An old topic and not looking to generate big discussions but does anyone have any links to IQ comparisons between a Contax Zeiss 35mm F2.8 and a Canon 35mm F2 on a full frame canon shot wide open?
I have no links but my personal experience with the Canon 35/2 is that, while being quite sharp, has many shortcomings. The colors are washed out and it has a very low contrast, not to mention CA and ugly bokeh. I have not used the Contax, but the samples I have seen on this forum are outstanding.
Yes the voightlander looks interesting for my needs (40mm is fine) but it seems silly to spend the money on a nikon one + adaptor now with the eos one due soonish.
Even if i find a used nikon fit one now i imagine the resale will drop once the eos version comes out.
Not looking at spending much on this lens for what it will be used for which is to have a small enough body plus lens combo around this focal length, that I carry carry around easily and use to get odd high resolution shot when necessary (with lots of other gear (commercial + 8x10 kit) to get also) hence looking at the contax compared to say the zeiss zs or canon L ( I did try other 35mm a while back, oly, etc but the contax was the best fit overall for me..size. focussing, feel, balance, etc)
I tried (but don't own) both. The EF 35 f:2 is a good little lens. Inexpensive, light, fast, it does everything well enough. Can be quite sharp (I don't shoot much wide open). It is IMHO a very good choice to turn a FF DSLR into a stealth PJ tool.
But the 35mm Contax is a totally different animal, so much so that they can hardly be seen as competing lenses. Beautiful colours, nice 3D effect etc... even though it is not perfect, the Contax has one thing the Canon lacks, it has class. Bur using it is not exactly effortless.
Whatever floats your boat...
An old topic and not looking to generate big discussions but does anyone have any links to IQ comparisons between a Contax Zeiss 35mm F2.8 and a Canon 35mm F2 on a full frame canon shot wide open?
Thanks,
Marc
Marc
I own the Canon 35 f2 which has always been known as a decent lens for the money but although good has never lit my fire.
I own the Contax 35 2.8 and was reasonably happy with the results, that is till I got to grips with my voigtlander 40mm f2 Ultron (Nikon mount with adapter on my 5d2) After testing using live view I easily came down on the side of the Ultron and it is the lens in my bag that covers around that focal length period. The aperture ring is a bit fiddly but I`ve overcome that by fitting a cable tie to give something to register on (YMMD) and the other thing is I`ve fitted a Nikon HN-3 metal lens hood to give a decent amount of shading to the front element. You do get an added screw in close up lens that brings focussing in to a decent close level. To give you some idea as to it`s performance it is on par with my Leica f2 sumi(latest)
My copy of EF 35/2 is ok on lores crop sensor but on FF-sensor (1Ds) the corners are mush on all apertures. Manual focusing is painful with this plastic toy. Overal contrast is low and there's a huge difference between the microcontrast of this lens and for example the CY 28/2.8.
If buying new then the EF 35/2 is probably ok when it comes to cost/performance. Anyway I would not recommend it for FF-cameras, at least not for any landscape or similar work.
I feel the EF 35/2 has gotten a bit of a bad rap here. Yes, the contrast is a little less
than typical L glass contrast, but is not even close to the washed out look one
might expect from some of the comments. It's biggest shortcomings to me are the
major corner softness and vignetting at wide apertures and the lack of full-time manual
focus in AF mode.
Admittedly, this was high-contrast lighting, but this is a Standard picture style conversion
from DPP (no extra contrast boost) with subsequent downsize/sharpen in PS Elements:
