kop.cppua wrote:
shamelessly cross post from another thread.
also, my first outing with this lens.
Contax N 70-300mm
CP
GREAT shot!
I love the way OOF reflections on water look with telelenses. I have some shots like that too and it really gives a special effect.
I think it would look better without the white border because it creates such a big contrast that it becomes more difficult to see the fine tonalities in dark parts of the picture.
It's been ages since I did anything on FM but I have a few images I would like to contribute to this thread so could someone please tell me what the best resolution and size is for uploaded images?
MarkJones wrote:
It's been ages since I did anything on FM but I have a few images I would like to contribute to this thread so could someone please tell me what the best resolution and size is for uploaded images?
I'd say no bigger than 1024x1024. I don't enjoy the smaller ones that are around 600px max. dimension, because you can't see any detail. 900x600 should be ok for everyone but you could go slightly bigger.
When you convert your image to JPEG for the web, look carefully that you do not use too much compression (to lower filesize) because you will lose a lot of detail, get compression artifact, posterization (smooth gradients become blotchy). If you're hitting a filesize limit, then sacrifize image size before throwing away detail and color information.
AhamB wrote:
I love the way OOF reflections on water look with telelenses. I have some shots like that too and it really gives a special effect.
I think it would look better without the white border because it creates such a big contrast that it becomes more difficult to see the fine tonalities in dark parts of the picture.
Thanks, Benjamin and teh_rebel. Glad that you like it.
mMontag wrote:
Doc, Kop & Andi - nice shots - good to see something from the 70-300.
Thanks, mMontag. True, it is one of those N lenses that lacks attention /love.
BTW, I enjoy looking at your pics. Looking forward to seeing more.
teh rebel, your images are always well made and I remember you had some doubts about the N zoom, so how do you like the 24-85? does it work out for you?
Thanks Andi .. the lens is great. definitely dont have no regrets getting rid of the 24-70 for this. Even though its a "fat" lens, its much lighter than the brick and AF is very good.
No kidding - another wonderful A.D. shot - My only comment beyond the creative content would be that, from a photo stand point the bare foot adds simple "curiosity" to the image. However that young lady would be crippled is she was running in the fields I've shown above - our grasses are completely riddled with cactus - sometimes my dogs won't follow me into areas they have learned to stay out of - they wait out on the path.
Andi, the lens does indeed show some promise. I finally bought one (again), but this time pre-converted. The Leica 50 Lux-R E60 definitely has more resolution at F4 to F8, but the Contax 50N is very good performer. I definitely think it's better than the 50mm F1.4 Planar ZE. I need to put the lens through the usual test subject to get feel for its bokeh, etc. So far I like it alot. Here's a F1.4 and F4 -
Nice use of the flares, John!
I also like the other images on your site.
I think that in your review you should probably add the word "not" in this sentence:
"Resolution at F5.6 is good, but as high as the Leica 50mm F1.4 Summilux-R E60."
Andi, that is referencing an older version of the Summilux 50 R, "The second version of the Summilux (around 1962) offered a much higher contrast wide open..." I am using the last version introduced in 1998 with a new optical design (8 elements, 7 groups). I'm not sure what Erwin is referencing because that 1962 date doesn't jibe with my reference books... Anyway, whether or not you accept Erwin's conclusions, here's what his site says about 8 element version that I am referring to (from here):
Test report of Summilux-R 1:1,4/50 (#3797918)
At full aparture this eight element lens is of medium to high contrast and thus very visibly above the low to medium contrast of the seven element predecessor. This is quite a performance as conventional wisdom will tell you that more lens elements will degrade contrast. Very fine detail is recorded with good clarity from center to well into the outer zones. In the far corner area a slight drop in performance can be noted. At f/2,0 the image outlines crispen, as does the rendition of extremely fine detail and at f/2,8 overall contrast improves again. Contrast of the extremely fine image details now is of a high order. In comparison to the predecessor we may state that the new one at f/2,0 is very much improved over the old one at f/4.0. At f/4,0 the new lens begins to record extremely fine detail with clear and crisp edges over practically the whole image field, the far corners excepted. From f/4,0 to f/8,0 this lens has its optimum. From f/11.0 diffraction starts to lower the contrast of very small image details. These small apertures are only needed when extended depth of field is required.
Closeup performance (±1,0 meter distance) is at all apertures excellent. Curvature of field is much improved when compared to its predecessor. We still can observe in the far corners a drop in contrast at all apertures. Light fall off in the corners at full aperture is hardly visible. Deliberate two stops underexposure failed to bring out strong vignetting. Veiling flare at full aperture is negligible. Suppression of light halos around small subject details is excellent and careful comparison shots with the Summilux-M 50mm showed the R version to have a slight edge.
The sharpness-unsharpness gradient is quite smooth and subject shapes are very well preserved in the unsharpness zones....Show more →
I have several Leica books and the one I'm looking at shows a much better MTF curve at F4 for this latest version of the Lux-R (1998). In terms of resolution and the rendering of textures, the R has an advantage over the Contax N. But I don't know if that would be "the" reason to pick the Leica over the Contax. It's going to come down to bokeh, performance at near distance, wide open performance, rendering mannerisms, etc. One area where the Leica does have a clear advantage is build quality. If well built lenses with well dampened focus rings, etc., turn your screws, the Leica delivers.
Anyway, it's going to be several months before I can revisit that review (the "not" typo was fixed - Thanks Aham). I need to rack up a couple thousand images with each lens to get a feel for them. As a side note, there is also the Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 SL II in the Nikon mount that gets good reviews. If that gets released in an EF mount, that might be the affordable option.
John, did you miss the text below the 4th MTF graphs from the bottom?
Leica has also stayed on the safe side with its 1.4 designs for the R-system. Some studies in the past indicated that a 1.2 design would not be up to the Leica expectations. On the other hand, the company had to accept that the original version was no longer up to date and a new eight element design was introduced in 1998. It was not a major jump forward but stopped down the performance increased substantially, making it now a fully univeral standard lens.
.. despite the higher aperture, bokeh on the lens isnt too shabby 
