I Find This Back & Forth About Mark's Sale Of The 17-35mm Very Interesting..
Of Course, I Am The One Who Purchased It. I Never Got The Impression, In Our Limited Communications, That Mark Had Anything But The Highest Regard For This Lens.
Is It Perfect? No!
Is A Superior Piece Of Glass? Yes
Is It What I Was Looking For In A Wide Zoom? Yes
I Was Looking For A Wide Zoom. I Looked At Several, Canon 16-35L. Nikon 17-35, etc, And They All Left Me Wanting. For Me The Conversion Of A Stellar Piece Of Glass, To The EOS Mount, Was A Winner. "I" Wanted AF, AE...So He Named A Price, I Agreed And I Will Have My Lens In A Few Days...
We've All Bought Excellent Lenses Only To Find That They Do Not Meet Our Needs Or Style. Does That Make Them A Bad Choice For Others, I Think Not.
I Owned A Canon 400mm f2.8 Sold It For More Reach. The 400mm f2.8 Is Still The Fastest Quality Super Telephoto On The Market... The Combo Of 300mm & 600mm Made More Sense For My Style/Needs ...
If Anyone Has The Right To Question Mark's Motives, It's Me! But I WILL NOT. I Had The Information To Make A Decision And Was Happy To Complete A Deal With Someone Whom I Believe To Be An Above Board Person, With Nothing To Hide....
There's a lot of ifs and buts flying around: I'll sacrifice some sleep to get get Part I of the test online before I turn in. Link coming very soon . . .
Seems like people are paying a lot for the Contax name... their 17-35 doesn't look dramatically better than the Nikon's. Thanks for deflating the hype.
Actually from the images that are now available, in many areas the Zeiss looks significantly better. It seems worth it in flare resistance, ghosting and CA elimination alone -- not to mention build quality, and striking differences in corner performance. And in "area B" (which we don't know the full extent of) where the Nikon is strong, in most cases there doesn't seem to be that much of a difference. At least in the 17mm-21mm range (which is what we have test images from) , the Zeiss is clearly superior overall (and on your Canon you get the bonus auto aperture and auto focus with the Zeiss, and not with the Nikon).
Edited by Lotusm50 on Jan 19, 2007 at 10:30 PM GMT
Lotusm50 wrote:
...(and on your Canon you get the bonus auto aperture and auto focus with the Zeiss, and not with the Nikon).
Edited by Lotusm50 on Jan 19, 2007 at 10:30 PM GMT
Until Nikon will make available the next full frame body in march: not my speculation, but only some rumors one can read across the internet. Just to add some pepper to the discussion.
pookipichu wrote:
Seems like people are paying a lot for the Contax name... their 17-35 doesn't look dramatically better than the Nikon's. Thanks for deflating the hype.
it is not the Contax name and AF and aperture control is an important feature. Stop down metering is always a compromise
pdmphoto wrote:
"17mm, f8, 10mm off center" looks like the wrong image area in comparison to the other off center pics at different apertures.
I've tried to show various parts of Area B (both from the left and the right side) to show that the issue was not decentering, and also to give an impression of the size of the area affected. The most accurate way I can communicate the picture is in the diagram.
pookipichu wrote:
Seems like people are paying a lot for the Contax name... their 17-35 doesn't look dramatically better than the Nikon's. Thanks for deflating the hype.
In some ways the Contax N 17-35mm is dramatically better than the Nikon, but it doesn't exactly sweep the board. It isn't perfect, but its performance does justify its reputation, and the build quality is extremely special. Unless you shoot exactly the same shot back to back with a CZ21, it's unlikely you'll be disappointed by the Contax in the 17-21mm range.
Part II of the test coming soon: 24mm, 35mm, CA and distortion, plus a represented version of the Canon 16-35L v Contax 17-35N test. You might want to reserve judgment until then . . .
bathman wrote:
AF and aperture control is an important feature. Stop down metering is always a compromise
For some work, AF is important. but stop down metering is always a pain. Swapping between auto and manual lenses on location, I still end up shooting wide open with the Zeiss lenses unless I'm really paying attention. On more than one occasion (but not more than three) back in the 1Ds II days (little screen), I've even arrived back in the studio with unrepeatable shots captured at f2.8 rather than f11.
pookipichu wrote:
Seems like people are paying a lot for the Contax name... their 17-35 doesn't look dramatically better than the Nikon's. Thanks for deflating the hype.
But is the Contax 17-35mm better than the Canon's 16-35L?
My understanding is that the conversion is based on Sigma components. Could it run into compatiablity issues with new canon DSLR? I haven't bought any Sigma lens for that exact reason even though it is less expensive. I think the Contax is better overall at least at 17mm but there is no way I will pay $2000+ for it without being reasonably sure that it will work on any future canon DSLR. Stop down metering is a pain but at least I know I wouldn't be stuck with a lens that wouldn't work.
If You Read The conurus FAQ, It Tells You It Is Only The Electric Contact Case That Is Used From Sigma. The Chip Is From conurus. Sigma's Problem With error 99 Is In Their Chip, Not The Contactor, As I Understand It.. That's Why You Can Send Your Sigma Lens In For "Re-Chipping"
MarkM6 wrote:
But is the Contax 17-35mm better than the Canon's 16-35L?
Easily. And IMHO, from my experience and everything I've seen to date, noticably better overall than the Nikon 17-35 as well (even if it isn't sharper everywhere).
Final part of the Contax N 17-35mm test now online: 24mm, 35mm, chromatic aberration, distortion and some concluding comments, including an indication of the extent of the 'Area B' problem. I've also compared both zooms at 24mm to the current winner of the 24mm World Cup: the Canon L.
hubsand wrote:
Final part of the Contax N 17-35mm test now online: 24mm, 35mm, chromatic aberration, distortion and some concluding comments, including an indication of the extent of the 'Area B' problem. I've also compared both zooms at 24mm to the current winner of the 24mm World Cup: the Canon L.
I know of someone called **** **** who bidded on a Contax N 17-35/2.8 on eBay last month, got it from the seller, and claimed that he received the wrong item, and swapped it with a pair of Olympus digicam converters "Wide Extension Lens Pro" and "Tele Extension Lens Pro".
Interestingly, **** **** wanted to convert his fraudulently obtained, illegally possessed Contax N 17-35/2.8 to EF mount ! He is a member of my own forum and asked me some good questions there, too. It is highly likely that he is also a FM'er. Hi **** ****, if you are reading this, let me tell you it is a very poor idea to steal or use an eBay scam to illegal obtain a Contax N 17-35/2.8, because the Contax N world is very small and it is very easy to get caught.
Hi, **** ****, the serial number of the lens has been recorded and published in multiple places. What you have with you is no more than a paper weight. You can neither sell it for money nor convert to EF mount. You'd better leave the seller alone and either let him keep the money or return the N 17-35/2.8 to him. I do not know and I do not care if you are correct or if the seller is correct. I will report to the police and have them sort it out for you guys if the lens with that serial number ever comes in for EF mount conversion.
The serial number is 15130xxx. [Edit 2007/01/27: according to the seller, **** **** has admitted to be in possession of the lens.] If I hear from the seller that one of you has the money and the other has the lens, I will of course edit this post and remove the serial number. **** ****, you are not dumb, at one point you outwit me and made me a pawn of your scam. Therefore, you would know that since I spelled the serial number out, you only had a limited amount of time left to rectify the situation, because once this post get archived, I will no longer be able to edit it. This thread ranks very high on search engines. It will then be like everybody reads about and knows about the fraudulent lens that you are now in possession of.
Unfortunately for **** ****, the Contax N world is too small for your scam to work out. Sorry man, pick something more common in your fraudulent schemes the next time.
Edited by cyberstudio on Jan 27, 2007 at 07:05 PM GMT
