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.35 #1Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
billsnature wrote:
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.
Thank you for the feedback. Sounds like it was handling related over IQ.
I know people say they prefer the handling of the Leica and I can see why, but to me it's a mixed bag. It's a two ring zoom over a push pull so that is a plus. The Leica does not grow or shrink like the Contax. However, the filter retracting into the lens body creates issues and is just odd. Both have a rotating front element which is a CPL issue on both. The Leica also has a very short throw for the focus. Less than 90 degrees. Small movements affect focus. I struggled greatly with this and missed focus more than with any other manual focus I ever used in my life. I have since gotten used to it. Both the Zeiss and Leica aren't the best in regards to handling.
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.
Thank you for the feedback. Sounds like it was handling related over IQ.
I know people say they prefer the handling of the Leica and I can see why, but to me it's a mixed bag. It's a two ring zoom over a push pull so that is a plus. The Leica does not grow or shrink like the Contax. However, the filter retracting into the lens body creates issues and is just odd. Both have a rotating front element which is a CPL issue on both. The Leica also has a very short throw for the focus. Less than 90 degrees. Small movements affect focus. I struggled greatly with this and missed focus more than with any other manual focus I ever used in my life. I have since gotten used to it. Both the Zeiss and Leica aren't the best in regards to handling.
Apr 18, 2022 at 11:58 AM
p.35 #2Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Preference for the Leica 35-70 or the CY 35-70 largely reflects your attitude to their colour model and design priorities. Both are excellent.
For those who have trouble considering these early German zooms (there is a phrase you won't hear much) could be as good as their primes, here is Erwin Puts talking about the R 35-70/4 technical performance:
"Its performance is as good, if not better than that of the comparable lenses with fixed focal length
at the same apertures, the LEICA SUMMICRON-R 35 mm f/2, the LEICA SUMMILUX-R 35 mm f/1.4, the LEICA SUMMICRON-R 50 mm f/2 and the LEICA SUMMILUX-R 80 mm f/1.4."
For those who have trouble considering these early German zooms (there is a phrase you won't hear much) could be as good as their primes, here is Erwin Puts talking about the R 35-70/4 technical performance:
"Its performance is as good, if not better than that of the comparable lenses with fixed focal length
at the same apertures, the LEICA SUMMICRON-R 35 mm f/2, the LEICA SUMMILUX-R 35 mm f/1.4, the LEICA SUMMICRON-R 50 mm f/2 and the LEICA SUMMILUX-R 80 mm f/1.4."
Apr 18, 2022 at 06:24 PM
p.35 #3Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
'Are the Leica R lenses known for that?'
Yes, many are, including those referred to by Puts in the above quote. Leica very often favoured ultra strong centres to the detriment of midfield curvature and outer frame fall-off, CZ was the exact opposite. Not an opinion, the MTF backs this up. Many are purely people lenses.
'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.'
Me too, but I never denigrate the image quality of the 35-70, especially on low Mp sensors (up to 36mp) which permit its flat field and outer frames to shine. I can't even definitively say the 35/50 APO pair can replace the CY's attractive colour/contrast and deep DOF in the toughest environs I shoot in, due to the 'ongoing unmentionable' preventing me returning there.
The APOs are touchy with highlights, understandable in a 'hot' lens. And this is one reason I love the little CV 21/3.5, it has amaziing highlight handling. People of the future will see what it is capable of rather differently as tastes evolve away from today's favourites.
But the CY zooms are narrow focus and take much longer to set up. Shooting 100-200 images a day from a mountain jeep adds up fast, even an extra 2-3 minutes would lose me hours a day and make the driver cranky.
I'll not sell either the 35-70 or 100-300, there is something mystical about them. The 35-70/3.4 was designed by a guy who went on to spearhead Leica optics and Leica's use of asph surfaces. Ironic, as CZ took forever to use asph and the 35-70/3.4 lacks even one - it's a pure optical correction lens, all spherical elements. But the 35-70/4 R has a pressed asph element, done well.
Yes, many are, including those referred to by Puts in the above quote. Leica very often favoured ultra strong centres to the detriment of midfield curvature and outer frame fall-off, CZ was the exact opposite. Not an opinion, the MTF backs this up. Many are purely people lenses.
'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.'
Me too, but I never denigrate the image quality of the 35-70, especially on low Mp sensors (up to 36mp) which permit its flat field and outer frames to shine. I can't even definitively say the 35/50 APO pair can replace the CY's attractive colour/contrast and deep DOF in the toughest environs I shoot in, due to the 'ongoing unmentionable' preventing me returning there.
The APOs are touchy with highlights, understandable in a 'hot' lens. And this is one reason I love the little CV 21/3.5, it has amaziing highlight handling. People of the future will see what it is capable of rather differently as tastes evolve away from today's favourites.
But the CY zooms are narrow focus and take much longer to set up. Shooting 100-200 images a day from a mountain jeep adds up fast, even an extra 2-3 minutes would lose me hours a day and make the driver cranky.
I'll not sell either the 35-70 or 100-300, there is something mystical about them. The 35-70/3.4 was designed by a guy who went on to spearhead Leica optics and Leica's use of asph surfaces. Ironic, as CZ took forever to use asph and the 35-70/3.4 lacks even one - it's a pure optical correction lens, all spherical elements. But the 35-70/4 R has a pressed asph element, done well.
Apr 18, 2022 at 06:57 PM
p.35 #4Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Resurrecting this old classic thread again... I continue to love the CZ 35-70mm lens on the A7RIV. Images are tack sharp stopped down for increased depth of field. It seems that the lens is perfect for these max depth of field images.
A7RIV, CZ 35-70mm @70mm, 8sec, F16, ISO100
A7RIV, CZ 35-70mm @70mm, 10sec, F22, ISO100
A7RIV, CZ 35-70mm @35mm, 5sec, F11, ISO100
A7RIV, CZ 35-70mm @70mm, 8sec, F16, ISO100
A7RIV, CZ 35-70mm @70mm, 10sec, F22, ISO100
A7RIV, CZ 35-70mm @35mm, 5sec, F11, ISO100
Jan 14, 2023 at 10:10 AM
p.35 #5Contax 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 →
"the obvious are CV 15 - Loxia 21mm then what?" Voigtlander 35 & 50 APO or 65 APO then Loxia 85 or small and lite ZY85M Batis 135
Then CV 15 - Loxia 21mm then 24-70 II or CY35-70 or Tammy 35-150 & 70-200II or CY 100-300
For landscape you cant beat the APO's
Any of those lenses you will walk away with a beautifully captured landscape
Pick your poison !!
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 →
"the obvious are CV 15 - Loxia 21mm then what?" Voigtlander 35 & 50 APO or 65 APO then Loxia 85 or small and lite ZY85M Batis 135
Then CV 15 - Loxia 21mm then 24-70 II or CY35-70 or Tammy 35-150 & 70-200II or CY 100-300
For landscape you cant beat the APO's
Any of those lenses you will walk away with a beautifully captured landscape
Pick your poison !!
Jan 14, 2023 at 11:26 AM
p.35 #6Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
If you punch the glass out of an old Leica UV filter, you can use a step up ring to 67 (which is sort of a common diameter for me) and it clears the full focus/zoom range.
billsnature wrote:
cbass wrote
billsnature wrote
I sold and re-bought the Contax 35-70 after trying the Leica 35-70.If so, then what was the reason?
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.
Jan 14, 2023 at 03:19 PM
p.35 #7Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
That quoted post is from 2016. Quite a few options didn't exist back when he posted that.
IndyFab wrote:
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 thoughts at 35mm and 50mm
Then CV 15 - Loxia 21mm then 24-70 II or CY35-70 or Tammy 35-150 & 70-200II or CY 100-300
For landscape you cant beat the APO's
Any of those lenses you will walk away with a beautifully captured landscape
Pick your poison !!
Jan 14, 2023 at 03:23 PM
p.35 #8Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I will always love the Contax 35-70. Once i got the Leica 35-70mm 3-4 years ago, it made me kind of forget about the CY. It IS THAT good. sunstars are incredible wide open. Ive never seen that in a lens, and Ive had amazing lenses before (Nikon 14-24, Sigma 14-24, CY 35-70, CY 100-300mm, ZE 21mm etc).
Jan 14, 2023 at 07:53 PM
p.35 #9Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Dustin Gent wrote:
I will always love the Contax 35-70. Once i got the Leica 35-70mm 3-4 years ago, it made me kind of forget about the CY. It IS THAT good. sunstars are incredible wide open. Ive never seen that in a lens, and Ive had amazing lenses before (Nikon 14-24, Sigma 14-24, CY 35-70, CY 100-300mm, ZE 21mm etc).
I read all the love for the Leica 35-70/F4 and bought one after the CY 35-70. I have now had a good amount of time to use both and develop a better opinion.
I have not looked at sun stars, but I will take your word for it. I can see why some love the Leica 35-70. It has excellent saturation and colors. It is also very well built. However, the CY 35-70 is better especially for landscape.
For me the CY takes the crown for one reason and that is 35mm. First, comparing the CY to the Leica the CY is slightly wider at 35mm, which helps. Second, stopped down the CY is pretty much phenomenal even when compared to older and modern 35mm primes. The extreme corner performance at 35mm is matched or beaten by very few lenses. At 35mm the Leica especially in the extreme corners is weaker and has a pretty good amount of astigmatism. The CY is not free of astigmatism, but better controlled. The old photodo website, which averages MTF has the CY 35-70 at f/8 average to 0.85. There is not a single 35mm prime in their list that achieves that at f/8. The best primes average out to 0.83. Of course, their testing is limited to older lenses. Now average MTF perhaps is a weird method. However, even when you look at MTF charts of the Zeiss Loxia 35 it cannot attain the extreme corner performance of the old CY 35-70. The Loxia still has an advantage when it comes to distortion. It has virtually none while the CY Zoom has a lot more.
The story is the same for 50mm, which at f/8 they average out to 0.86. That's up there with pretty much any 50mm including the best primes. Just the performance at 35mm and 50mm make it worth considering, but 70mm is also a strong performer averaging to 0.84 at f/8. Wide open at f/3.4 the story is not so impressive. However, from experience the lens pretty much cleans up dramatically at the next stop of f/4 which is the minimum aperture that I use mine at. The biggest triumph of the lens is the performance at f/8, which is exceptional by any standard.
I will always love the Contax 35-70. Once i got the Leica 35-70mm 3-4 years ago, it made me kind of forget about the CY. It IS THAT good. sunstars are incredible wide open. Ive never seen that in a lens, and Ive had amazing lenses before (Nikon 14-24, Sigma 14-24, CY 35-70, CY 100-300mm, ZE 21mm etc).
I read all the love for the Leica 35-70/F4 and bought one after the CY 35-70. I have now had a good amount of time to use both and develop a better opinion.
I have not looked at sun stars, but I will take your word for it. I can see why some love the Leica 35-70. It has excellent saturation and colors. It is also very well built. However, the CY 35-70 is better especially for landscape.
For me the CY takes the crown for one reason and that is 35mm. First, comparing the CY to the Leica the CY is slightly wider at 35mm, which helps. Second, stopped down the CY is pretty much phenomenal even when compared to older and modern 35mm primes. The extreme corner performance at 35mm is matched or beaten by very few lenses. At 35mm the Leica especially in the extreme corners is weaker and has a pretty good amount of astigmatism. The CY is not free of astigmatism, but better controlled. The old photodo website, which averages MTF has the CY 35-70 at f/8 average to 0.85. There is not a single 35mm prime in their list that achieves that at f/8. The best primes average out to 0.83. Of course, their testing is limited to older lenses. Now average MTF perhaps is a weird method. However, even when you look at MTF charts of the Zeiss Loxia 35 it cannot attain the extreme corner performance of the old CY 35-70. The Loxia still has an advantage when it comes to distortion. It has virtually none while the CY Zoom has a lot more.
The story is the same for 50mm, which at f/8 they average out to 0.86. That's up there with pretty much any 50mm including the best primes. Just the performance at 35mm and 50mm make it worth considering, but 70mm is also a strong performer averaging to 0.84 at f/8. Wide open at f/3.4 the story is not so impressive. However, from experience the lens pretty much cleans up dramatically at the next stop of f/4 which is the minimum aperture that I use mine at. The biggest triumph of the lens is the performance at f/8, which is exceptional by any standard.
Jan 16, 2023 at 10:31 PM
p.35 #10Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
I used to have both 35-70/3.4 Vario Sonnar C/Y and Leica Vario Elmar R 35-70/4 ROM for a few years ,adapting them on Sony A7 series cameras.I liked them very much,preferring Leica for colour rendition and Zeiss for microcontrast.Now I have GM 24-70/2.8 II for about one year.All I can say is both old zooms,while having lots of character,are no match for the Sony in technical terms (sharpness wide open,sharpness across the frame stopped down,microcontrast).
Jan 17, 2023 at 04:56 AM
p.35 #11Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
The new 20-70/4 G would have to be a contender now. Combined with a tele zoom (70-200, 100-400 etc) you'd have a hell of a range for landscapes
Jan 17, 2023 at 10:32 AM
p.35 #12Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
cbass wrote:
I read all the love for the Leica 35-70/F4 and bought one after the CY 35-70. I have now had a good amount of time to use both and develop a better opinion.
I have not looked at sun stars, but I will take your word for it. I can see why some love the Leica 35-70. It has excellent saturation and colors. It is also very well built. However, the CY 35-70 is better especially for landscape.
For me the CY takes the crown for one reason and that is 35mm. First, comparing the CY to the Leica the CY is...Show more →
I agree, that both these lenses are astounding at 35, 50 and 70mm. I personally liked the feel of the Leica better - just a bit better refined if you will.
Aside from the sunstar, both lenses I would have no hesitation buying again; even if they are a duplicate lens covering the same range. If i didn't need AF, i would pick up either of these two. Ill dig up files from both and post them.
Jan 17, 2023 at 12:17 PM
p.35 #13Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
As a CZ 35-70 owner, the 20-70 is very interesting - starting at 20 instead of 24, 28, and 35 would be great. And after owning the lens for 4.5 years now, I do sometimes want something with a more modern look, but we know that’s a double edged sword with some lenses: more modern like newer Voigtlander, Zeiss, and GM lenses, not modern like Sigma or Tamron, if that makes sense.
Still, something about spending $$$ on a standard AF zoom feels a bit boring, so I might keep my 35-70 for a bit longer. It’s still sharp enough, with great colors and texture. Wanting an ever better lens is normal, but when something special is working, especially at $400, it’s worth keeping around.
Here are some nice pictures I’ve taken over the last several years of ownership. There’s definitely something special with this lens in my eyes.
Still, something about spending $$$ on a standard AF zoom feels a bit boring, so I might keep my 35-70 for a bit longer. It’s still sharp enough, with great colors and texture. Wanting an ever better lens is normal, but when something special is working, especially at $400, it’s worth keeping around.
Here are some nice pictures I’ve taken over the last several years of ownership. There’s definitely something special with this lens in my eyes.
ILCE-7RM2 ---- lens 1/250s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM2 ---- lens 1/320s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM2 ---- lens 1/640s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM2 ---- lens 1/10s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
Jan 17, 2023 at 12:23 PM
p.35 #14Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
For me, this lens is strictly for images where I want max depth of field. Whether in our product photography or in my landscapes, this lens seems superior. It seems, like many older lenses, that the CY 35-70mm was optimized for F8-11 and is it sharp at F16 as well. I don't think I have ever shot this lens at anything close to wide open. I have other modern lenses for that.
Jan 17, 2023 at 12:46 PM
p.35 #15Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Peire wrote:
I used to have both 35-70/3.4 Vario Sonnar C/Y and Leica Vario Elmar R 35-70/4 ROM for a few years ,adapting them on Sony A7 series cameras.I liked them very much,preferring Leica for colour rendition and Zeiss for microcontrast.Now I have GM 24-70/2.8 II for about one year.All I can say is both old zooms,while having lots of character,are no match for the Sony in technical terms (sharpness wide open,sharpness across the frame stopped down,microcontrast).
The CY was calculated in the 1980s. It's amazing it was able to be this good for so many decades and of course as time marches on then lenses will come to beat it. However, the lens is compact and light, and the price is not bad. If you plan to hike and shoot in harsh conditions, it is money well spent. These modern zooms are not cheap. I looked at the MTF of the GM 24-70 and sadly it's the same story as with other zooms that go wider than 35mm. Looking at the MTF chart the astigmatism is pretty nasty at 24mm even stopped down. At least the first version, looks like version 2 improved upon that. At that point I prefer to grab a 35-70 that performs well and a 28/24 prime instead.
I used to have both 35-70/3.4 Vario Sonnar C/Y and Leica Vario Elmar R 35-70/4 ROM for a few years ,adapting them on Sony A7 series cameras.I liked them very much,preferring Leica for colour rendition and Zeiss for microcontrast.Now I have GM 24-70/2.8 II for about one year.All I can say is both old zooms,while having lots of character,are no match for the Sony in technical terms (sharpness wide open,sharpness across the frame stopped down,microcontrast).
The CY was calculated in the 1980s. It's amazing it was able to be this good for so many decades and of course as time marches on then lenses will come to beat it. However, the lens is compact and light, and the price is not bad. If you plan to hike and shoot in harsh conditions, it is money well spent. These modern zooms are not cheap. I looked at the MTF of the GM 24-70 and sadly it's the same story as with other zooms that go wider than 35mm. Looking at the MTF chart the astigmatism is pretty nasty at 24mm even stopped down. At least the first version, looks like version 2 improved upon that. At that point I prefer to grab a 35-70 that performs well and a 28/24 prime instead.
Jan 17, 2023 at 11:17 PM
p.35 #16Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Dustin Gent wrote:
I agree, that both these lenses are astounding at 35, 50 and 70mm. I personally liked the feel of the Leica better - just a bit better refined if you will.
Aside from the sunstar, both lenses I would have no hesitation buying again; even if they are a duplicate lens covering the same range. If i didn't need AF, i would pick up either of these two. Ill dig up files from both and post them.
The Leica is nicer handling and better built for sure. It also has half stops.
I agree, that both these lenses are astounding at 35, 50 and 70mm. I personally liked the feel of the Leica better - just a bit better refined if you will.
Aside from the sunstar, both lenses I would have no hesitation buying again; even if they are a duplicate lens covering the same range. If i didn't need AF, i would pick up either of these two. Ill dig up files from both and post them.
The Leica is nicer handling and better built for sure. It also has half stops.
Jan 17, 2023 at 11:19 PM
p.35 #17Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
cbass wrote:
Aside from the sunstar, both lenses I would have no hesitation buying again; even if they are a duplicate lens covering the same range. If i didn't need AF, i would pick up either of these two. Ill dig up files from both and post them.The Leica is nicer handling and better built for sure. It also has half stops.
I can't agree with the "better handling" if you use filters. The rotating front element that retracts inside lens makes the use of polarizer almost impossible.
Dustin Gent wrote
I agree, that both these lenses are astounding at 35, 50 and 70mm. I personally liked the feel of the Leica better - just a bit better refined if you will.Aside from the sunstar, both lenses I would have no hesitation buying again; even if they are a duplicate lens covering the same range. If i didn't need AF, i would pick up either of these two. Ill dig up files from both and post them.
I can't agree with the "better handling" if you use filters. The rotating front element that retracts inside lens makes the use of polarizer almost impossible.
Jan 17, 2023 at 11:54 PM
p.35 #18Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
Breakout the glass from a Leica UV Filter and add a step up ring to 67mm. It then clears.
billsnature wrote:
cbass wrote
Dustin Gent wrote
I agree, that both these lenses are astounding at 35, 50 and 70mm. I personally liked the feel of the Leica better - just a bit better refined if you will.Aside from the sunstar, both lenses I would have no hesitation buying again; even if they are a duplicate lens covering the same range. If i didn't need AF, i would pick up either of these two. Ill dig up files from both and post them.
Jan 18, 2023 at 05:04 AM
p.35 #19Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
tsdevine wrote:
Breakout the glass from a Leica UV Filter and add a step up ring to 67mm. It then clears.
Aside from the sunstar, both lenses I would have no hesitation buying again; even if they are a duplicate lens covering the same range. If i didn't need AF, i would pick up either of these two. Ill dig up files from both and post them.The Leica is nicer handling and better built for sure. It also has half stops.I can't agree with the "better handling" if you use filters. The rotating front element that retracts inside lens makes the use of polarizer almost impossible.
I tried the Leica filter without breaking out glass and it was thick enough that it would vignette at 35mm with my CPL. I did find the two stacked Breakthrough X1 filters, stacked with glass broken out, and hand polished on the outer rim would work fine, but still nuisance to take on and off and you can't use hood. Not saying it can't be done, just saying its not "better handling" than the Contax 35-70.
Breakout the glass from a Leica UV Filter and add a step up ring to 67mm. It then clears.
billsnature wrote
cbass wrote
Dustin Gent wrote
I agree, that both these lenses are astounding at 35, 50 and 70mm. I personally liked the feel of the Leica better - just a bit better refined if you will.Aside from the sunstar, both lenses I would have no hesitation buying again; even if they are a duplicate lens covering the same range. If i didn't need AF, i would pick up either of these two. Ill dig up files from both and post them.
I tried the Leica filter without breaking out glass and it was thick enough that it would vignette at 35mm with my CPL. I did find the two stacked Breakthrough X1 filters, stacked with glass broken out, and hand polished on the outer rim would work fine, but still nuisance to take on and off and you can't use hood. Not saying it can't be done, just saying its not "better handling" than the Contax 35-70.
Jan 18, 2023 at 09:22 PM
p.35 #20Contax 35-70 vs 24-70 GM? Ultimate landscape lens?
No argument there. And careful not to get a well worn Zeiss, as one of the ones I had it was almost impossible to turn the CPL without altering focus (and sometimes zoom).
And note I was stepping up to 67mm in front of the glassless Leica UV ring, I don't remember vignetting, at least with the polarizer I was using.
Neither is particularly great with a polarizer, at least by more modern standards. My affection for primes, and the finickiness of both these zooms means they end up being more a collectors item than something I shoot regularly.
billsnature wrote:
Aside from the sunstar, both lenses I would have no hesitation buying again; even if they are a duplicate lens covering the same range. If i didn't need AF, i would pick up either of these two. Ill dig up files from both and post them.The Leica is nicer handling and better built for sure. It also has half stops.I can't agree with the "better handling" if you use filters. The rotating front element that retracts inside lens makes the use of polarizer almost impossible.I tried the Leica filter without breaking out glass and it was thick enough that it would vignette at 35mm with my CPL. I did find the two stacked Breakthrough X1 filters, stacked with glass broken out, and hand polished on the outer rim would work fine, but still nuisance to take on and off and you can't use hood. Not saying it can't be done, just saying its not "better handling" than the Contax 35-70.
And note I was stepping up to 67mm in front of the glassless Leica UV ring, I don't remember vignetting, at least with the polarizer I was using.
Neither is particularly great with a polarizer, at least by more modern standards. My affection for primes, and the finickiness of both these zooms means they end up being more a collectors item than something I shoot regularly.
billsnature wrote:
tsdevine wrote
Breakout the glass from a Leica UV Filter and add a step up ring to 67mm. It then clears.billsnature wrote
cbass wrote
Dustin Gent wrote
I agree, that both these lenses are astounding at 35, 50 and 70mm. I personally liked the feel of the Leica better - just a bit better refined if you will.Aside from the sunstar, both lenses I would have no hesitation buying again; even if they are a duplicate lens covering the same range. If i didn't need AF, i would pick up either of these two. Ill dig up files from both and post them.
Jan 18, 2023 at 09:32 PM