I know I may never see its performance on digital sensor -- it cannot be adapted to digital SLR, or even M8 (correct me if luckily I am wrong), and it is hard for Contax to come out with digital G. However, I may get myself a G system to shoot some film someday. I am wondering how good it is, especially compared to the famous Distagon 21/2.8? Anyone shooting with G1/G2 + Biogon 21/2.8 and scan the flim? How is the scan result? Thanks.
Somewhat different than, but really just as good as, the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 Distagon for Contax. It is an outstanding lens and my favorite lens for the G.
Thanks a lot. Just checked prices on ebay, a somewhat complete G system (e.g. G2+21+35+90) just costs a little above $1000. Pretty amazing compared to the price of Distagon (or compare the weight ). I guess there will be a lot of hassells scanning and also there may be some post processing to take care of too. But will definately give it a try some day.
Leica (and even Epson) has demonstrated that there are no significant problems developing a digital rangefinder. A digital G is technically feasible, but politically unlikely. Shame, because the Biogon 21 I had seemed at least as good my Distagon 21 – though I didn't ever compare them directly
I recently sold my Contax G2 system on Rangefinder forum. If you can get a G2 with 21+35+90, that is just too good a deal to pass up.
The 21mm was my favorite in the entire G system followed by the 45mm f2.0. Sharp lenses with amazing color. Some of the G 21mm f2.8 I was tracking on eBay were selling for a little over $730 a couple of months ago. Recently, the prices have been rising.
If you can get your hands on the zoom, this is also a very good lens, slow, but excellent results.
Thanks. I checked ebay and the price for 21/2.8 is only about $500. Other G primes are pretty cheap. The black kit seems to be a lot more expensive and I am not sure if it is only due to difference in built quality. The zoom is about the price of 21/2.8. The zoom is definately very convenient but I guess it is harder to handle.
Fourfa,
A crop digital M, the M8, does have some problem but still delivers great result judging from many photos posted. It is just too expensive, the camera and the M lenses. The Contax G system is said to be a great kit and it is film base which means hassells involving films. I have never used film cameras before (what an embarrassment!!!).Thus I will give it a try.
Black G2 Kits are no different in build quality than the chrome. The only difference is in the color and the fact that black kits are harder to find. Also, many photographers/people prefer black to silver or chrome. So the $150-$200 price premium for the black.
pascal03 wrote:
Black G2 Kits are no different in build quality than the chrome. The only difference is in the color and the fact that black kits are harder to find. Also, many photographers/people prefer black to silver or chrome. So the $150-$200 price premium for the black.
Wyan,
according to a test (from HK I think) I don't have the address here at work, and according to some users here, the biogon 21mm is even a tad superior to the distagon : same resolution / contrast but better flare resistance and almost zero distortion !
emmanuel amarg wrote:
Wyan,
according to a test (from HK I think) I don't have the address here at work, and according to some users here, the biogon 21mm is even a tad superior to the distagon : same resolution / contrast but better flare resistance and almost zero distortion !
Yes. You have identified the areas where the 21mm Biogon is superior to the 21mm Distagon. As suggested in my earlier post, I am a big fan of the 21mm Biogon for the G. I must concede, however, that the Distagon has a couple advantages over the Biogon. The Distagon has less light falloff and focuses closer.
hubsand wrote:
Leica (and even Epson) has demonstrated that there are no significant problems developing a digital rangefinder...
The Leica M8 and Epson R-D1 are at least 6-7 years apart in their entry to the market. Both have problems and some are quite significant to me. Non of the manufacturers have any intension to go mainstream, i.e., sell 500,000 bodies.
I wish either ZI or R-D2 come into the market and are priced at least $900 cheaper than M8.
The Zeiss Biogon design is unrivaled. It was a real breakthrough. Sure, it has a bit more light fall-off than the Distagon as the rear element sits much closer to the film plane than the Distagon, but Distagons by being of retrofocus design principles have more linear distortion.
I am sure in time, the Epson model will sell for under $900. But going Mainstream might never happen for either the Epson or the Leica. Forget mainstream, I wonder how much longer they can survive.
When it comes to pricing, the Leica might be a different issue from the Epson models. It's almost like it's an insult to Leica to sell their camera's or lenses for just a little more than they are really worth. It's almost like they sell their lenses at 4x-5x the production cost. Maybe it has something to do with having them maintain their level / prestige in the market.
I agree the Leica lenses are superb. But the best lenses in the world are no good if they are not made available to everyone at a reasonable price. This is where Contax and Carl Zeiss made a killing with their G1/G2 camera's and lenses. The Contax 90mm f2.8 autofocus lens for the G system had a resolution of over 400 lp/mm which is high even by today's standards and it sold for under $400 back in the day.
pascal03 wrote:
I agree the Leica lenses are superb. But the best lenses in the world are no good if they are not made available to everyone at a reasonable price. This is where Contax and Carl Zeiss made a killing with their G1/G2 camera's and lenses. The Contax 90mm f2.8 autofocus lens for the G system had a resolution of over 400 lp/mm which is high even by today's standards and it sold for under $400 back in the day.
a $ per lp/mm would make the canon 16-35 about 48$
I just picked up a never used G2 with the 45mm lens and TLA 200 flash. It's hard to justify (for me) spending $500 or so for the 21mm when the 28mm or 35mm can be had for around $200 each if I'm not making large prints or crops. I want to keep the film budget modest, still having a D200 in the house to feed.
My understanding is the 35mm is the least highly regarded of the G2 primes. It appeals to me because it's the fastest at f2 and I can generate a minimum DOF. I'm thinking I'll never notice any issues if I don't print large. Is my logic correct?
although Biogon is my favorite wide angle lens (actually it was this lens which aroused my interest in photography a decade ago), but it won't do well on sensor because of the true focus design.......
really hoping that we'll get a sensor that can handle true focus lens soon.....
). I guess there will be a lot of hassells scanning and also there may be some post processing to take care of too. But will definately give it a try some day. 
