May I ask for some help in deciphering the difference, merits and demerits of the Contax-Yashica 35-70/3.4 versus the Leica 35-70/4?
At first I didn't think I'd be interested in either, being slow compared to standard 24 or 28 to 70 2.8 zooms, but they seem to have superb quality. Is one considered better than the other, or what types of strengths does each one have over the other?
I only have the Zeiss 35-70, the advantage is that it is dirt cheap. I bought mine for roughly 300Euro. It has some soft extreme edges, but better micro contrast than the modern standard lenses. My Tamron 28-75 is very sharp, but no match for the Zeiss.
mauricechung wrote:
Cool, thanks for the info. Any chance you have some wide-open sample pics? =)
No, sorry, problem is I use a Zeiss to EOS adapter, and later you do not see what lens was attached, neither the aperture. At the time where I made pics with it, I had the Zeiss 28mm (which was not particulary good), the 35-70 and the 50/1,7 (the best of the 3 very clearly). I would have to do systematic tests to show that, but no time right now for that.
I also have to say that I have a mirror clearance problem with the 35-70 on my 5d Mark 1. The 50mm does not have this problem.
I am a big fan of the Leica & Contax/Zeiss lenses on a 5D. I researched the same pair you are comparing previous to purchasing the Contax. The information I found was that the Contax seems to have a better image quality and the Leica has a higher quality build. Every Leica owner will challenge that last statement. I prefer the Leica build.
The MTF 's on the Contax are outstanding for the age, size and value of that lens. I have tested and found the Contax to have a slightly higher IQ than several of my Canon "L" zooms at the same focal lengths - as each had their strengths & weaknesses. I prefer the Zeiss color to Canon. Reference http://www.16-9.net/ - go to Zeiss lens comparison.
I use the Contax 35-70/3.4 on my 5D - 1.5mm thick adapter - no mirror issues & nice sharp edges starting @ f5.6. There have been several threads in the last few weeks debating the adapter thickness. I've considered selling my Leica 35/2 prime after witnessing the IQ of the Zeiss at 35mm.
If it has not sold, there was a Leica 35-70 on B&S - stay with the f4 version of that lens.
The 35-70/3.4 Zeiss is very nice for landscape work. I would not recommend it
for anything where you need to focus quickly or work off-tripod in low light.
It's a bit dark compared to the f/2.8 zooms and manual focus is trickier in low light.
But at its sweet spot, under the right conditions, it is superb.
I've owned both of these lenses at the same time. Here is my report.
These two lenses are so similar and so different in so many ways.
Leica
better ergonomics; shorter focus throw; better macro function (more adjustable and smoother focusing); wide open performance is slightly better, especially in the corners; aperture control ring is easier to get at considering the use of adapters, and has half stop detents (Contax has full stops); cooler colours; better hood (more compact - but does it work all that well?); worse vignetting with Cokin filters; junky cap (What were Leica thinking?).
Contax
brighter maximum aperture makes for easier manual focusing; longer focus throw allows for better accuracy; 67mm filters are easier to find and cheaper than 60mm; better contrast; stopped down to F5.6+ just beautiful all over (the Leica never seems to get as sharp though it's close); better flare resistance.
Conclusion
I can't pick a clear winner and use both lenses on and off depending on how I feel. The Contax has the edge in image quality while the Leica has better ergonomics, so I tend to use the Contax when I know I'll be on a tripod and use the Leica when I know I'll be changing focal lengths and focus ranges more on the fly. I've said it before about these exact lenses: if the Contax optics could be put into the Leica casing, well, I'd pay a lot of money for that.
If you want to shoot wide open, go for the Leica. If you will be using it stopped down, go for the Contax.
You forget to mention the rotating front lens which makes a polarizer hard to use on Leica 35-70/4. I never tried the Contax, so I can't say a word. Speaking of Leica, I found 2 portraits that were taken years ago with 35-70/4. The leica has clear vivid color and high micro contrast (3D) just like other modern leica lenses.
phuang3 wrote:
StevenPA,
You forget to mention the rotating front lens which makes a polarizer hard to use on Leica 35-70/4.
I sold the Leica about a year ago, so I can't remember clearly if the front element rotates during focus. If it does, that's too bad. The Contax also rotates during focus.
StevenPA wrote:
Leica
worse vignetting with Cokin filters; junky cap (What were Leica thinking?).
.
When I had the 35-70mm f4 Leica, I found the 77mm ring for the P-series fit snugly over the hood it you put a couple pieces of tape inside the ring. I never noticed any vignetting, even on full frame when using this setup. How did you mount the filter?
Robert, we've had this discussion before. I just copied and pasted from an old post. It was lens to 60-62 upring to 62mm ring, which finally held the Cokin filter holder. That combination produced some objectionable vignetting. Your tape technique is something I wish I had known when I owned the lens. I could have saved myself some "composing knowing I'd be cropping" situations.
I just copied and pasted from an old post. It was lens to 60-62 upring to 62mm ring, which finally held the Cokin filter holder. That combination produced some objectionable vignetting. Your tape technique is something I wish I had known when I owned the lens. I could have saved myself some "composing knowing I'd be cropping" situations.