For a lot of reasons, mainly problems with changing lenses, I am leaning toward zooms. I had the FE 24-70/4, and it was lacking in a lot of ways. I got the FE 24-105, after reading many glowing reviews, and it is indeed much better. Everyone says for best IQ use primes, and I agree. Problem is the CY 35-70 is so good, I can't be satisfied with any other zoom. I don't want the size of the GM, and I want AF. If it weren't for the CY zoom I would probably be happy with the 24-105, but now I wonder, would the new Tamron be better? Anyone have both?
Michael Everet wrote:
For a lot of reasons, mainly problems with changing lenses, I am leaning toward zooms. I had the FE 24-70/4, and it was lacking in a lot of ways. I got the FE 24-105, after reading many glowing reviews, and it is indeed much better. Everyone says for best IQ use primes, and I agree. Problem is the CY 35-70 is so good, I can't be satisfied with any other zoom. I don't want the size of the GM, and I want AF. If it weren't for the CY zoom I would probably be happy with the 24-105, but now I wonder, would the new Tamron be better? Anyone have both?
If you look around on this site, @Fred Miranda has some crops of both the c/y and the g 24-105. Of course not taken at exactly the same time.
My recollection is that stopped down, the g zoom is at least as good as the c/y. And though I rarely use my c/y in Images with corner detail wide open, Zeiss own mtf makes me think that’s not the c/y strength especially at the wide end.
I guess what I’m trying to say is before concluding the g zoom is worse than c/y do some careful tripod mounted tests, general shooting can be misleading. And if that reveals the g is worse, consider sample variation.
The Tamron is very appealing because of speed and size, one of the team at Phiilipreeve has switched from c/y to it. But not for reasons of image quality, rather for the combo of speed, size and AF.
I cant imagine keeping the cy 35-70 much longer, especially since the Tamron does similar, but much more practical. Both are *macro* on the wide end, with the CY probably being able to get closer.
the tamron might be sharper wide open? definitely wider aperture wide open, and the autofocus is a lot better
Size wise, they are more similar than they are different.
For a landscape lens, it's manual focus that counts. How do the two compare using manual focus. I've had bad experiences trying to do fine manual focus with an AF lens.
Personally I'm looking at the Tamron as a travel / street lens where I use AF as much as possible...but for landscape, it's manual all the way.
chez wrote:
For a landscape lens, it's manual focus that counts. How do the two compare using manual focus. I've had bad experiences trying to do fine manual focus with an AF lens.
Personally I'm looking at the Tamron as a travel / street lens where I use AF as much as possible...but for landscape, it's manual all the way.
I'm not really sure why you'de have to do that. I was shooting cityscapes at night, and generally find that I'm using AF most of the time now.
AF-S + single shot, I can focus on most lighting conditions. Focus on something, then disable AF, pretty darn simple.
my workflow is take a shot and then review sharpness (I have a habit of doing this anyhow, looking for flaws that I simply missed when not zoomed in). if necessary, take more shots. Using this method, I cannot remember the last time I missed a shot, so AF is simpler and quicker. Along with really good MF experience with any lens, true MF is less and less needed unless you're the type to do precise focus pulls for video. I cant be bothered by that since the transition of these lenses in video mode are so excellent.
There are a lot of things done right with the CY 35-70, and finding a true successor was tough, but I think the tamron is overall the better package and darn close enough at landscape apertures. It's likely better at wider apertures.
now, would like someone to build a lens that can replace the cy 100-300..........
I won’t give up my Contax 35-70. Paired with the 16-35/2.8 GM, I’ve been in heaven. But I use it for landscapes only. For people, I’d rather have autofocus. But for people I’d rather shoot with primes.
Charlie N wrote:
I'm not really sure why you'de have to do that. I was shooting cityscapes at night, and generally find that I'm using AF most of the time now.
AF-S + single shot, I can focus on most lighting conditions. Focus on something, then disable AF, pretty darn simple.
my workflow is take a shot and then review sharpness (I have a habit of doing this anyhow, looking for flaws that I simply missed when not zoomed in). if necessary, take more shots. Using this method, I cannot remember the last time I missed a shot, so AF is simpler and quicker. Along with really good MF experience with any lens, true MF is less and less needed unless you're the type to do precise focus pulls for video. I cant be bothered by that since the transition of these lenses in video mode are so excellent.
There are a lot of things done right with the CY 35-70, and finding a true successor was tough, but I think the tamron is overall the better package and darn close enough at landscape apertures. It's likely better at wider apertures.
now, would like someone to build a lens that can replace the cy 100-300.............Show more →
I always use the rear LCD zoomed in to focus. I scan through the entire scene zoomed in to ensure what I want in focus is still in focus. Sometimes I need to adjust the aperture to get everything in focus...sometimes I can back off the aperture to more the sweet spot for that lens.
Just AF on what you want in focus does not guarantee everything in the image ( foreground to far background ) is in focus and you might also be using an aperture setting that is not optimal.
From my experience, detailed manual focus provides better results than letting the camera decide on the focus.
C/Y35-70 stopped down can compete with a Sony 55 1.8. No way any 24-105 will do that. Not saying the FE24-105 isn’t a very good lens, but it isn’t that good. The micro contrast won’t be like the best lenses.
The CY35-70 really shines stopped down to f5.6-f11. Below that the FE24-105 will probably do better.
The cy35-70 weakest focal length is 35mm. The fe 24-105 will have the best chance against it here in the corners. But it still lacks the micro contrast of the CY in the centre or mid zones.
Also remember that the C/Y has the sought after Zeiss “3D” effect. I haven’t seen another lens display this. One of the many reasons this lens is my main landscape lens.
Dustin Gent wrote:
Also remember that the C/Y has the sought after Zeiss “3D” effect. I haven’t seen another lens display this. One of the many reasons this lens is my main landscape lens.
Agree with you.
The C/Y 37-70mm lens is in a league of its own because of a unique 3D effect. If one like this effect one will never give it up or even compare it with other lenses. Needless to say, there are other excellent lenses. Courses for horses.
zeiss doesnt blow away the tamron, in fact, it loses on some occasions. To add to that, it wont AF, and wont do 2.8 or 28mm.
While F8 is the most common landscape aperture, it's not the only, sometimes you may want a faster shutter or you want some blur, the Tamron is pretty competent in that regard. If you do purely F8 landscapes, then you can say the CY is better for the most part, certainly not 100%.
The sharpness on this lens really is something that blows my mind, especially for such an older, classic design. The full screen RAW file on my 27" monitor is astounding.
The cy35-70 weakest focal length is 35mm
I have to disagree. I’ve gone through 3 35-70’s(mainly just trying other lenses) and my current one still blows my mind for landscapes. Maybe I got lucky, but @35mm my is brillaint. And throughout the range it is also superb. And I do like it for people, especially @50. Has great pop and good separation too. Hard to find a replacement, and I know when Fred was doing comparisons between his new 24-70 GM, the C/Y held it’s own pretty damn well.
You have to pick your priorities and go that route...but I can’t ever see selling mine!
Couple of grabs using the C/Y on my A7rll...
CalebAllenPhoto wrote:
C/Y35-70 stopped down can compete with a Sony 55 1.8. No way any 24-105 will do that. Not saying the FE24-105 isn’t a very good lens, but it isn’t that good. The micro contrast won’t be like the best lenses.
The CY35-70 really shines stopped down to f5.6-f11. Below that the FE24-105 will probably do better.
The cy35-70 weakest focal length is 35mm. The fe 24-105 will have the best chance against it here in the corners. But it still lacks the micro contrast of the CY in the centre or mid zones.
My 24-105 must be a freak then....check out the lens at 24mm and f5.6 http://www.echelonphotographers.com/p121409335....you can download full size jpeg..also a shot at 105 on this site...never saw better resolution edge to edge.
I am not going to besmirch your love on the CY zoom BUT.. it is a 2x zoom with a drop dead stupid easy focal range. A 10-20mm is a 2x zoom and a @@@ to design. A 40-80 is a 2x zoom that a chimp can design... The CY is a well done lens but the modest aperture, easy zoom range and zoom choice make the lens easy to design and manufacture. The 24-105g being anywhere in the same zip code is a sign of fantastic design and manufacturing. Wide to tele 4-5x lens are not trial.... If you really expect to beat the CY it will be with a very limited design or high price or high weight....
I did some comparison shots this morning between my C/Y 35-70 and my FE 24-105. My C/Y isn’t perfect though, one corner suffers. I haven’t processed them yet, but the Sony seemed competitive. Might be there is more wrong with my 35-70 than just one corner.
