Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 … 10 11 end

Archive 2006 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

hubsand
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

Now that the first Contax N 17-35mm -> EF mounts are in production, it might be timely to take a close look at what we can expect from the lens. My guess is that most users would buy it for its 17-24mm performance, given the excellence of several 28mm optics available, and the paucity of wider options.

I just dug out Contax' MTF and distortion charts to compare with the proven CY mount Zeiss lenses to get a feel for how high our expectations should be set. Naturally, an exact comparison isn't even possible in theory, but what impression do you get?

First up, side-by-side: Zeiss' own MTF charts for the Contax N zoom at 17mm and the Distagon 18mm f4:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/mtf_contax17.gif

Nov 30, 2006 at 05:23 PM

hubsand
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

Sadly, we're looking at f2.8 v f4 and f5.6 v f8 but even so, I can't quite wrap my head around the bizarre behaviour of the N zoom. Wide open, it looks much more attractive than the Distagon (remarkable given that it's a full stop faster), but what's with that wild astigmatism, and precipitous fall off in extreme corner resolution? Not to mention the unorthodox bumps and dips . . .

Note that at 40lpmm and f5.6, the zoom's sagittal resolution across the frame wipes the floor with the prime at f8, but then declines alarmingly at the image circle edges, as though it was designed for an APS sensor, ironically!

Next up: Contax N 17-35mm at 24mm v Zeiss Distagon 25mm f2.8 . . .

Nov 30, 2006 at 05:29 PM

hubsand
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/mtf_contax24.gif

Nov 30, 2006 at 05:45 PM

hubsand
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

I don't put much store in, and wouldn't claim to be expert in interpreting, MTF charts, but the Contax N just looks weird: at f5.6 at 24mm, the 40lpmm graph annihilates the CZ25 across much of the frame, but dips strangely in the centre and, predictably, at the corners. Will we really see observable loss of fine detail centre frame at this focal length? At least the astigmatism is marginally less freaky than at 17mm.

Nov 30, 2006 at 05:50 PM

hubsand
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

MTF at 35mm: Contax N 17-35mm zoom v Distagon 35mm f2.8:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/mtf_contax35.gif
So stick with the longer primes, then.

Edited by hubsand on Nov 30, 2006 at 11:36 PM GMT

Nov 30, 2006 at 05:58 PM

hubsand
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

I get the impression that, unlike the Leica 21-35mm, the N17-35 is relatively better at the wide end than the long end: probably peaking relative to optimal primes (which the CZ25 and CZ18 aren't, of course) in the 20-24mm range.

Burning questions: will it be as good as the CZ21? No . . . because that Distagon was built with Xeelee technology.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/mtf_contax21.gif

Will it be as good as the Leica 19mm? We'll have to wait and see.

Nov 30, 2006 at 06:08 PM

hubsand
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

On to distortion: here's the zoom compared with the Distagon 18mm: strong, but predictable and easily corrected barrel distortion from the N zoom, versus subtle waveform distortion with the prime:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/dist_18mm.gif

Nov 30, 2006 at 06:24 PM

hubsand
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

The N zoom undergoes a predictable enough change from barrel to pincushion distortion as it heads towards its long end. At 24mm, it looks very neutral, but has a kink of waveform distortion in the corners that comes on like a lesser version of the 21mm - not the best news.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/mtf_dist24.gif
By contrast, the CZ25 has mild-mannered barrel distortion. The ZF looks like it will behave similarly.

Nov 30, 2006 at 06:27 PM

hubsand
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

Finally (phew!) at 35mm the N zoom is a mirror image of the Distagon: troublesome pincushion v docile barrel distortion.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/dist_35mm.gif

How any of this bears on its real world performance will have to wait another fortnight or so when the first images should be appearing online. Please chime in if your reading of the charts differs from mine . . .

Nov 30, 2006 at 06:31 PM

httivals
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

Stop analyzing MTF graphs and post (a) your 24mm world cup round 3 resuls; (b) your Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 vs. Canon 17-85mm comparison. Please. Looking forward to reading your results.

. . . As for mtf graphs, I think they're a helpful guide, but I don't know whether they always make a difference in real world tests, especially with digital. Unlike film, the drop off in resolution is like a cliff in digital, rather than gradual. For instance, if you look at the MTFs of the Canon 28mm f1.8, they look pretty odd, a lot like the oddities of the Contax 17-35mm (though worse), if I remember correctly. But because the 5D can only resolve XXX (don't rembmer the number) lines per mm, my copy, at least of the Canon 28mm f1.8 performs extremely well on my 5D, and evenly across the whole frame from 2.8 or so on. I suspect that on a higher density sensor like the XTi, it might not perform as well.

Nov 30, 2006 at 08:03 PM

jonboring
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

what production adaptors are you referring to? did conurus get their's done ?

Nov 30, 2006 at 08:15 PM

hubsand
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

jonboring wrote:
what production adaptors are you referring to? did conurus get their's done ?
My N17-35 is on its way to Conurus in Canada for the conversion today. The first conversion shipped earlier this week.

Dec 01, 2006 at 04:21 AM

Emanuele_C
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

hubsand wrote:
My N17-35 is on its way to Conurus in Canada for the conversion today. The first conversion shipped earlier this week.

It will be really interesting to see how this lens performs in REAL world on Canon's FF and cropped bodies, especially at the wide-end and at wide apertures. Needless to say that, if this lens reveals its full potential and demonstrates that it can compete easily with some very good primes (Leica 19mm is one of them), expect its price to go up since it's discontinued and, consequently, very hard to find.

I'll wait for your usually very-good-tests, hubsand, and I'm sure u'll do a great work in making a detailed, unbiased review.

Ciao,

Emanuele

Dec 01, 2006 at 05:34 AM

cyberstudio
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

I wish to let everyone know that I am very upset with some of the recent developments. I actually hope that hubsand's test report would come out really bad and the 17-35 were only a mediocre optic. I wish I had never made the 17-35 available to the public.

Some of us were looking for the best wide-angle optic to fuel our passion to create photographic images. Others, however, are in this for a profiteering opportunity. They expect this to be Distagon 21 again, where a US$900 lens turns US$4,000. These people have already stocked up every 17-35 they could find and that's why it is so hard to get them now.

I invested almost 6-digits into this endeavour. How do I get all this money? I had no other way to fund this other than by salary from my daytime job. Over the last 2 years, I have been working every weeknight and every weekend to bring you this mount. Together with my daytime job I work 100 hours per week. I have no hope of recouping my investment in sight, let alone getting compensated fairly for the time I spent. All I am sitting on is a large stockpile of machined parts, circuit boards and semiconductors which I will never be able to completely sell, because suppliers would only supply me large quanities.

These people, however, expect to make more than $1,000 per lens by paying me only a small fraction of their profit. And, believe it or not, they even asked me for a discount!

In the ideal world, the 17-35 remains a US$1,100 lens (2005 price), I charge a reasonable price for the work and a converted one would cost around US$1,500. Everyone has a good wide angle zoom, free from stopped-down metering. (Maybe not everyone, there are not that many made to begin with.) But I am just being naive. No one can stop the force of the market. Fluctuations of price happens all the time. I bought a Pentax A* 135/1.8 for $400 many years ago, sold it at $900 and now it is $1,600. If the availability of a conversion is the direct cause of that fluctuation, you would probably agree that the inventor of such a conversion deserves a fair share of the gain. Money towards profiteers will only drive prices further up, but money towards my coffers would fund the C645 adapter and the N50/1.4 and N400/4 conversions.

You would think I hope the 17-35 tests out to be a legendary ultra-wide, and I make a hefty profit by having a monopoly on the conversion. Wrong. It is the profiteers profiting from this if the test goes well. You could usually get a 17-35 from eBay for US$1,000-US$1,100 in 2005. What I could do now is not to offer the 17-35 conversion at all, if that helps bringing the price back to its original range. If you have any ideas of how to keep that lens' price from skyrocketing, please let me know. I will do everything I could.

Dec 05, 2006 at 06:48 PM

ebrandon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

Cyberstudio.

Here is how an economist would think about your post. If "profiteers" think they can sell this unconverted lens for, say, $2000 or a converted lens for $2500, all that means is that they think there is a market of people out there willing to pay $2500 for a converted copy of this lens.

Let's assume they're right.

If you charge $1500 for the conversion, instead of $500, YOU capture the value added from the find lenses->convert lenses process instead of letting THEM capture it. If they've already hoarded the lenses they'll have no choice but to pay you the $1500 to convert them and then sell the converted lenses for little to no profit, or to resell the unconverted lenses on the open market.

There is simply no way to force the final market value of the lens down to $1500 if there are lots of people willing to pay $2500 for it.

Finally, let's consider the possibility that there isn't a big market for this lens at $2500. In that case you can lower your price down the road. Or let's say the market value of a converted lens starts to drift above $2500, you can either let whoever can get their hands on a lens "profiteer" (I would just say profit) from getting it converted and then flipping it or using it & selling it down the road, or raise you prices accordingly so that again, you, the inventor, capture the value.

One thing you CANNOT do, however, is undercharge given what the market will bear and that complain that others are making money off your ideas & work.

Dec 05, 2006 at 07:17 PM

httivals
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

I agree generally with ebrandon's comment though I haven't read it very closely. You charge as much as the conversion is worth, i.e. what the market will bear. If the lens is worth $2,500 or so with your conversion, then the people holding the lenses will need to pay what you charge or their lens is only worth what it's worth without the conversion. Of course, if you charge too much, you bear the risk that someone will come in with a substitute conversion. But you believe that risk is low. So essentially you have a monopoly on making Contax 17-35mm lenses worth $2,500; though there are other "substitutes" -- including Canon's 16-35mm lens and Nikon's 17-35mm lens, that should keep you reasonably honest in your pricing. Assuming there's a market for great $2,500 lens that autofocus on the Canon mount, Canon should also eventually produce a better wide angle zoom of its own that everyone who owns the Canon 16-35mm, 17-40mm, Nikon 17-35mm, or Contax 17-35mm will want to upgrade to. In all events, it's definitely in your interests for Husband's tests to show the lens to be fantastic and unrivaled. It will make the converted lens and hence the conversion kit more valuable.

Dec 05, 2006 at 07:25 PM

cyberstudio
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

By the way, here are the lowest prices of Contax N lenses I have seen on the market:
17-35 = $910.5
24-85 = $202.5
70-300 = $431
50/1.4 = $299 (new, close-out when it discontinued)
85/1.4 = $705
100/2.8 = $569 (new, close-out when it discontinued)
400/4 = $1449 (new, close-out when it discontinued)

Dec 05, 2006 at 08:36 PM

jonboring
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

I belong to the Rotary Club and we have a 4 way test - Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? Not everyone will want to obey the 4 way test but that doesn't mean we shouldn't.

You can't control it. Charge what you need to charge to keep yourself whole and make it worthwhile and forget the others. Some people have different business ethics and we certainly appreciate people like yourself and Son Minh Pham who have better ethics.

I wouldn't buy a Contax N 17-35 zoom for a lot of money now that I can buy new ZF 25 and 35 primes and I can always get a Nikon 17-35. I realize we are talking AF with the N but with wides, I think we do more bracket and distance focusing where AF isn't as important.

Also my understanding is there wasn't many N17-35's made to begin with. However, there seem to be plenty of the 24-85's so perhaps that will help keep this market sane.

Dec 05, 2006 at 08:37 PM

rico
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

cyberstudio,

If your claim is correct, be glad that profiteers are involved, rather than collectors. Like the Hunt brothers cornering the world silver market, these profiteers gain nothing until their stockpile is sold. Price is determined by the market, and isn't your concern: you extract value by simply selling your product. Hoarding of these lenses does not serve any profit-oriented venture.

Based on your post, your break-even volume is approx 200 units, which sounds like a lot.

Dec 05, 2006 at 08:49 PM

cyberstudio
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation

The lens market is the stock market.
An unconverted N-mount lens is a stock option.
The conversion cost is the exercise price.

Dec 05, 2006 at 09:06 PM

1 2 3 … 10 11 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 10 11 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.