I'm hoping to have my N 17-35 back sometime next week. I should have my N 85/1.4 and N 100/2.8 Makro back as early as today (but certainly by the end of the week).
We have more than 3,700 hits on this thread already... The 17-35/2.8 N-Mount is a rare lens to begin with, and $2000+ is "reasonable" for those who seek the most exclusive. This lens is going to be popular, so please price your conversion accordingly.
I admire for your invention and more so on your concerns about the prices! This is the best news for me as a Canon user. Thank you!
Andrew Gough wrote:
I am building the webpages today and tomorrow. The test will be up later tomorrow.
Andy
Hi Andy!
Fist of all thanks for all your effort in documenting this new, very intriguing alternative. Could I ask for some LITTLE anticipations? Just a brief opinion about img quality, lens functionality, compatibility issues (if any)...
Thankyou very much in advance.
Emanuele
P.S. I hope it turns to be a STELLAR performer (in the wide-angle ZOOM lenses range, obviously).
hubsand wrote:
For me, the lens to beat is the Nikon AFS rather than Canon L!
Agreed. And, I own the Canon L, but the Nikon version is better. What can I say? I wanted something with autofocus in the wide end (yes, I am -that- lazy!
Special thanks to Cyberstudio and Hubsand for all their hard work and dedication. It is greatly appreciated!
At long last here is the test! I have been waiting for some snowy days in order to test the lens for Chromatic Aberration. I will post these samples as soon as I get them.
It looks like the lens really starts to sing at F11 at the wide end, and as you point out needs to be stopped down and even then can barely keep up with the Canon as it goes longer.
I would say that each lens has been optimized in opposite, with Contax choosing the wide end. This is very good because there are several very good 24mm + zooms out there, and the primary reason for buying a wide zoom is for the wide end.
Andrew Gough wrote:
I would say that each lens has been optimized in opposite, with Contax choosing the wide end. This is very good because there are several very good 24mm + zooms out there, and the primary reason for buying a wide zoom is for the wide end.
Not the least being Zeiss' own 24-85mm Vario-Sonnar for the Contax N -- and this would have been the only other "good 24mm + zoom" that would have matter to Zeiss' decision. From the Contax N system perspective, optimizing the 17-35 VS at the wide end made a lot of sense.
tom in mpls wrote:
Andy, the canon is clearly superior at 17mm. look at the bottom right corner crops; i can't even see the squirrel in the zeiss shot!
thanks for these shots; we await word from other testers, but the zeiss autofocus looks very exciting for wide angle according to your first tests!
That little guy ran all over my test samples I think he even chewed on the tripod a little
Lotusm50 wrote:
Not the least being Zeiss' own 24-85mm Vario-Sonnar for the Contax N -- and this would have been the only other "good 24mm + zoom" that would have matter to Zeiss' decision. From the Contax N system perspective, optimizing the 17-35 VS at the wide end made a lot of sense.
Would be great if you could post a few samples from the 24-85 as well!
I've posted a few examples of images from the Zeiss 24-85 over the past couple of months already, and will get around to posting a few more tomorrow morning.
Andy,
Thanks for sharing with us your results with the lens as Lotusm50 has showned images from the 24-85. The overall data really give us the first look into these lens as I expected to see them. I believe these lens can handle the diffraction limit better and give nice results with higher F stops at infinity. In mid distance and closer distance these lens should performs even better.
I would like to make a few comments regarding your nice results:
1. the 15 mm is a bit far away thus it would be nice to see the frame with the similar magnification.
2. There seems to be an issue with the slight CA from the 15 mm and I believe this has to do with the adapter thickness issue. My lens that I sold recently show no CA with the proper thickness. Thus beside the slight CA the resolving power may not be optimized to its peak.
3. I also would like to see some mid distance and close up shots if possible.
Nice one, Andrew: that's a scoop . . .
Surprisingly steep drop-off in performance at the long end, though this was indicated by the MTF charts posted at the top of the thread.
I wonder if the N zoom is the next best thing to the CZ21? Corner resolution is maintained in a similar fashion – better, I suspect, than the Olympus 21s and perhaps even the Nikon 17-35.
So, at this point we can start drawing the first considerations and say that, on far subjects, this lens is a VERY good performer on wide end thus not at the same level of the CZ21 (quite obvious: a zoom vs a prime!).
On the other hand it seems to me (my HUMBLE opinion) that over 23mm it starts to drop in performance seriously: infact the Canon 16-35mm is still useable at its wider end (17mm @ f11-16) but the Contax isn't when it comes close to 27-35mm. Especially at 27mm it has an effect that is like blur or out of focus.
I would like to repeat that this is MY personal, humble, opinion based on preliminary tests.
It would be great to see some architectural shots (or geometric subjects with straight lines) to evaluate eventual distortion phenomena. I hope to see some mid-close distance tests in the future too.
Just to add another element, take a look at hubsand's test that compares the Canon 16-35 to the Nikkor 17-35 (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/widezooms/widezooms1.html): to me the Nikon is still the wide angle zoom to beat, its performance is somewhat constant over the entire zoom range and more uniform than the one of the Contax. Food for thought. (again, IMHO).
One thing about Andrew's comparision that has not been mentioned yet is the color produced by the lenses. Consistently across all the focal lengths and apertures, the Zeiss produced richer colors. The Canon images look flat in comparision. That could be my own subjective preference (and why I tend to use Zeiss lenses) but the difference is not subtle.
I was pleasantly surprised by how close it ran the Distagon 21mm: I had no hopes of the zoom matching the prime, but it came closer than just about anything I've seen or used.
Reviewing the results of the 16-35L v Nikon AFS test, the Nikon similarly improved on the Canon's performance in most areas (particularly with regard to outer image circle resolution), so it will be very interesting to put them head to head.
Again and again I get the impression that when Nikon's glass gurus are briefed on a new design, they have set before them a Zeiss lens as a benchmark, and that in the Canon factory they strive to match Leica optics . . .
It's easy to see the Canon 16-35L as a Leica 21-35 with less demanding constraints in play. Leica evidently knew they couldn't extend their zoom's performance (on a budget) below 21mm or to f2.8 without compromising IQ, so they didn't. Remove the quality control, add some mass marketing savvy, and you have the wider and faster Canon L: a Leica 21-35mm without the fat trimmed.
Similarly tuned for saturated colour and microcontrast, and similarly optimised for wide angle and small aperture performance, initial results from the Contax N have much of the flavour of the Nikon AFS.
The Contax lens seems to perform differently in the field at longer focal lengths. Here is an Architectural shot taken at 31mm/F13 hand held. It was processed the same way as the other samples, DPP sharpening set to Zero.
Could I ask for some LITTLE anticipations? Just a brief opinion about img quality, lens functionality, compatibility issues (if any)...
