bathman wrote:
a $ per lp/mm would make the canon 16-35 about 48$
Andi,
I guess that is why Canon has been so commercially successful. Too bad Zeiss cared more about lp/mm per $ and they had to close some many classics, YC, G, 645, etc.
Steve Carlton wrote:
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?
Yes, the 35mm f2.0 Planar is the least highly regarded of the G2 lenses. That said, it is probably better than most SLR 35mm lenses. It pales only in comparision to the other G lenses and the Leica equivalents. You will note that the Contax G 45mm f2.0 Planar is just as fast without giving up anything in quality, and will produce less DOF than the 35mm f2.0. However, you are probably right. You might not notice the difference in normal sized (8x10, 11x14) prints.
i once had most of the g lenses (21/28/35/45/90) and they were all exceptional, save the 35 which was still very strong by most standards. the 21 was/is a great lens. the cost of used examples bears no relation to the quality superiority. i actually prefer the images they made to the asph leica lenses i now use....i could sadly never quite get on with the g1/g2 viewfinders, especially low light wide aperture focus accuracy (a much-debated topic) and view brightness.
Because the quality you get with the lens far exceeds anything else you can get for the price. In other words, this level of quality normally costs a lot more in the market.
But that's true of all the G lenses, and the main reason I got the kit. The 21mm must be 2.5 times the price of the others for some reason, especially the 45mm. Is it because there's fewer available? I guess part of it is the viewfinder that comes with it.
I guess that is why Canon has been so commercially successful. Too bad Zeiss cared more about lp/mm per $ and they had to close some many classics, YC, G, 645, etc.
What? You are listing cameras and lenses made and marketed by Kyocera, not Zeiss. Zeiss only licensed their name and designs for the lenses. Your remark makes no sense in this context.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
You are listing cameras and lenses made and marketed by Kyocera, not Zeiss. Zeiss only licensed their name and designs for the lenses. Your remark makes no sense in this context.
That's not precisely true either. You will note that no where on the lens or on the lens packaging does it say "Kyocera". These are technically, and offically, "Zeiss" lenses "for the Contax G mount". Zeiss does not "license" the Zeiss name. Like many products these days, they are made for Zeiss, to Zeiss' designs and specifications, by an OEM manufacturer (who, in this case is Kyocera). Apple, as you know, has an OEM manufacturer make it's iPods. Does that make them any less an Apple product? Of course not. Zeiss, deisgns these lenses, oversees their production, and implements rigid quality control policies and procedures in the OEM factory, where there is always Zeiss personnel on hand. Zeiss contracts the marketing and distribution to Kyocera due the considerable synergies in consolidating it with that of the Contax bodies. Indicating that these lenses are just a Zeiss-licensed product is inaccurate. However, their production and distribution was dependent on Kyocera staying in the business, as Kyocera provided key inputs to Zeiss' production cycle and product strategy.
Too bad Zeiss cared more about lp/mm per $ and they had to close some many classics, YC, G, 645, etc.