible, but you have to really be pushing your luck.
The 35-70 range is a lot more useful than I predicted. I don't feel limited as I originally assumed. On mine 50mm is the strongest focal length followed by 35mm and then finally 70mm. At least when looking at the corners.
The push pull zoom is also not an issue. I find myself very proficient with it. It's a motion every man is familiar with. If you are finding issues in handling, then congratulations you have married or dated well.
The 35-70 range is a lot more useful than I predicted. I don't feel limited as I originally assumed. On mine 50mm is the strongest focal length followed by 35mm and then finally 70mm. At least when looking at the corners.
The push pull zoom is also not an issue. I find myself very proficient with it. It's a motion every man is familiar with. If you are finding issues in handling, then congratulations you have married or dated well.
Mar 08, 2021 at 11:12 AM
p.33 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Just bought a Novoflex adapter. Testing the lens at 70, 50, and 35mm, I notice some decentering in one corner at f/8 and f/11 out-of-camera when I do the brick wall test. But when I first zero out sharpening and then apply100% texture in that corner with the adjustment brush, then run Topaz Sharpen AI, the result looks surprisingly good. Edges and corners are pretty poor at f/3.5 and f/5.8 at all focal lengths out-of-camera, but the same technique again produces excellent results.
I must say, accurate focusing takes practice, even with focus peaking.
I must say, accurate focusing takes practice, even with focus peaking.
Mar 11, 2021 at 02:51 PM
p.33 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
colormuse,
There are things that can go wrong in a brick wall test. I would do the following test instead. It's a much better indicator of optical alignment issues.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/how-to-check-how-decentered-your-lens-is/
They call it a decentering test, but it's more than that as it also detects tilted lens elements.
If you actually have a copy with lens element alignment issues, then I would return the lens if possible or look for another copy.
There are things that can go wrong in a brick wall test. I would do the following test instead. It's a much better indicator of optical alignment issues.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/how-to-check-how-decentered-your-lens-is/
They call it a decentering test, but it's more than that as it also detects tilted lens elements.
If you actually have a copy with lens element alignment issues, then I would return the lens if possible or look for another copy.
Mar 11, 2021 at 08:13 PM
p.33 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Fred Miranda wrote
I would stay away from these older Leica R zooms. I've tried both Leica R 28-90 and 35-70 zooms and corners didn't look good even stopped down. Nice colors and rendering though.
artur5 wrote:
No need for that. I haven't ever tried those lenses and no doubt you'll know better. Nothing like personal experience. It's just that your not very favorable comments on that pair of zooms seems to contradict not only E. Puts but several other opinions out there. We know that Mr. Puts is considered a bit of a Leica spokesman but his tests are usually accurate and devoid of 'fanboyism'. I've read from him rather harsh statements about a few revered Leica classical designs of yesteryear
Sorry to resurrect an old thread. I have both the Leica 35-70 f/4 ROM and CY 35-70 and Fred's testing matches mine. The Leica's corners are not as good as the Zeiss. The Leica also at 35mm is noticeably worse than the Zeiss. The Zeiss is the superior landscape lens.
This is a bit of a shock to me because the Leica was produced a decade later and uses an aspheric lens element that is not advertised. In theory it should have the advantage. However, it is what it is. The Leica is still an exceptional lens. I think the images from it are perhaps even slightly more 3D than the Zeiss believe it or not and the color saturation of the Leica is very intense compared to the Zeiss. I am starting to prefer the Leica for people photography, but the Contax remains the landscape King. I also am able to push the RAW files from the Zeiss much further and struggle more with the Leica RAWs.
As for E. Puts. That depends on what you are referring to him saying. I remember him saying that the 35-70 f/4 is as good or better than the equivalent Leica R primes at equal apertures. If you are referring to that statement, then both Fred and E. Puts can be correct. It can be a prime good zoom. I can confirm this to be true from my own testing. However, he probably tested only against Leica R primes, but that would mean the Zeiss zoom is better than the equivalent R primes especially when it comes to corners. I am not sure if this is also true on film as we are testing them on digital sensors and perhaps that is a factor.
Edited on Apr 14, 2022 at 11:04 PM · View previous versions
I would stay away from these older Leica R zooms. I've tried both Leica R 28-90 and 35-70 zooms and corners didn't look good even stopped down. Nice colors and rendering though.
artur5 wrote:
No need for that. I haven't ever tried those lenses and no doubt you'll know better. Nothing like personal experience. It's just that your not very favorable comments on that pair of zooms seems to contradict not only E. Puts but several other opinions out there. We know that Mr. Puts is considered a bit of a Leica spokesman but his tests are usually accurate and devoid of 'fanboyism'. I've read from him rather harsh statements about a few revered Leica classical designs of yesteryear
Sorry to resurrect an old thread. I have both the Leica 35-70 f/4 ROM and CY 35-70 and Fred's testing matches mine. The Leica's corners are not as good as the Zeiss. The Leica also at 35mm is noticeably worse than the Zeiss. The Zeiss is the superior landscape lens.
This is a bit of a shock to me because the Leica was produced a decade later and uses an aspheric lens element that is not advertised. In theory it should have the advantage. However, it is what it is. The Leica is still an exceptional lens. I think the images from it are perhaps even slightly more 3D than the Zeiss believe it or not and the color saturation of the Leica is very intense compared to the Zeiss. I am starting to prefer the Leica for people photography, but the Contax remains the landscape King. I also am able to push the RAW files from the Zeiss much further and struggle more with the Leica RAWs.
As for E. Puts. That depends on what you are referring to him saying. I remember him saying that the 35-70 f/4 is as good or better than the equivalent Leica R primes at equal apertures. If you are referring to that statement, then both Fred and E. Puts can be correct. It can be a prime good zoom. I can confirm this to be true from my own testing. However, he probably tested only against Leica R primes, but that would mean the Zeiss zoom is better than the equivalent R primes especially when it comes to corners. I am not sure if this is also true on film as we are testing them on digital sensors and perhaps that is a factor.
Edited on Apr 14, 2022 at 11:04 PM · View previous versions
Apr 14, 2022 at 05:51 PM