I used Contax 28/2.8 G, 45/2 G, and CY 28/2.8, and CY 35/2.8, and CY 50/14, CY 50/1.4, and CY 35-70/3.4, and Sony 24-105/4G.
I now keep CY28/2.8 and CY 35-70/4, and Sony 24-105/4G.
Contax 28/2.8 G --- sharp image but uncomfortable using adapter - similar sharpness to CY 28/2.8
Contax 45/2 G --- extremely sharp but still behind color and sharpness of modern CV 50/2 APO
CY 28/2.8 --- sharp and well control aberration than Pentax 28/3.5K and closer to legendary Leica Elmarit-R 28 V2 E55 in sharpness -provides clean image
CY 35/2.8--- overall crisp and typical Contax character
CY 50/1.4 --- bit soft at low F, but F= 4 or higher it is visibly sharper than 50/1.7 and more natural color and charming trait
CY 50/1.7 --- sharp at even low F: provides crisp image
CY 35-70/3.4 --- sharper than all these CY 35/2.8 and 50/1.4 or 1.7. Combines prime lens.
par with modern Sony 55/1.8 in its sharpness as reported by expert.
Sony 24-105/4 G --- known as better than 35-70mm in character, not in sharpness.
moderate sharpness that is good enough for most general purpose.
junglialoh wrote:
VM 35F1.7 and 35 F1.4 comparison.
Both of them are set at F = 5.6
Taken with Sony A7R2. Both are remarkably sharp even at edge.
I also took same area using Panasonic S1R and Leica Elmarit-R 35mm F2.8 E55 V3
It display clearly Leica trait. But still behind ZM or VM but still great sharpness.
You wrote " I sold out OptoSigma filters, and do not have any filter.
Both lenses at F= 5.6 or higher show very sharp"
Your 1.7 & 1.4 look quite good across the frame to the corners considering you are not using a modified body nor front filter
Sounds like for landscape at f 5.6 or higher your good for landscape.
Yet you hear you need a front PCX filter to get very good performance on a Sony body.
I guess that may be for (below 5.6)
Fred always mentions the ZM that doesn't require a front filter is the 85
IndyFab wrote:
What's the difference's in renderings vs the C/Y lenses, I find the C/Y primes lenses quite small
Never tried a G, what am I missing?
I don't know. I've never used any C/Y lenses, so...
But the Contax G lenses are rangefinder designs, so they're much smaller than the SLR lenses. The design wide lenses in particular give the opposite compromise vs. SLR retrofocus wides: instead of complex distortion with relatively low vignetting, you get lots of vignetting with almost zero distortion. But they're also only usable on film or digital camera with extremely thin sensor stacks.
Oof, 50 pages is a lot of discussion. Has anyone found the perfect filter to make this lens usable on E-mount bodies yet? I'm picking this lens up either way, but I'd love to have decent performance on two systems.
derKoekje wrote:
Oof, 50 pages is a lot of discussion. Has anyone found the perfect filter to make this lens usable on E-mount bodies yet? I'm picking this lens up either way, but I'd love to have decent performance on two systems.
I still remember how shocked I was when I tested the ZM 35/1.4 on my M10-R for the first time. This lens is outstanding across the field from wide open on the Leica M or Sony UT Kolari. The PCX front lens significantly reduces induced field curvature when used on the stock Sony but it's still not perfect.
Now we have the Voigtlander 35/2 APO M performing just as good though.
I still remember how shocked I was when I tested the ZM 35/1.4 on my M10-R for the first time. This lens is outstanding across the field from wide open on the Leica M or Sony UT Kolari. The PCX front lens significantly reduces induced field curvature when used on the stock Sony but it's still not perfect.
Now we have the Voigtlander 35/2 APO M performing just as good though.
I have the 35 APO and 35/1.4 ZM. I still prefer the ZM + PCX over the 35 APO despite the latter being native mount and optically excellent.
scrappydog wrote:
I have the 35 APO and 35/1.4 ZM. I still prefer the ZM + PCX over the 35 APO despite the latter being native mount and optically excellent.
Can you post a comparison at f/2 showing the mid-field and corners? I've owned and tested these lenses but never side by side but would bet the Voigtlander is noticeably better optically than the Zeiss + PCX until about f/4.
scrappydog wrote:
I have the 35 APO and 35/1.4 ZM. I still prefer the ZM + PCX over the 35 APO despite the latter being native mount and optically excellent.
Why do you prefer the ZM over the CV (if aside from f1.4 vs f2).
I used both CV 35mm F2 APO and 35mm f1.4. Both are very sharp, but at corner CV that is designed for Sony E is clean image unlikely soft ZM35F1.4. ZM has reputation in its micro-contrast and contrast images and its own Zeiss character, but CV is very sharp almost entire frame corner to corner, but bit dried. I did not compare at Sony system. ZM test is done only at Panasonic S system while CV 35 F2 APO is done at Sony system.
junglialoh wrote:
I used both CV 35mm F2 APO and 35mm f1.4. Both are very sharp, but at corner CV that is designed for Sony E is clean image unlikely soft ZM35F1.4. ZM has reputation in its micro-contrast and contrast images and its own Zeiss character, but CV is very sharp almost entire frame corner to corner, but bit dried. I did not compare at Sony system. ZM test is done only at Panasonic S system while CV 35 F2 APO is done at Sony system.
I think both of them are excellent. I means it is personal taste.
I think APO lens is immaculate lens in both color reproduction and contrast.
But less character which means less uniqueness in spite of outstanding IQ.
It is personal opinion because each person has own taste.
The non-Leica photographic world has long been littered with flat field, near-APO lenses with great near-far performance - that very few photographers like. They are callled macros. CV should drop the APO term from their critically least popular lenses - just call them Lanthars or whatever, less attention, less aggravation. Those that want what they offer will find them.
scrappydog wrote:
I have the 35 APO and 35/1.4 ZM. I still prefer the ZM + PCX over the 35 APO despite the latter being native mount and optically excellent.
---------------------------------------------
junglialoh wrote:
I used both CV 35mm F2 APO and 35mm f1.4. Both are very sharp, but at corner CV that is designed for Sony E is clean image unlikely soft ZM35F1.4. ZM has reputation in its micro-contrast and contrast images and its own Zeiss character, but CV is very sharp almost entire frame corner to corner, but bit dried. I did not compare at Sony system. ZM test is done only at Panasonic S system while CV 35 F2 APO is done at Sony system.
---------------------------------------------
philip_pj wrote:
The non-Leica photographic world has long been littered with flat field, near-APO lenses with great near-far performance - that very few photographers like. They are callled macros. CV should drop the APO term from their critically least popular lenses - just call them Lanthars or whatever, less attention, less aggravation. Those that want what they offer will find them.
In terms of resolution and contrast, I am pretty sure the Voigtlander 35/2 APO takes the cake. The Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM is great but not quite at same level even when using it on a M body. Performance deteriorates when adapting it to a camera with a thicker sensor stack. The PCX front lens helps but can't do miracles.
