@mMontag: spectacular pics.
@AhamB: Thank for explaination.
@Manwearpants: sorry for misunderstood, if you insist to collect long-range N lens, pls send me your camera information, and yes N lens goes up so fast, and if other brands can use N it would be faster.I'll try my best to answer you N-sony conversion.
@john black: very original angle of view - but I cann't see the N character here , the good Nikon or Canon lens can catch the same, or spacious view isn't a strong point of your 50mm N lens , I am wrong, am I ?.
By "spacious view" do you mean 3D? I wouldn't expect any lens to produce much of a 3D look on a distant landscape or shooting into the sun (and the focus point was pretty far out). If focus was pulled forward, then there might be a more 3D feel on the 1st image. This was taken at the same spot with the Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar ZE:
The ZE is sharper at the minimum focus distance and F2 - not much surprise there since it's a macro lens. Contax has a smoother, more diffused bokeh. I like the Contax better, but the adapters are tiresome. The difference in bokeh is subtle, but it's there. The ZE might have a smidge more CA at F2. I like the ZE for the auto aperture and smooth mounting / dismounting. The Contax might have the edge in its signature - but post processing will totally negate that edge. It's a very tough race to call. If Conurus offered a RTS to EOS conversion with auto-aperture, I'd pick the Contax for sure.
That is interesting analysis ...
I sold my Contax N100, and I am looking to get a small macro...
So many choices....Contax 60 or Leica 60....then I thought about ZE50 or ZE100...
I do like pictures I've seen from ZE100 on this forum....then again, I might as well go back to N100 if I get that focal length again...
Yeah, but the 100N is the biggest and heaviest of the bunch. I like the Contax 100/2 for its size, and of three, I think its 3D rendering is the best (or most frequent).
No argument there....
But, I still have the N85/1.4 and 100mm without Macro is a bit overlapping...
But, I agree 100% that the C/Y Planar 100 is the king of 3-D rendering....
If Mark could move a couple mountains to Texas... Andi, is that the 50N? Cool texture / pattern. Here's some quasi 3D stuff to feed the need. 50N again -
Paul, how do you feel the 85N's rendering compares with the Contax 100/2? I didn't see much signs of it when I had one several years ago, but it was also November / December with cloudy, cold weather, so the lens really didn't get much of a workout.
Both Paul and I sold the (same) 21 because the 17-35 at 21 was so close. (Have I got that right Paul ?)
Now I am faced with the dilema of buying Paul's old CY 100/2 that Zombii has for sale.
My pictures are not as good as you guys (Andi, I'm including you in that description too. Your stuff is consistently exceptional), but I can go toe to toe with ya'll on the gearhead front.
DocsPics wrote:
Both Paul and I sold the (same) 21 because the 17-35 at 21 was so close. (Have I got that right Paul ?)
Now I am faced with the dilema of buying Paul's old CY 100/2 that Zombii has for sale.
My pictures are not as good as you guys (Andi, I'm including you in that description too. Your stuff is consistently exceptional), but I can go toe to toe with ya'll on the gearhead front.
I dunno...seems like a lot of alt folks are selling off their CYs that the novelty of owning one is waning. You can no longer sell them off for a decent price when you don't want them. There are just so many copies of 50, 85 and now 100 on eBay with no one taking them up. I may just pick up the ZE 100 when I am looking for the 100/2. But for now, I am looking for something to shoot the moon with.
John, I wish I could give you a professional opinion as you always do...
From amateur point of view, I prefer N85 .... it has a bit more of classical look to it, if you know what I mean.....sharp and yet smoother rendering,,,, I think this is especially good for portraits.
It also gives that 3D-rendering, though not so easy as Planar 100....
Somehow, I felt it's easier to get the 3D rendering with Planar 100..... I still don't understand why....
And, AF is definitely a huge plus for N 85....especially for eyes like mine which is getting really bad....
In short, a small edge on IQ for N85... but no brainer if you include the element of AF.
John Black wrote:
Paul, how do you feel the 85N's rendering compares with the Contax 100/2? I didn't see much signs of it when I had one several years ago, but it was also November / December with cloudy, cold weather, so the lens really didn't get much of a workout.
If ZE 21 was the size of OM21/3.5, I might have kept it.....
ZE21 definitely had a more contrast and a shaper edge, but overall image quality difference was not sufficient enough for me to keep MF prime over AF zoom.
Regarding C/Y 100, if I didn't already have N85, I'd have most likely bought the lens back from Zombii.....and that would have made me buy the lens 4th times....
DocsPics wrote:
Both Paul and I sold the (same) 21 because the 17-35 at 21 was so close. (Have I got that right Paul ?)
Now I am faced with the dilema of buying Paul's old CY 100/2 that Zombii has for sale.
My pictures are not as good as you guys (Andi, I'm including you in that description too. Your stuff is consistently exceptional), but I can go toe to toe with ya'll on the gearhead front.
