Thanks for the support! Don't forget to click a sponsored link or two in the sidebar to keep the site free . . . there's the best part of three days work in the Contax N 17-35 test.
It is very unlikely that I will ever be able to come up with a version for Nikon.
First, the aperture lever is a big issue. I don't know how to turn the electronic commands from a Canon into mechanical movement required to stop down mechanically with the stop down lever of a Nikon lens.
To be honest, I toyed with the idea - I even have an AF-S 24-85 G lens with me. Let's say, I am able to find a miniature actuator which moves the Nikon aperture lever... and I could figure out the Nikon AF-S protocol... (hope they don't encrypt it as they did to white balance) But, I think the issue here is cost. Let's say there is an autofocus Nikon AF-S adapter for $800, and there is a stopped down metering, manual focus confirmation adapter for $80 - I think you get the idea. True, it is a joy to use the former and a pain to use the latter. Still, I believe commoditization has already occurred in the Nikon F to Canon EF space, and therefore I will not be able to enter that space. I am no Apple iPod.
cyberstudio wrote:
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".
ouch, I think he was the guy outbidded me at the dying seconds of the auctions.
Although hubsand himself admitted that his points rating system was somewhat "arbitrary", forgive me for beating the dead horse. For instance, review the comparison between the two lenses at 17/2.8.
We have a random sample of Contax delivering good sharpness across the frame, and that is at 17mm wide open! The winner always gets one point, regardless of the gap between the winner and the loser. Therefore, both the Nikon and the Contax got two points at 17mm f/2.8. They are "equal" according to the points rating, but the images speak for themselves!
Also, you are buying a lens like this for its ultra-wide, but in the points rating system, all focal lengths are equally weighted.
Scroll through the 17mm test. There is a wide gap between the Contax and the Nikon, which does not close until f/11.
I wish to thank hubsand for his time to perform this lens test, however. There is no question that his test images are immensely valuable for the evaluation of these two lenses.
cyberstudio wrote:
Although hubsand himself admitted that his points rating system was somewhat "arbitrary", forgive me for beating the dead horse. For instance, review the comparison between the two lenses at 17/2.8.
We have a random sample of Contax delivering good sharpness across the frame, and that is at 17mm wide open! The winner always gets one point, regardless of the gap between the winner and the loser. Therefore, both the Nikon and the Contax got two points at 17mm f/2.8. They are "equal" according to the points rating, but the images speak for themselves!
Scroll through the 17mm test. There is a wide gap between the Contax and the Nikon, which does not close until f/11....Show more →
Yes. I don't see how he comes to the conclusion that the Nikon is better at 17mm. From his own pictures it is clear to een the casual observer the Contax is superior.
Further, in many cases where the Nikon won a "point" the differences between the lens were so close that the difference were not clearly evident in the crops shown in the test. Yet is clear that at 17mm in places where the Contax was superior the differences were strikingly large.
If resolution alone was your criteria, I think the performance could be a toss-up at 21mm -- but once you add the other aspects of performance, the Contax is clearly superior overall.
If a lens had a test of 15 sample areas (with a binary points awarding system), and on 8 areas lens A were very marginally better and won 8 points, and on 7 areas lens B was better by a large margin and won 7 points, which lens would say was better? Then add lens B's clearly superior flare resistance and clearly superior CA performance. How would you choose? I think the way points are awarded in this type of test can lead to inefficient and sometime perverse conclusions.
Further thoroughout the test the awarding of points is entirely subjective -- and that's fine it's his test. But in looking atthe example crops that he bases is point on, there were times when the Contax appeared superior yet both lenses were awared a point, and time when I could not tell the difference and only the Nikon was awarded a point. The scoring just seem to be a little inconsistent and confusing.
Clearly it is the author's test and he has the right to set his criteria. No doubt that it is criteria that is important to his usees. And that's fine, and other users have to right to discuss their criteria.
My criteria places a bit more importance on flare reistance and elimination of CA. Good color and a nice contrast gradient is also important -- and clearly evident in the images posted, the Nikon's colors are weaker than the Contax's whether they be warm or cool colors. The Contax's performance is overall richer, deeper in appearance. I am also biased toward wide-end performance, as I have other lenses in 24mm and up category that perform quite well. As I suggested before, I believe the Contax lens to be superior overall -- and I readily is accept that it may not be better everywhere or in all aspects of performance. But overall I believe the Contax will produce superior images and is easily the lens I would choose between the two for my needs.
As was quoted in the recent sale of the lens, the Contax 17-35 is "widely considered to be the finest WA zoom ever made." Yet, contrary to this wisdom that has accumulated since the lens was introduced 4 or so years ago, this test has decidely come to a strikingly different conclusion. Is there nothing to these "widely considered" viewpoints? Perhaps some of the old tests and reviews need to be dug out of the archived publications, and further testing done to fully illustrate the relative capbilities of these 2 fine lenses
I hope the lens tests make just as much sense without the commentary . . . they're designed to let the pictures speak for themselves. In some instances (for instance, comparing two lenses at f5.6 centre frame) the differences between lenses is extremely slight, but I still try to call it. Which usually means examining the files at 300% side by side . . .
Also, the scores are biased towards sharpness, with a point being awarded for each aperture and each part of the frame, but I stand by that a reasonable index of a lens' worth. You can't seriously summarise all aspects of an optic's rendition in a single number, but it helps to have a scale of some kind. If Parker can rate a beverage out of 100, why not a lens?
The Contax N v Canon 16-35L tests are coming online soon, essentially reprints of Andrew's initial article which for better or worse ending up skirting around Area B affected by the resolution dip. The clearly show the Contax getting the better of the Canon in the centre and corners, just as it bested the Nikon in that regard.
hubsand, one area of that review which I found very enlightening was the explanation of the Zeiss' strange looking MTF chart and connection to the off center loss of resolution. If one looks at the MTF charts for say the older Zeiss 35-70 Zoom, one does not see this extreme deviation from the Tangential and Sagittal curves such as is seen with the N Zooms. In fact, the 35-70 MTF chart looks as good or better than any of the primes in its range.
Tariq, the 35-70 is indeed a wonderfully good zoom, and I've seen many claims that it's as good as primes throughout it's range. I had one, and was absolutely floored by the spectacular images it took. I sold it only because I really needed autofocus in this range. However, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the 17-35 N or similar wide zoom comparisons.
tom in mpls wrote:
Tariq, the 35-70 is indeed a wonderfully good zoom, and I've seen many claims that it's as good as primes throughout it's range. I had one, and was absolutely floored by the spectacular images it took. I sold it only because I really needed autofocus in this range. However, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the 17-35 N or similar wide zoom comparisons.
The reason I brought that zoom up and its relevance is that in the review, mention is made of the unusual MTF chart for the 17-35 and it is further demonstrated just how that chart looks relates to the strange drop in resolution in just one area off center. The 35-70 has no such strange looking MTF chart AND as you mention and has been tested, is probably one of the best zooms ever made. Perhaps a better, probably unapproachable(for a wide zoom) comparison would be the MTF graph for the Zeiss 21mm here: http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Distagon2.8_21mm_e/$File/Distagon2.8_21mm_e.pdf
hubsand wrote:
If Parker can rate a beverage out of 100, why not a lens?
But of course a beverage can get some points out of a hundred. Parker doesn't assign points, however on an all or nothing basis. In a recent wine rating, the 1995 Krug Brut Champagne gets a score of 95, and a bottle of Korbel Brut from California gets an 86. If we applied a ranking system similar to used for these lenses, the Krug would get a 100 and the Korbel a 0, and we would be no wiser as to how close in quality these to sparkling wines are.
I would also hae to say that if you have to look at 300% crops to determine if one is sharper than the other, then there is clearly no significant difference between the two images and any rating (or any all-or-nothing points awarded) based on it is a purely meaningless exercise -- and can only distort the results you are trying to obtain.
I've criticized in the past the Photodo system of creating a single number rating of the lenses it tests. However, at least the numbers that go into those single number scores actually mean something and tell you something about about the relative quality between lenses. That's something a simple scoring and tabulation of 0 or 1 can't do -- adding those 0's and 1's together can't possibly give an accurate overall picture of relative quality. There are just too many ways to produce perverse results.
The 16-9.net tests live from the bigger-than-live approach, I mean there needs to be some suspense after all, I like it.
I see the points as a kind of shortcut for the reviewer. A written conclusion might be the better way to give more weight to the aesthetic quality of the lenses and I would also set a question mark behind the manual vs AF. I need several attemps to nail the Nikkor's focus at f2,8. After all we should see that this is Hubsands very personal way to test lenses. If you want to have everything on black and white you need to shoot charts, the way E.Puts is doing his job
I am very happy with the reviews on 16-9.net and I am grateful to Mark for doing this. I tend to rely on the sample pics and the text more than any points awarded - I do not always agree with the scoring and make my mind up based on other info on what would suit my style of shooting.
Whatever criticisms you may have of Husband's tests, I think they're far and away the best reviews I've read of lenses, ever. He's methodical, consistent, transparent, and objective. He also freely discusses his methods and responds positively to criticisms and questions. And he does not get paid. His tests are better than Sean Reid's reviews, better than Mancuso's reviews, better than W. Castleman's reviews. They're unparalleled.
I agree. hubsand, you are the most objective, unsentimental, brand-agnostic reviewer out there, and your reviews are explicit and rigorous enough for everyone to get a good idea of what each lens is likely to deliver. I say brand-agnostic even though you use Canon bodies: Canon bodies allow use and direct comparison of the widest variety of lenses, and you've certainly been critical of Canon gear when it disappoints. I wish you had more time to review stuff. I'd certainly like to see you put the various manufacturers' bodies through their paces.
