This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009Contax N Image Thread
p.1 #1Contax N Image Thread
As was suggested by Andi.Lets see some samples from your Contax N lenses.
Please indicate which lens and body and exif if possible.
-Jim
Please indicate which lens and body and exif if possible.
-Jim
Dec 28, 2009 at 06:18 PM
p.1 #2Contax N Image Thread
5D, N24-85, 1/80s f/7.1 at 24.0mm
http://www.pbase.com/stevenpa/image/101979221/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/stevenpa/image/101979221/original.jpg
Dec 28, 2009 at 06:45 PM
p.1 #4Contax N Image Thread
An early image from the N 24-85:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4958384-lg.jpg
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4958384-lg.jpg
Dec 28, 2009 at 09:18 PM
p.1 #5Contax N Image Thread
Jim,I know you started this thread because you wanted to see images from the N 50. So far, it's all 24-85. Come on you N 50 owners, post some shots! 
Dec 29, 2009 at 12:30 AM
p.1 #6Contax N Image Thread
OK. Here's one with the N 50/1.4
http://boncratious.com/Gallery/DrPhil2.jpg
http://boncratious.com/Gallery/DrPhil2.jpg
Dec 29, 2009 at 01:30 PM
p.1 #7Contax N Image Thread
Whoa, Dr Phil's got some serious wrinkles! Guess that clears up any questions about center sharpness. 
Good shot!
Good shot!
Dec 29, 2009 at 01:33 PM
p.1 #8Contax N Image Thread
I've been waiting for my lenses forever......3 months now...
I'll surely post one here when I get them....
I'll surely post one here when I get them....
Dec 29, 2009 at 02:02 PM
p.1 #9Contax N Image Thread
You're killing me Wayne. I'd already talked myself out of this one. Watched a brand new unconverted one go for $460 on Ebay last night. 
Dec 29, 2009 at 02:13 PM
Yikes!p.1 #11Contax N Image Thread
Thanks Zombii!
That's what happened to me with the N 85 1.4!
I am going off now to try to take some comparison shots between
my N50 1.4, ZE 50/2 and my Rokkor 58 1.2.
That's what happened to me with the N 85 1.4!
I am going off now to try to take some comparison shots between
my N50 1.4, ZE 50/2 and my Rokkor 58 1.2.
Dec 29, 2009 at 02:21 PM
p.1 #12Contax N Image Thread
Wayne, I hope you're going to post results from that test. N 85 is also on my list of wants but...
Dec 29, 2009 at 02:37 PM
p.1 #13Contax N Image Thread
Paul Yi - that N17-35 keeps attracting me more and more. The versatility of a wide zoom with the zeiss look.
billsnature - That landscape photos are breathaking. The mountains on the first and the sky on the last one are incredible. The kind of photos that makes one want to see them large. Congratulations.
billsnature - That landscape photos are breathaking. The mountains on the first and the sky on the last one are incredible. The kind of photos that makes one want to see them large. Congratulations.
Dec 29, 2009 at 04:52 PM
p.1 #14Contax N Image Thread
Sr.Cordeiro wrote:
Paul Yi - that N17-35 keeps attracting me more and more. The versatility of a wide zoom with the zeiss look.
billsnature - That landscape photos are breathaking. The mountains on the first and the sky on the last one are incredible. The kind of photos that makes one want to see them large. Congratulations.
+1 The landscape shots are just what I would have expected from the 24-85. Nice work to you both.
Paul Yi - that N17-35 keeps attracting me more and more. The versatility of a wide zoom with the zeiss look.
billsnature - That landscape photos are breathaking. The mountains on the first and the sky on the last one are incredible. The kind of photos that makes one want to see them large. Congratulations.
+1 The landscape shots are just what I would have expected from the 24-85. Nice work to you both.
Dec 29, 2009 at 05:10 PM
p.1 #15Contax N Image Thread
Here's another from the N 17-35, at 17mm:
http://boncratious.com/images/ArboretumColumns-t1.jpg
http://boncratious.com/images/ArboretumColumns-t1.jpg
Dec 29, 2009 at 05:33 PM
p.1 #17Contax N Image Thread
Is it me or do none of the pictures so far (including mine) have the 3D pop, micro-contrast, whatever you want to call it that numerous C/Y lenses are known for? This is one thing that slightly disappointed me about the 24-85. I was expecting it to replace my C/Y 35-70, and it hasn't. Images from the 35-70 often wow me right out of the camera, the 24-85 less so. Images from the 100 macro: C/Y looks better than N. Images from 21/2.8 look better than N17-35. This is my general impression from viewing the many excellent pics scattered around the Alt Forum.
Dec 30, 2009 at 03:04 AM
p.1 #18Contax N Image Thread
StevenPA wrote:
Is it me or do none of the pictures so far (including mine) have the 3D pop, micro-contrast, whatever you want to call it that numerous C/Y lenses are known for? This is one thing that slightly disappointed me about the 24-85. I was expecting it to replace my C/Y 35-70, and it hasn't. Images from the 35-70 often wow me right out of the camera, the 24-85 less so. Images from the 100 macro: C/Y looks better than N. Images from 21/2.8 look better than N17-35. This is my general impression from viewing the many excellent pics scattered around...Show more →
I would have to disagree with most of this. I think the images from both the c/y and N lens look great, but would give the edge to the N lenses overall. Clearly this is subjective, and I think if there were a blind comparison on the same subject, the differences perceived would be insignificant.
Specifically, however, I have both the N 24-35 and the c/y 35-75. Quite simply the 35-70 does not get used. It really provides nothing that the 24-85 can not provide and the N 24-85 gives you so much more. The c/y 35-70 is also significantly inferior to my primes in its focal lengths. The c/y 35-70 has been relegated to taking up space in a cabinet with absolutely no remorse.
I have also had both the c/y 100 MP sand the N 100 MS. While the c/y 100 MP was one of my long-time favorites, the N 100 MS is clearly to me, easily it's equal. The c/y does not "look better" to me. No doubt in my mind. Images from the N 100 MS are stunning with wonderful color, contrast, bokeh and pop -- and in a few of these areas will exceed what the c/y 100 can provide. The N 100 certainly continues the Zeiss Makro lens tradition but adds AF and on Canon, AE. If you want a Zeiss Makro for your Canon, the only reason to buy the older c/y lens is lower cost, and if you just can't find the newer N 100.
I do tend to agree, that for the most part, the c/y 21mm will be better than the N 17-35 zoom. This is, however, a typical prime vs. zoom issues. I expect the 21mm prime to be better than the zoom. And it is, mostly in corner performance at larger apertures. The c/y 21mm is an exceptional lens. However, if you compare the N 17-35 to the c/y 18mm, another lens that I have owned, I would unequivocally say that the N 17-35 is better. I think the N 17-35 images have wonderful color, pop and vibrancy to them that other zooms in this range just can't match. Just look at some of the images Andrew has posted over the last year with this lens. They jump from the screen, truly great stuff.
I would also, without hesitation or doubt, take the N 85/1.4 over the c/y 85/1.4, and the N 50/1.4 over the c/y 50/1.4.
Is it me or do none of the pictures so far (including mine) have the 3D pop, micro-contrast, whatever you want to call it that numerous C/Y lenses are known for? This is one thing that slightly disappointed me about the 24-85. I was expecting it to replace my C/Y 35-70, and it hasn't. Images from the 35-70 often wow me right out of the camera, the 24-85 less so. Images from the 100 macro: C/Y looks better than N. Images from 21/2.8 look better than N17-35. This is my general impression from viewing the many excellent pics scattered around...Show more →
I would have to disagree with most of this. I think the images from both the c/y and N lens look great, but would give the edge to the N lenses overall. Clearly this is subjective, and I think if there were a blind comparison on the same subject, the differences perceived would be insignificant.
Specifically, however, I have both the N 24-35 and the c/y 35-75. Quite simply the 35-70 does not get used. It really provides nothing that the 24-85 can not provide and the N 24-85 gives you so much more. The c/y 35-70 is also significantly inferior to my primes in its focal lengths. The c/y 35-70 has been relegated to taking up space in a cabinet with absolutely no remorse.
I have also had both the c/y 100 MP sand the N 100 MS. While the c/y 100 MP was one of my long-time favorites, the N 100 MS is clearly to me, easily it's equal. The c/y does not "look better" to me. No doubt in my mind. Images from the N 100 MS are stunning with wonderful color, contrast, bokeh and pop -- and in a few of these areas will exceed what the c/y 100 can provide. The N 100 certainly continues the Zeiss Makro lens tradition but adds AF and on Canon, AE. If you want a Zeiss Makro for your Canon, the only reason to buy the older c/y lens is lower cost, and if you just can't find the newer N 100.
I do tend to agree, that for the most part, the c/y 21mm will be better than the N 17-35 zoom. This is, however, a typical prime vs. zoom issues. I expect the 21mm prime to be better than the zoom. And it is, mostly in corner performance at larger apertures. The c/y 21mm is an exceptional lens. However, if you compare the N 17-35 to the c/y 18mm, another lens that I have owned, I would unequivocally say that the N 17-35 is better. I think the N 17-35 images have wonderful color, pop and vibrancy to them that other zooms in this range just can't match. Just look at some of the images Andrew has posted over the last year with this lens. They jump from the screen, truly great stuff.
I would also, without hesitation or doubt, take the N 85/1.4 over the c/y 85/1.4, and the N 50/1.4 over the c/y 50/1.4.
Dec 30, 2009 at 06:08 AM
p.1 #19Contax N Image Thread
Steven, in a way I have to agree with you, based on these Web-sized pics. Not having owned a N lens, and not having access to a high-rez version makes this a very limited statement, however. But even Wayne's pic from his 50 f:1.4, which look magnificent from a colour point of view, probably even better than my beloved ZE 50's, lack the "pop" you mention. As I don't own N lenses, I don't want to hijack this thread with non-N pics to see if, as I believe, more "pop" can be achieved from other Zeiss lenses without special PP and even in Web format, but it might be interesting.
It would go some way towards the Zeiss-50-shootout we have been talking about.
It would go some way towards the Zeiss-50-shootout we have been talking about.
Dec 30, 2009 at 06:27 AM
p.1 #20Contax N Image Thread
philber wrote:
It would go some way towards the Zeiss-50-shootout we have been talking about.
Yes, a ZE 50/1.4, N 50/1.4 and c/y 50/1.4 comparison would be interesting. I suspect that you really won't find much difference. If the comparison is rigorous and robust enough to discriminate the very small differences in performance between these lenses, I think you'll find that the ZE will take it overall by a nose.
It would go some way towards the Zeiss-50-shootout we have been talking about.
Yes, a ZE 50/1.4, N 50/1.4 and c/y 50/1.4 comparison would be interesting. I suspect that you really won't find much difference. If the comparison is rigorous and robust enough to discriminate the very small differences in performance between these lenses, I think you'll find that the ZE will take it overall by a nose.
Dec 30, 2009 at 06:37 AM