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.34 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Still unreal to me in 2022, the CY 35-70 and 100-300 offer what they do, especially given the size and price. Imagine if Zeiss cared at all about making ultra high IQ relatively small lenses. Or any consumer glass at all 
Apr 14, 2022 at 06:01 PM
p.34 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Still unreal to me in 2022, the CY 35-70 and 100-300 offer what they do, especially given the size and price. Imagine if Zeiss cared at all about making ultra high IQ relatively small lenses. Or any consumer glass at all
My landscape kit consists of the Zeiss ze 21, 35, 50 and 100. Sharp, great micro-contrast and colours. Never looked at replacing these lenses.
Still unreal to me in 2022, the CY 35-70 and 100-300 offer what they do, especially given the size and price. Imagine if Zeiss cared at all about making ultra high IQ relatively small lenses. Or any consumer glass at all
My landscape kit consists of the Zeiss ze 21, 35, 50 and 100. Sharp, great micro-contrast and colours. Never looked at replacing these lenses.
Apr 14, 2022 at 06:18 PM
p.34 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
chez wrote:
My landscape kit consists of the Zeiss ze 21, 35, 50 and 100. Sharp, great micro-contrast and colours. Never looked at replacing these lenses.
That’s great glass. One of my most used lenses is the Contax G 21/2.8–the OG of modern Zeiss 21mm’s. I prefer it to the modern glass for the same reasons you do regarding the exceptionally pleasing colors and micro-contrast. Which 35 and 50 are you using?
edit: I didn't realize the G 21 came out 4 years after the CY 21/2.8 (1992), so an OG but not the OG.
nehemiahphoto wrote
Still unreal to me in 2022, the CY 35-70 and 100-300 offer what they do, especially given the size and price. Imagine if Zeiss cared at all about making ultra high IQ relatively small lenses. Or any consumer glass at allThat’s great glass. One of my most used lenses is the Contax G 21/2.8–the OG of modern Zeiss 21mm’s. I prefer it to the modern glass for the same reasons you do regarding the exceptionally pleasing colors and micro-contrast. Which 35 and 50 are you using?
edit: I didn't realize the G 21 came out 4 years after the CY 21/2.8 (1992), so an OG but not the OG.
Apr 14, 2022 at 06:31 PM
p.34 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I use the 35 - 70 CY for product and landscape photography, always on a tripod or stand. For what I am shooting, my F Stops are between F5.6 and 11. I have yet to see any CA, every image has been tack sharp corner to corner and now with my A7RIVa it is almost like looking at a 4x5 transparency shot with a Rodenstock Sironar S lens and viewing through a quality German glass loupe. Yes, it is that good... my copy anyway.
35-70mm 70mm 13S @ F8 on camera stand - A7RIV
100% crop of above image
35-70mm 70mm 13S @ F8 on camera stand - A7RIV
100% crop of above image
Apr 15, 2022 at 09:43 AM
p.34 #5Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
You are lucky to not see any CA. I see it from time to time and honestly that's pretty common with Contax. They aren't APO lenses, but not bad by any means.
Perhaps a small hijack of the thread. I have seen people mention flocking the adapter. I would like to offer an alternative that I have used. It seems that most flocking is a black velvet material with a sticky backing inside the adapter. That black velvet material is probably the most effective at reducing reflection, but I always worry about it breaking down and tiny little fibers going all over my sensor.
For my adapters I have painted the inside with a paint called Black 2.0. There is also Black 3.0 which is even less reflective, but it requires a primer and often Black 2.0 is used for the primer. Black 2.0 is black enough for me and will paint on without any primer. Furthermore, I have some lenses where the factory blackening looks to be pretty much identical in reflectivity to Black 2.0. I have no relation to the company that makes Black 2.0 nor do I get any proceeds or free stuff from them. I just wanted to share an alternative.
Perhaps a small hijack of the thread. I have seen people mention flocking the adapter. I would like to offer an alternative that I have used. It seems that most flocking is a black velvet material with a sticky backing inside the adapter. That black velvet material is probably the most effective at reducing reflection, but I always worry about it breaking down and tiny little fibers going all over my sensor.
For my adapters I have painted the inside with a paint called Black 2.0. There is also Black 3.0 which is even less reflective, but it requires a primer and often Black 2.0 is used for the primer. Black 2.0 is black enough for me and will paint on without any primer. Furthermore, I have some lenses where the factory blackening looks to be pretty much identical in reflectivity to Black 2.0. I have no relation to the company that makes Black 2.0 nor do I get any proceeds or free stuff from them. I just wanted to share an alternative.
Apr 15, 2022 at 11:11 AM
p.34 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
My landscape kit consists of the Zeiss ze 21, 35, 50 and 100. Sharp, great micro-contrast and colours. Never looked at replacing these lenses.That’s great glass. One of my most used lenses is the Contax G 21/2.8–the OG of modern Zeiss 21mm’s. I prefer it to the modern glass for the same reasons you do regarding the exceptionally pleasing colors and micro-contrast. Which 35 and 50 are you using?
edit: I didn't realize the G 21 came out 4 years after the CY 21/2.8 (1992), so an OG but not the OG.
The 35 is the f2 distagon and the 50 is the 1.4 Planar. Really love the 50 as wide open it gives you a dreamy look, but stopped down its sharp as a pin with great colours and contrast.
chez wrote
nehemiahphoto wrote
Still unreal to me in 2022, the CY 35-70 and 100-300 offer what they do, especially given the size and price. Imagine if Zeiss cared at all about making ultra high IQ relatively small lenses. Or any consumer glass at alledit: I didn't realize the G 21 came out 4 years after the CY 21/2.8 (1992), so an OG but not the OG.
The 35 is the f2 distagon and the 50 is the 1.4 Planar. Really love the 50 as wide open it gives you a dreamy look, but stopped down its sharp as a pin with great colours and contrast.
Apr 15, 2022 at 11:33 AM
p.34 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
cbass wrote:
You are lucky to not see any CA. I see it from time to time and honestly that's pretty common with Contax. They aren't APO lenses, but not bad by any means.
Perhaps a small hijack of the thread. I have seen people mention flocking the adapter. I would like to offer an alternative that I have used. It seems that most flocking is a black velvet material with a sticky backing inside the adapter. That black velvet material is probably the most effective at reducing reflection, but I always worry about it breaking down and tiny little fibers going...Show more →
Paint can also flake off and get on the sensor...
Apr 15, 2022 at 11:57 AM
p.34 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The 35 is the f2 distagon and the 50 is the 1.4 Planar. Really love the 50 as wide open it gives you a dreamy look, but stopped down its sharp as a pin with great colours and contrast.
I had the 50 1.4 in the film days. It almost rivaled my MF lenses. I also have the 21mm 2.8 MMJ CY and that is one exceptional lens.
Apr 15, 2022 at 12:18 PM
p.34 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
cbass wrote:
You are lucky to not see any CA. I see it from time to time and honestly that's pretty common with Contax. They aren't APO lenses, but not bad by any means.
Perhaps a small hijack of the thread. I have seen people mention flocking the adapter. I would like to offer an alternative that I have used. It seems that most flocking is a black velvet material with a sticky backing inside the adapter. That black velvet material is probably the most effective at reducing reflection, but I always worry about it breaking down and tiny little fibers going...Show more →
Maybe I did get lucky. I order that lens several years ago for my A7R and have been amazed on every body. I could swear it had never been used and was actually Mint as far as I could tell. I guess I got a great copy along with my Novaflex adapter.
You are lucky to not see any CA. I see it from time to time and honestly that's pretty common with Contax. They aren't APO lenses, but not bad by any means.
Perhaps a small hijack of the thread. I have seen people mention flocking the adapter. I would like to offer an alternative that I have used. It seems that most flocking is a black velvet material with a sticky backing inside the adapter. That black velvet material is probably the most effective at reducing reflection, but I always worry about it breaking down and tiny little fibers going...Show more →
Maybe I did get lucky. I order that lens several years ago for my A7R and have been amazed on every body. I could swear it had never been used and was actually Mint as far as I could tell. I guess I got a great copy along with my Novaflex adapter.
Apr 15, 2022 at 12:21 PM
p.34 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Carl Zeiss AG always had a reputation for very low lateral CA, this was known to all and sundry in the heyday of the CY range. Mine also have lower/softer LoCA than the FE 55/1.8 too. The 35-70 used at typical apertures exhibits the excellence of slow lenses in this regard, as with the other major aberrations - slow lenses start out with a big advantage, of course.
No Sigma-like wild distortion here nor Leica-esque curvature, just solid optical design - no asph, no APD glass. These were lenses that were waiting for camera sensor techology to catch up with them. They spoiled a lot of photographers for much of what came later. A remake of the 35-70 (that we will never see) would very likely blitz all competitors.
CZ were never big on v2 releases unlike (ahem) many others. A lot of content here is off the focal plane, deep DOF is excellent. CA can be assessed - OOC. Effortless colour handling of the Australian gum trees in the hot sun.
..
..
No Sigma-like wild distortion here nor Leica-esque curvature, just solid optical design - no asph, no APD glass. These were lenses that were waiting for camera sensor techology to catch up with them. They spoiled a lot of photographers for much of what came later. A remake of the 35-70 (that we will never see) would very likely blitz all competitors.
CZ were never big on v2 releases unlike (ahem) many others. A lot of content here is off the focal plane, deep DOF is excellent. CA can be assessed - OOC. Effortless colour handling of the Australian gum trees in the hot sun.
..
..
Apr 15, 2022 at 04:35 PM
p.34 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
hasenbein wrote:
Paint can also flake off and get on the sensor...
This is also a possibility. I am not an expert here so feel to add any experience. However, I would think little fibers are more likely to be fall off than paint flake off? I also run a non-fiber shedding cloth after the paint has had time to cure to remove any potential loose pieces. Like I stated previously. I have two lens factory painted parts. One is 1:1 extension tube for a macro lens and the other is the way the company adapted the lens to other mounts, and both appear to be painted with a similar paint. They do not appear anodized or powder coated but I am no expert.
philip_pj wrote:
Carl Zeiss AG always had a reputation for very low lateral CA, this was known to all and sundry in the heyday of the CY range. Mine also have lower/softer LoCA than the FE 55/1.8 too. The 35-70 used at typical apertures exhibits the excellence of slow lenses in this regard, as with the other major aberrations - slow lenses start out with a big advantage, of course.
No Sigma-like wild distortion here nor Leica-esque curvature, just solid optical design - no asph, no APD glass.
The CA are relatively well controlled but they are there in my copy and it's not my best lens when it comes to that. Just look at the tree to the right of the last picture you posted.
Regarding Leica curvature. Are the Leica R lenses known for that? To my eyes many of the Leica R lenses look as if they are pushing the background back and can have slightly better 3D effect. Is that due to curvature?
Paint can also flake off and get on the sensor...
This is also a possibility. I am not an expert here so feel to add any experience. However, I would think little fibers are more likely to be fall off than paint flake off? I also run a non-fiber shedding cloth after the paint has had time to cure to remove any potential loose pieces. Like I stated previously. I have two lens factory painted parts. One is 1:1 extension tube for a macro lens and the other is the way the company adapted the lens to other mounts, and both appear to be painted with a similar paint. They do not appear anodized or powder coated but I am no expert.
philip_pj wrote:
Carl Zeiss AG always had a reputation for very low lateral CA, this was known to all and sundry in the heyday of the CY range. Mine also have lower/softer LoCA than the FE 55/1.8 too. The 35-70 used at typical apertures exhibits the excellence of slow lenses in this regard, as with the other major aberrations - slow lenses start out with a big advantage, of course.
No Sigma-like wild distortion here nor Leica-esque curvature, just solid optical design - no asph, no APD glass.
The CA are relatively well controlled but they are there in my copy and it's not my best lens when it comes to that. Just look at the tree to the right of the last picture you posted.
Regarding Leica curvature. Are the Leica R lenses known for that? To my eyes many of the Leica R lenses look as if they are pushing the background back and can have slightly better 3D effect. Is that due to curvature?
Apr 15, 2022 at 08:25 PM
p.34 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Since someone unearthed my fossil of a post I will share my current view of the world as the OP.
I did move on from the 24-70 GM.
I did buy a 24-105 G.
I sold and re-bought the Contax 35-70 after trying the Leica 35-70.
I am toying with idea of buying the Tamron 28-75mm Gen2 hoping it can replace both the 24-105 G and the Contax 35-70
I will not be so stupid as to sell the Contax 35-70 for the 5th or 6th time, because I am sure I will rebuy it.
I did move on from the 24-70 GM.
I did buy a 24-105 G.
I sold and re-bought the Contax 35-70 after trying the Leica 35-70.
I am toying with idea of buying the Tamron 28-75mm Gen2 hoping it can replace both the 24-105 G and the Contax 35-70
I will not be so stupid as to sell the Contax 35-70 for the 5th or 6th time, because I am sure I will rebuy it.
Apr 16, 2022 at 02:12 PM
p.34 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
billsnature wrote:
I sold and re-bought the Contax 35-70 after trying the Leica 35-70.
Does that mean you moved on from the Leica 35-70?
If so, then what was the reason?
I sold and re-bought the Contax 35-70 after trying the Leica 35-70.
Does that mean you moved on from the Leica 35-70?
If so, then what was the reason?
Apr 16, 2022 at 04:50 PM
p.34 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I’ve still got my 35-70, but don’t use it much at all now. I always reach for the VC 35/2 APO and VC 50/2 APO. They are better in every way than 35-70, but it’s been a fantastic lens for many years.
Apr 16, 2022 at 05:10 PM
p.34 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The CY 35-70 is a definite favourite lens of mine for landscapes.
Apr 16, 2022 at 09:32 PM
p.34 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
IndyFab wrote:
TakenWild wrote
I’ve still got my 35-70, but don’t use it much at all now. I always reach for the VC 35/2 APO and VC 50/2 APO. They are better in every way than 35-70, but it’s been a fantastic lens for many years.https://live.staticflickr.com/4824/31582254037_70bdd983f1_h.jpg
C/Y 35-70
Could do without the very artificial, overdone HDR processing... this way the photo could be shot with any sharp lens, the character of the CY is completely removed.
Apr 16, 2022 at 11:18 PM
p.34 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
hasenbein wrote:
Could do without the very artificial, overdone HDR processing... this way the photo could be shot with any sharp lens, the character of the CY is completely removed.
Maybe it's overcooked, maybe not. I've seen situations that look very much exactly like that, at least one, maybe twice.
Could do without the very artificial, overdone HDR processing... this way the photo could be shot with any sharp lens, the character of the CY is completely removed.
Maybe it's overcooked, maybe not. I've seen situations that look very much exactly like that, at least one, maybe twice.
Apr 17, 2022 at 05:51 AM
p.34 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Don’t be ridiculous! These photos aren’t over cooked. Photography is an art, many people decided to edit differently. If it isn’t to your taste move on. I think these are great, well edited shots.
hasenbein wrote:
Agree, but I still have love for my C/Y 35-70 & 100-300
https://live.staticflickr.com/4824/31582254037_70bdd983f1_h.jpg
C/Y 35-70Could do without the very artificial, overdone HDR processing... this way the photo could be shot with any sharp lens, the character of the CY is completely removed.
hasenbein wrote:
IndyFab wrote
TakenWild wrote
I’ve still got my 35-70, but don’t use it much at all now. I always reach for the VC 35/2 APO and VC 50/2 APO. They are better in every way than 35-70, but it’s been a fantastic lens for many years.https://live.staticflickr.com/4824/31582254037_70bdd983f1_h.jpg
C/Y 35-70
Apr 17, 2022 at 07:01 AM
p.34 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
cbass wrote:
Does that mean you moved on from the Leica 35-70?
If so, then what was the reason?
Yes I sold the Leica 35-70.
The main reason for moving on was associated with filters and hood. Using a CPL was a major pain, and near impossible at certain focal lengths where the filter thread retracts inside the outer barrel. The filter thread also rotates on focusing and the 60mm filter is uncommon and the use of a 60-62 step up not possible. Both the Leica and Contax have great rendering compared to current zooms, but I might have a slight preference for the Contax on landscape items.
billsnature wrote
I sold and re-bought the Contax 35-70 after trying the Leica 35-70.If so, then what was the reason?
Yes I sold the Leica 35-70.
The main reason for moving on was associated with filters and hood. Using a CPL was a major pain, and near impossible at certain focal lengths where the filter thread retracts inside the outer barrel. The filter thread also rotates on focusing and the 60mm filter is uncommon and the use of a 60-62 step up not possible. Both the Leica and Contax have great rendering compared to current zooms, but I might have a slight preference for the Contax on landscape items.
Apr 17, 2022 at 09:40 AM