p.1 #1 · Experiences?: Contax 35-70/3.4 v 40-80/3.5
Has anyone here had experience with the Contax 40-80/3.5? How about in comparison with the 35-70/3.4? Other than a slight difference in weight, focal range, etc, the 40-80 appears to be a similar lens, yet it's generally $100 cheaper than the 35-70. Anyone know why?
p.1 #2 · Experiences?: Contax 35-70/3.4 v 40-80/3.5
They are very much different lenses based on different optical calculations and constructions.
The 40-80mm is more than one decade older and was replaced with the 35-70mm for good reason. The latter is much better in distorsion (the old one at wide shows up to -6% barrel distortion!), MTF properties and usability. The old one (only available as AE) also lacks the outstanding macro abilities of the 35-70mm.
I am not fond of zooms for aesthetical raesons. (A photographer will better result in a whole with his tool, when it is so clearly defined, that he will develop a physical feeling for a fixed camera/lens unit. That is why I shoot most of my pictures with one focal length that comes close to the diagonal of the film/sonsor format.) But the Contax 35-70mm is so outstanding! By far the best Contax zoom. And even the highest resolution (center/corner average) Contax 35mm focal lenght (including all other, the f/1.4, the f/2.8 and the PC.)!
CONTAX 40-80mm f/3.5 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* AE
Year: 1975
Lens/groups: 13/9
Minimum focus: 1.2 m
Angular field: 55°-31°
Filter: 55 mm
Size: 67 x 87 mm
Weight: 555 g
CONTAX 35-70mm f/3.4 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* MM
Year: 1987
Lens/groups: 10/10
Minimum focus: 0.7 m (0.25 at macro at 35mm)
Angular field: 64°-34°
Filter: 67 mm
Size: 70 x 80.5 mm
Weight: 475 g
(Of course the 35-70mm is relatively dark for a manual lens on a Canon body. Not easy to focus. But even so: In the last couple of days I did two very similar evening walks at low light in Venice, similar tasks and subjects. One was with Canon's f/1.4 on AF, the other one with the Contax 35-70mm. I used only the wide focal end, but focused at 70mm wide open and turned back to 35mm at f/5.6. I could not believe it by myself, but with this method I had much more keepers, i.e. absolutely sharp images, than with the modern AF Canon lens.)
p.1 #4 · Experiences?: Contax 35-70/3.4 v 40-80/3.5
Arianne Dubois wrote:
But the Contax 35-70mm is so outstanding! By far the best Contax zoom.
Yes, the 35-70mm is excellent! But the 100-300mm is at least as good/sharp, especially at the wide end and wide open. These two make a perfect travelling/landscape setup.
Thanks for the tip with the focusing technique. I will try it.
Jan 05, 2008 at 08:17 AM
jjlphoto Offline • • • • • [X]
p.1 #5 · Experiences?: Contax 35-70/3.4 v 40-80/3.5
Arianne Dubois wrote:
.....I used only the wide focal end, but focused at 70mm wide open and turned back to 35mm at f/5.6. I could not believe it by myself, but with this method I had much more keepers, i.e. absolutely sharp images, than with the modern AF Canon lens....
A great practice, but not all zooms are "parafocal". I would advise anyone wanting to do this to test it out with their lenses first.
p.1 #6 · Experiences?: Contax 35-70/3.4 v 40-80/3.5
I'll have to give it another try. With that awful one-touch system I had trouble changing focal length without also changing focus. I had decided that the lens must not be parfocal.
p.1 #7 · Experiences?: Contax 35-70/3.4 v 40-80/3.5
Yes. Needs actually some training to move the barrel straight back without changing focus.
I would guess it is not perfectly parafocal. Infinity wide open is surely below infinity at 70mm.
If it is not streetphotography, I anyway use an anglefinder with 2.5 magnification. The method was an emergency helper in the dark, when I was completely lost with focus at the wide end.
It pays, to get down with this lens. (I have three of them now.)
Jan 05, 2008 at 05:18 PM
Andi Dietrich Offline [X]
p.1 #8 · Experiences?: Contax 35-70/3.4 v 40-80/3.5
The 40-80 I owned for a short time was very soft wide open even with some halo and gets better stopped down. Not in the same league as the 35-70.
I did not like the push system and my AF chip didnt give me reliable focus confirmation. Everything else you hear about it is true
p.1 #10 · Experiences?: Contax 35-70/3.4 v 40-80/3.5
jmswickard wrote:
Ulff,
To which 100-300 mm are you referring
Zeiss 100-300 4.5-5.6. One of the last lenses, that Zeiss made (1984). Has a similar reputation as the 35-70 of being as good (or in some cases better) than most primes in this focal length range. Wide open it has for example a better IQ than the Canon 80-200 2.8 stopped down and at 300mm it is as good as a Canon 300 4.0L I tested it against. I like it also for being a very small lens (14 cm unextended). The main shortcoming is of course that it isn't exactly a low light lens, so you need good light or a tripod.
p.1 #11 · Experiences?: Contax 35-70/3.4 v 40-80/3.5
Arianne Dubois wrote:
They are very much different lenses based on different optical calculations and constructions.
The 40-80mm is more than one decade older and was replaced with the 35-70mm for good reason. The latter is much better in distorsion (the old one at wide shows up to -6% barrel distortion!), MTF properties and usability. The old one (only available as AE) also lacks the outstanding macro abilities of the 35-70mm.
I am not fond of zooms for aesthetical raesons. (A photographer will better result in a whole with his tool, when it is so clearly defined, that he will develop a physical feeling for a fixed camera/lens unit. That is why I shoot most of my pictures with one focal length that comes close to the diagonal of the film/sonsor format.) But the Contax 35-70mm is so outstanding! By far the best Contax zoom. And even the highest resolution (center/corner average) Contax 35mm focal lenght (including all other, the f/1.4, the f/2.8 and the PC.)!
CONTAX 40-80mm f/3.5 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* AE
Year: 1975
Lens/groups: 13/9
Minimum focus: 1.2 m
Angular field: 55°-31°
Filter: 55 mm
Size: 67 x 87 mm
Weight: 555 g
CONTAX 35-70mm f/3.4 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* MM
Year: 1987
Lens/groups: 10/10
Minimum focus: 0.7 m (0.25 at macro at 35mm)
Angular field: 64°-34°
Filter: 67 mm
Size: 70 x 80.5 mm
Weight: 475 g
(Of course the 35-70mm is relatively dark for a manual lens on a Canon body. Not easy to focus. But even so: In the last couple of days I did two very similar evening walks at low light in Venice, similar tasks and subjects. One was with Canon's f/1.4 on AF, the other one with the Contax 35-70mm. I used only the wide focal end, but focused at 70mm wide open and turned back to 35mm at f/5.6. I could not believe it by myself, but with this method I had much more keepers, i.e. absolutely sharp images, than with the modern AF Canon lens.)
p.1 #12 · Experiences?: Contax 35-70/3.4 v 40-80/3.5
Try carrying the CZ 100-300mm for a a while then tell me it's a great travel lens, long and heavy it could really benefit from a tripod collar. The front also rotates as you focus making using a polarizer a royal PITA. I carried it along with a 28-85mm nice coverage both both are beasts.
p.1 #13 · Experiences?: Contax 35-70/3.4 v 40-80/3.5
I have compared both and the 35-70 is a tad better optic. There is less CA and slightly sharper at most apertures --- more noticeable wide open. The 35-70 is smaller and easier to travel with. Therefore, other than the focal range, the 35-70 is a better choice.
