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.22 #1Contax N Image Thread
To bump the thread right back to where it belongs.
N 17-35 @ f2.8
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/4951354011_dc076d1750.jpg
N 17-35 @ f6.7
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4154/4951951352_7e0f2f077f.jpg
Edited on Sep 06, 2010 at 02:11 AM · View previous versions
N 17-35 @ f2.8
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/4951354011_dc076d1750.jpg
N 17-35 @ f6.7
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4154/4951951352_7e0f2f077f.jpg
Edited on Sep 06, 2010 at 02:11 AM · View previous versions
Sep 02, 2010 at 12:55 PM
p.22 #2Contax N Image Thread
MWP,
Very cool - first one is perfect use of the FL on that subject - I really like the second one - my company fabricates those kind of prototypical exhibit fixtures - outstanding design. Not that it matters for those shots but the distortion is showing up on the rectal-linear planes - do you know if the lens was (somewhat) level? Probably pointing down on the car? Looks good though!
Very cool - first one is perfect use of the FL on that subject - I really like the second one - my company fabricates those kind of prototypical exhibit fixtures - outstanding design. Not that it matters for those shots but the distortion is showing up on the rectal-linear planes - do you know if the lens was (somewhat) level? Probably pointing down on the car? Looks good though!
Sep 02, 2010 at 05:20 PM
p.22 #3Contax N Image Thread
I picked up this lens mainly because of the people on this board so I thought I'd contribute some =]. Thanks to everyone who recommended this lens to me, I love it!
N24-85
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4114/4909128021_e8fa19ff01_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/4909738576_5f8870629c_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4909144093_f50ccb8c83_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4909782906_dddf83bda7_b.jpg
N24-85
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4114/4909128021_e8fa19ff01_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/4909738576_5f8870629c_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4909144093_f50ccb8c83_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4909782906_dddf83bda7_b.jpg
Sep 02, 2010 at 08:46 PM
p.22 #4Contax N Image Thread
John Black wrote:
Not sure why, but the Mrs. likes this one. I
The Mrs. obviously has taste. I like it too.
Not sure why, but the Mrs. likes this one. I
The Mrs. obviously has taste. I like it too.
Sep 02, 2010 at 09:12 PM
p.22 #5Contax N Image Thread
mMontag wrote:
MWP,
Very cool - first one is perfect use of the FL on that subject - I really like the second one - my company fabricates those kind of prototypical exhibit fixtures - outstanding design. Not that it matters for those shots but the distortion is showing up on the rectal-linear planes - do you know if the lens was (somewhat) level? Probably pointing down on the car? Looks good though!
Thanks. The F1 pict is pointed downwards while the China pavilion pict is pointed upwards. This is a huge pavilion at the Shanghai Expo 2010.
N17-35 for both.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4951949764_89834d6c97.jpg
deliberately introduced vignette to highlight the leading lights but think I overdid it. You can use the human as a scale to this structure.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/4951948602_a98032c797.jpg
MWP,
Very cool - first one is perfect use of the FL on that subject - I really like the second one - my company fabricates those kind of prototypical exhibit fixtures - outstanding design. Not that it matters for those shots but the distortion is showing up on the rectal-linear planes - do you know if the lens was (somewhat) level? Probably pointing down on the car? Looks good though!
Thanks. The F1 pict is pointed downwards while the China pavilion pict is pointed upwards. This is a huge pavilion at the Shanghai Expo 2010.
N17-35 for both.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4951949764_89834d6c97.jpg
deliberately introduced vignette to highlight the leading lights but think I overdid it. You can use the human as a scale to this structure.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/4951948602_a98032c797.jpg
Sep 02, 2010 at 10:07 PM
p.22 #6Contax N Image Thread
MWP,
I like using 17 @ 2.8 and leaving in the vignette - on some shots it helps to frame the subject. The pavilion is much larger than the first image (at 17mm) scales it to be - our fabrications are 1/8 (or less) that size. Thanks for the additional pics - it looks like an "Expo 2010" feature - World Class - I've always been a big fan of Asian/Eastern Architecture and design - their disciplines are very high.
I like using 17 @ 2.8 and leaving in the vignette - on some shots it helps to frame the subject. The pavilion is much larger than the first image (at 17mm) scales it to be - our fabrications are 1/8 (or less) that size. Thanks for the additional pics - it looks like an "Expo 2010" feature - World Class - I've always been a big fan of Asian/Eastern Architecture and design - their disciplines are very high.
Sep 03, 2010 at 08:00 AM
p.22 #7Contax N Image Thread
mMontag wrote:
MWP,
I like using 17 @ 2.8 and leaving in the vignette - on some shots it helps to frame the subject. The pavilion is much larger than the first image (at 17mm) scales it to be - our fabrications are 1/8 (or less) that size. Thanks for the additional pics - it looks like an "Expo 2010" feature - World Class - I've always been a big fan of Asian/Eastern Architecture and design - their disciplines are very high.
There are some amazing pavilions/structures at the Expo. The China and Saudi pavilions are said to cost US$30mil each to construct. I am not going to turn this into a Expo thread
so this is where I stop on it.
The N17-35 is exhibiting great colours and 3D. There is slight vignetting at 17mm @ f2.8. I also find that I need to compensate exposure by 1/3 to 1/2 stop. Not sure if it is due to the Contax UV filter that I have attached.
MWP,
I like using 17 @ 2.8 and leaving in the vignette - on some shots it helps to frame the subject. The pavilion is much larger than the first image (at 17mm) scales it to be - our fabrications are 1/8 (or less) that size. Thanks for the additional pics - it looks like an "Expo 2010" feature - World Class - I've always been a big fan of Asian/Eastern Architecture and design - their disciplines are very high.
There are some amazing pavilions/structures at the Expo. The China and Saudi pavilions are said to cost US$30mil each to construct. I am not going to turn this into a Expo thread
so this is where I stop on it. The N17-35 is exhibiting great colours and 3D. There is slight vignetting at 17mm @ f2.8. I also find that I need to compensate exposure by 1/3 to 1/2 stop. Not sure if it is due to the Contax UV filter that I have attached.
Sep 04, 2010 at 02:49 AM
p.22 #8Contax N Image Thread
In the wake of Zeiss ZE 35mm f1.4, the N17-35 is very capable at 35mm as well. Sharp, 3D and excellent flare suppression. Of course without as diffused OoF areas.
N17-35 @ 35 f2.8
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/4951345811_9793ec38c6.jpg
N17-35 @ 35 f2.8
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/4951345811_9793ec38c6.jpg
Sep 04, 2010 at 02:51 AM
p.22 #9Contax N Image Thread
John Black wrote:
Not sure why, but the Mrs. likes this one. It's my first grip portrait 50N @ F2.5 (sun had set).
http://www.pebbleplace.com/offload/Galleries/Gallery_Image_Bucket/Images/J10_5979.jpg
What did you do to make all the moo stare hard at the N50? Say cheese?
Not sure why, but the Mrs. likes this one. It's my first grip portrait
50N @ F2.5 (sun had set).http://www.pebbleplace.com/offload/Galleries/Gallery_Image_Bucket/Images/J10_5979.jpg
What did you do to make all the moo stare hard at the N50? Say cheese?
Sep 04, 2010 at 04:27 AM
p.22 #10Contax N Image Thread
philber,
OMG - your using a zoom! - I still have a 24-85 at Conurus - should see it this month - I think I have myself prepared that is is not a prime or the 35-70 for that matter - but for a lot of on the go, can't carry or mess with changing lenses the zooms are the way to go - the 17-35 in the 17-24mm range is very impressive - I've just sent in the 70-200 to convert - it's nice & compact and I rarely shoot that FL.
Love the N.D. shots - need to get there someday to see the real thing.
OMG - your using a zoom!
- I still have a 24-85 at Conurus - should see it this month - I think I have myself prepared that is is not a prime or the 35-70 for that matter - but for a lot of on the go, can't carry or mess with changing lenses the zooms are the way to go - the 17-35 in the 17-24mm range is very impressive - I've just sent in the 70-200 to convert - it's nice & compact and I rarely shoot that FL.Love the N.D. shots - need to get there someday to see the real thing.
Sep 04, 2010 at 02:11 PM
p.22 #11Contax N Image Thread
philber wrote:
I tried a 24-85 today, courtesy of another member. Loved the lens. Light, beautiful, perfect range, fussless AF. IQ is not Zeiss prime though, IMHO. Horses for courses...
Yep. Phiber, you have concluded what I have felt for some time now. Check pages 1~4 of this exact thread to revisit that discussion.
I tried a 24-85 today, courtesy of another member. Loved the lens. Light, beautiful, perfect range, fussless AF. IQ is not Zeiss prime though, IMHO. Horses for courses...
Yep. Phiber, you have concluded what I have felt for some time now. Check pages 1~4 of this exact thread to revisit that discussion.
Sep 04, 2010 at 05:30 PM
p.22 #12Contax N Image Thread
I hate to believe the N24-85 is not as Zeiss-like as CY35-70. I'll still stick to the N24-85 for the convenience of the AF regardless.
Sep 06, 2010 at 12:23 AM
p.22 #13Contax N Image Thread
Imho, The N 24-85 is as Zeiss as a zoom can be. It's a bit unfair to compare it to primes.
Sep 06, 2010 at 01:18 AM
p.22 #14Contax N Image Thread
Sorry to disagree, Edward, but IMHO, only based on a short loan of the 24-85, 35-70 is much closer to Zeiss primes in terms of IQ. Usability OTOH is a totally different story, there 24-85 is lovely, and 35-70 a pain...
Sep 06, 2010 at 01:21 AM
p.22 #15Contax N Image Thread
ManWearPants wrote:
I hate to believe the N24-85 is not as Zeiss-like as CY35-70.
Philber said "IQ is not Zeiss prime": not as good as Zeiss primes in the same FL range. (He wasn't saying it's not Zeiss-like in general.)
I hate to believe the N24-85 is not as Zeiss-like as CY35-70.
Philber said "IQ is not Zeiss prime": not as good as Zeiss primes in the same FL range. (He wasn't saying it's not Zeiss-like in general.)
Sep 06, 2010 at 02:29 AM
p.22 #16Contax N Image Thread
philber wrote:
Sorry to disagree, Edward, but IMHO, only based on a short loan of the 24-85, 35-70 is much closer to Zeiss primes in terms of IQ. Usability OTOH is a totally different story, there 24-85 is lovely, and 35-70 a pain...
No disagreement Phil. The 35-70 is one of the best zooms ever made. It has been advertized by Zeiss as being equal or better than equivalent primes, a true statement according to my experience. However it is a 2X zoom only, and covers 2 1/2 classic FL. The 24-85 covers 5 classic FL. A fairer comparison would be with the C/Y 28-85, and in this case I believe the 24-85 wins.
Sorry to disagree, Edward, but IMHO, only based on a short loan of the 24-85, 35-70 is much closer to Zeiss primes in terms of IQ. Usability OTOH is a totally different story, there 24-85 is lovely, and 35-70 a pain...
No disagreement Phil. The 35-70 is one of the best zooms ever made. It has been advertized by Zeiss as being equal or better than equivalent primes, a true statement according to my experience. However it is a 2X zoom only, and covers 2 1/2 classic FL. The 24-85 covers 5 classic FL. A fairer comparison would be with the C/Y 28-85, and in this case I believe the 24-85 wins.
Sep 06, 2010 at 04:21 AM
p.22 #17Contax N Image Thread
AhamB wrote:
Philber said "IQ is not Zeiss prime": not as good as Zeiss primes in the same FL range. (He wasn't saying it's not Zeiss-like in general.)
I am not quoting Philber. I revisited the first 4 pages of this thread. The general impression is that some think that the N24-85 does not display as much Zeiss characteristics as the other lenses.
ManWearPants wrote
I hate to believe the N24-85 is not as Zeiss-like as CY35-70.I am not quoting Philber. I revisited the first 4 pages of this thread. The general impression is that some think that the N24-85 does not display as much Zeiss characteristics as the other lenses.
Sep 06, 2010 at 06:31 AM
p.22 #18Contax N Image Thread
I did not say "not Zeiss-like", Paul, I wrote that, based on one short test of one sample, it did not yield results as good as those of a Zeiss prime. That is quite different. IMHO it is quite definitely a Zeiss lens in its rendition.
Sep 06, 2010 at 11:39 AM
p.22 #19Contax N Image Thread
ManWearPants wrote:
I am not quoting Philber. I revisited the first 4 pages of this thread. The general impression is that some think that the N24-85 does not display as much Zeiss characteristics as the other lenses.
Key word there is "some". There is some disagreement here. I would say the performance of the N 24-85 is as good as the 35-70 providing just as much "Zeiss characteristics" (I have both lenses), and a whole lot more convenient. My 35-70 no longer gets used. It is bettered by the ZF primes at all focal lengths and, as stated (for when you don't mind inconvenience), and the N 24-85 is as good and more convenient (when that matters). The c/y 35-70 is a good budget zoom lens but IMHO there are better choice for all situations, provided your budget can accommodate them.
I am not quoting Philber. I revisited the first 4 pages of this thread. The general impression is that some think that the N24-85 does not display as much Zeiss characteristics as the other lenses.
Key word there is "some". There is some disagreement here. I would say the performance of the N 24-85 is as good as the 35-70 providing just as much "Zeiss characteristics" (I have both lenses), and a whole lot more convenient. My 35-70 no longer gets used. It is bettered by the ZF primes at all focal lengths and, as stated (for when you don't mind inconvenience), and the N 24-85 is as good and more convenient (when that matters). The c/y 35-70 is a good budget zoom lens but IMHO there are better choice for all situations, provided your budget can accommodate them.
Sep 06, 2010 at 11:51 AM
p.22 #20Contax N Image Thread
Would you guys be so kind to tell me the minimum focusing distance of these lenses :
50N, 85N, and 70-200N?
I'm kicking around the idea of purchasing either the 85N or 50N but have read that the autofocus of the 50N is a bit lacking in terms of speed. How is it in comparison to the 17-35N as I don't shoot photo often but find that the 17-35 is more than acceptable?
Thanks
50N, 85N, and 70-200N?
I'm kicking around the idea of purchasing either the 85N or 50N but have read that the autofocus of the 50N is a bit lacking in terms of speed. How is it in comparison to the 17-35N as I don't shoot photo often but find that the 17-35 is more than acceptable?
Thanks
Sep 06, 2010 at 03:46 PM