Here it is, a contraversial report to say the least. I finally got to test a 14-24 back to back with the king of wide angles and the results are somewhat unsettling if you are still championing the CZ I am afraid....
Interesting test, thanks. The most interesting part to me was the overlay of the Nikon 14-24 and Contax 21. I have never seen the "moustache distortion" in action before, but it becomes very clear with your overlay. I own the Contax 645 35mm f/3.5 which is apparently the MF version of the CZ21, but have not yet had a chance to put it through its paces. Now I am curious if it will exhibit the same distortion.
It would be more interesting to see the comparison with the new Zeiss ZF/ZE 21mm Distagon. This lens promises to be an improvement over the old Contax 21mm (and costs less than the quotes price for the Contax lens), and we would be comparing new lens vs. new lens, and without an adapter getting in the way (typically a problem with the Contax lenses). Perhaps a test on the D3x will be in order when both the camera and the ZF lens become available.
carstenw wrote:
I own the Contax 645 35mm f/3.5 which is apparently the MF version of the CZ21, but have not yet had a chance to put it through its paces. Now I am curious if it will exhibit the same distortion.
I have one too, but haven't used it for a few years now. From memory, it's a wonderful lens, but it probably won't get used again until I decide I need to part with $20k+ for a MF digital back.
Nice comparison, thanks. Now I need to get out and do a similar test on my 14-24G. I'm interested in seeing if my copy has the same result at 21mm from f/2.8-5.6.
Lotus, the Sinar eMotion 54 LV 22MP back has dropped to a suggested retail price of 7000 Euro, new. The refurbished units which occasionally become available are less, but I don't know how much. I would guess 5k. You can pick up a 16MP square sensor Kodak back, which at base ISO apparently has a fantastic look and colours, for about $4000. There are lots of options, if you don't need a 60MP sensor Personally, I am trying to hold out for a new 54LV. I like the idea of the adapters for the Sinar backs.
How were you able to ensure that the 14-24 adapter was at the stated aperture values? I thought there were only a few aperture values that the adapter could be set to.
carstenw wrote:
Lotus, the Sinar eMotion 54 LV 22MP back has dropped to a suggested retail price of 7000 Euro, new. The refurbished units which occasionally become available are less, but I don't know how much. I would guess 5k. You can pick up a 16MP square sensor Kodak back, which at base ISO apparently has a fantastic look and colours, for about $4000. There are lots of options, if you don't need a 60MP sensor Personally, I am trying to hold out for a new 54LV. I like the idea of the adapters for the Sinar backs.
Yes, I know, but I'm holding out for a 39 mp Phase One. I'm probably signing up for 21mp for only $2700, and already have 14 mp of those Kodak colours. So a 16 or 22 mp back, no matter how cheap they have become, isn't all that exciting anymore. :-(
Very nice test! But I disagree with your findings. The Zeiss seems to be the better lens. It is also very important to note that the adapter used will never produce good results on any Contax. The only way to get the best results with the 21 is to use a Kindai or Cameraquest adapter. I never understood why would someone pay 2500$ for a lens and then use a crappy adapter for less than 10$.
Ed, I think you need to read the article and look at the photos again. If from this review you prefer the CZ21, apart from wide open, then I suspect that you either own one, or want to buy one. The 14-24 is clearly better or at least equal in most shots, and its colours are better too. Read about the adapter he used again too.
How were you able to ensure that the 14-24 adapter was at the stated aperture values? I thought there were only a few aperture values that the adapter could be set to.
See the first article and you can see how its easy to set the aperture at very value.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Very nice test! But I disagree with your findings. The Zeiss seems to be the better lens. It is also very important to note that the adapter used will never produce good results on any Contax. The only way to get the best results with the 21 is to use a Kindai or Cameraquest adapter. I never understood why would someone pay 2500$ for a lens and then use a crappy adapter for less than 10$.
I am finding it very difficult to see why you think this. The CZ shows strange distortion, is far too blue in colour rendition, is literally equally as sharp which is a plus point and costs £1500 (£500 more than the Nikon) and I wont say anything about the focal length bonus (!)
I have three Contax lenses, I have used Happypage, Haoda and other cheap adapters and they all needed modifying to use properly, whether its $10 or $100 all needed setting up. I tested the Zeiss before the head to head and it looked perfect to me.
If anyone thinks the CZ is not like theirs then maybe the 21mm needs a service...? Thats why I post things like this on forums, as your opinion is very valid
David, thanks for that excellent report. I own a CZ 21 and am very happy with its performance. It is nice to see lenses that are meeting its standard of performance. It would be very interesting to know why the results and conclusion is different than the 16:9 (Hubsand) results, which shows the CZ 21 as the much better lens. The bottom line for me is that both lenses are amazing. The 14-24 is a zoom lens that offers versatility with regard to composition, however the CZ 21 allows easy use of filters (which is important to me).. Maybe I should have both
Ok, I see why you would prefer the Nikon. If you take into consideration the distortion then yes. As for the colours, well, I always liked the neutral rendition of Zeiss compared to Nikon and Canon's warm rendition. The Nikon being a zoom is a plus for some, but for me the size and weight matter more.
My comments were mainly about the crops which to my eyes either show and advantage to Zeiss or look equal. I failed to see an dvantage for Nikon wherever you say it does, but maybe it's my eyes
I also have tried all kinds of adapters, actually paid (wasted) so much money on them untill I tried the Kindai. The cost over 160$ but they are the Zeiss/Leica of adapters and they work perfectly. Even small variances in adapters can cause the lens to produce less than optimal results. I have no doubt that hubsand's adapter is first class, but the adapter used on the 21 gives me a fair share of doubt.
And yes, i do plan to buy the ZE version of the 21 as soon as it is released so my opinion is definitely biased
David Clapp wrote:
I am finding it very difficult to see why you think this. The CZ shows strange distortion, is far too blue in colour rendition, is literally equally as sharp which is a plus point and costs £1500 (£500 more than the Nikon) and I wont say anything about the focal length bonus (!)
I have three Contax lenses, I have used Happypage, Haoda and other cheap adapters and they all needed modifying to use properly, whether its $10 or $100 all needed setting up. I tested the Zeiss before the head to head and it looked perfect to me.
If anyone thinks the CZ is not like theirs then maybe the 21mm needs a service...? Thats why I post things like this on forums, as your opinion is very valid...Show more →
Personally, I am trying to hold out for a new 54LV. I like the idea of the adapters for the Sinar backs.