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.30 #1Contax N Image Thread
MWP
I held onto my Canon 70-200/4 IS with the same reservations that the Contax just couldn't be a "better" lens - if you need fast focus and IS - (though fast focus and subjects usually require a high SS - negating the usefulness of the IS) - the Canon might be a better choice.
The Canon has a better build - is much larger/heavier and has a weaker IQ at minimum distance and the long end - the minimum distance on the Canon is around 48" (1.2m) and the Contax is around 24" (.6m) - the bokeh on the flower above is mostly due to MFD. The Contax imo has a much better IQ at the long end - is much smaller/lighter and - though produced by Sigma - has a Zeiss like color/contrast.
For a fast action lens go with the Canon - for landscape / nature go with the Contax - but you may want to include with the use of a tripod if you can't get high SS.
EDIT: to correct MFD
Edited on Jan 30, 2011 at 12:35 PM · View previous versions
I held onto my Canon 70-200/4 IS with the same reservations that the Contax just couldn't be a "better" lens - if you need fast focus and IS - (though fast focus and subjects usually require a high SS - negating the usefulness of the IS) - the Canon might be a better choice.
The Canon has a better build - is much larger/heavier and has a weaker IQ at minimum distance and the long end - the minimum distance on the Canon is around 48" (1.2m) and the Contax is around 24" (.6m) - the bokeh on the flower above is mostly due to MFD. The Contax imo has a much better IQ at the long end - is much smaller/lighter and - though produced by Sigma - has a Zeiss like color/contrast.
For a fast action lens go with the Canon - for landscape / nature go with the Contax - but you may want to include with the use of a tripod if you can't get high SS.
EDIT: to correct MFD
Edited on Jan 30, 2011 at 12:35 PM · View previous versions
Jan 30, 2011 at 09:28 AM
p.30 #2Contax N Image Thread
mMontag wrote:
MWP
I held onto my Canon 70-200/4 IS with the same reservations that the Contax just couldn't be a "better" lens - if you need fast focus and IS - (though fast focus and subjects usually require a high SS - negating the usefulness of the IS) - the Canon might be a better choice.
The Canon has a better build - is much larger/heavier and has a weaker IQ at minimum distance and the long end - the minimum distance on the Canon is around 48" (1.2m) and the Contax is around 18" (.45m) - the bokeh on the flower above...Show more →
Thanks for the info. The .45m MFD is across all focal length or at the wide end?
MWP
I held onto my Canon 70-200/4 IS with the same reservations that the Contax just couldn't be a "better" lens - if you need fast focus and IS - (though fast focus and subjects usually require a high SS - negating the usefulness of the IS) - the Canon might be a better choice.
The Canon has a better build - is much larger/heavier and has a weaker IQ at minimum distance and the long end - the minimum distance on the Canon is around 48" (1.2m) and the Contax is around 18" (.45m) - the bokeh on the flower above...Show more →
Thanks for the info. The .45m MFD is across all focal length or at the wide end?
Jan 30, 2011 at 10:16 AM
p.30 #3Contax N Image Thread
I just did a little measuring - at 200mm minimum working distance is about 24" (.6m) and at 70mm MWD is about 32" (.8m). MWD = front of lens to subject.
I did sell the Canon BTW - for the Contax - I wouldn't trade them back - but I especially like the smaller lens - it fits in a LowePro # 1N lens case - no reason not to bring it along.
I did sell the Canon BTW - for the Contax - I wouldn't trade them back - but I especially like the smaller lens - it fits in a LowePro # 1N lens case - no reason not to bring it along.
Jan 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM
p.30 #4Contax N Image Thread
mMontag wrote:
I just did a little measuring - at 200mm minimum working distance is about 24" (.6m) and at 70mm MWD is about 32" (.8m). MWD = front of lens to subject.
I did sell the Canon BTW - for the Contax - I wouldn't trade them back - but I especially like the smaller lens - it fits in a LowePro # 1N lens case - no reason not to bring it along.
There is a copy with Conurus. Maybe I should grab that. Dilemma...as always with lenses...*lol*
I just did a little measuring - at 200mm minimum working distance is about 24" (.6m) and at 70mm MWD is about 32" (.8m). MWD = front of lens to subject.
I did sell the Canon BTW - for the Contax - I wouldn't trade them back - but I especially like the smaller lens - it fits in a LowePro # 1N lens case - no reason not to bring it along.
There is a copy with Conurus. Maybe I should grab that. Dilemma...as always with lenses...*lol*
Jan 30, 2011 at 12:09 PM
p.30 #5Contax N Image Thread
ManWearPants wrote:
Ataboy,
I have always been on the fence about N70-200 and EF70-200IS. I chose the latter since the IS provides more handheld keepers. Can you elaborate more on why the N is better - more DoF, better bokeh, etc? I prefer the much smaller footprint of the N but am wary that 100-200mm range is easily ruined by handshakes.
I don't know, it's just my personal preference I guess. To my eyes Contax results are "crisp" whereas Canon's are "dull". I know that a lot of people will disagree. I used to argue with one person for months until I realized that it's an argument that is impossible to win, just like taste or color preference. But for myself I'll rather risk getting a blurry picture or will boost ISO rather than settle for a sharp picture that I will be bored to look at.
Ideally, of course, the picture itself should be so captivating that you wouldn't pay attention to sharpness or contrast curve but that becomes such a rarity after seeing a lot of them...
Ataboy,
I have always been on the fence about N70-200 and EF70-200IS. I chose the latter since the IS provides more handheld keepers. Can you elaborate more on why the N is better - more DoF, better bokeh, etc? I prefer the much smaller footprint of the N but am wary that 100-200mm range is easily ruined by handshakes.
I don't know, it's just my personal preference I guess. To my eyes Contax results are "crisp" whereas Canon's are "dull". I know that a lot of people will disagree. I used to argue with one person for months until I realized that it's an argument that is impossible to win, just like taste or color preference. But for myself I'll rather risk getting a blurry picture or will boost ISO rather than settle for a sharp picture that I will be bored to look at.
Ideally, of course, the picture itself should be so captivating that you wouldn't pay attention to sharpness or contrast curve but that becomes such a rarity after seeing a lot of them...
Jan 30, 2011 at 08:37 PM
p.30 #6Contax N Image Thread
Ataboy wrote:
I have always been on the fence about N70-200 and EF70-200IS. I chose the latter since the IS provides more handheld keepers. Can you elaborate more on why the N is better - more DoF, better bokeh, etc? I prefer the much smaller footprint of the N but am wary that 100-200mm range is easily ruined by handshakes.I don't know, it's just my personal preference I guess. To my eyes Contax results are "crisp" whereas Canon's are "dull". I know that a lot of people will disagree. I used to argue with one person for months until I realized that it's an argument that is impossible to win, just like taste or color preference. But for myself I'll rather risk getting a blurry picture or will boost ISO rather than settle for a sharp picture that I will be bored to look at.
Ideally, of course, the picture itself should be so captivating that you wouldn't pay attention...Show more →
Thanks. I know about Canon being lacking a special something in their rendering. I think the newer lenses are getting there with a bit of post.
nMontag mentioned a valid point. Both lenses are probably for different applications. You can wear a Casio everywhere you go or a different watch for every occasion
ManWearPants wrote
Ataboy,I have always been on the fence about N70-200 and EF70-200IS. I chose the latter since the IS provides more handheld keepers. Can you elaborate more on why the N is better - more DoF, better bokeh, etc? I prefer the much smaller footprint of the N but am wary that 100-200mm range is easily ruined by handshakes.
Ideally, of course, the picture itself should be so captivating that you wouldn't pay attention...Show more →
Thanks. I know about Canon being lacking a special something in their rendering. I think the newer lenses are getting there with a bit of post.
nMontag mentioned a valid point. Both lenses are probably for different applications. You can wear a Casio everywhere you go or a different watch for every occasion
Jan 31, 2011 at 12:01 AM
p.30 #7Contax N Image Thread
wow that looks cold just by looking at it! Nice mood to it
Phil
Phil
Feb 01, 2011 at 08:39 PM
p.30 #8Contax N Image Thread
I used the N50 very briefly, and it's a wonderful lens....
I sold all my Converted N lenses, to finance for 200/2.0, and now I'm starting to collect them again....
It's going to be a long journey back.....
I sold all my Converted N lenses, to finance for 200/2.0, and now I'm starting to collect them again....
It's going to be a long journey back.....
Feb 04, 2011 at 08:48 AM
p.30 #9Contax N Image Thread
grasmuc wrote:
Contax N 50f1.4 at f1.4 on Canon 5DII
bokeh looks fine to me
out-of-center sharpness at open aperture is just great (if you get the point at such shallow dof)
Very nice sample image , thanks for sharing
I think N50 is the best for walk around prime lens, compair to EF50/1.2 or EF 50/1.4 .
Contax N 50f1.4 at f1.4 on Canon 5DII
bokeh looks fine to me
out-of-center sharpness at open aperture is just great (if you get the point at such shallow dof)
Very nice sample image , thanks for sharing
I think N50 is the best for walk around prime lens, compair to EF50/1.2 or EF 50/1.4 .
Feb 04, 2011 at 07:10 PM
p.30 #10Contax N Image Thread
grasmuc wrote:
Hi nalahm
thx
btw the pic is form yesterday at Sukhothai historical park:-)
enclosed one more N50 @1.4 to share
magnificent...magnificent
Have a nice trip
Hi nalahm
thx
btw the pic is form yesterday at Sukhothai historical park:-)
enclosed one more N50 @1.4 to share
magnificent...magnificent
Have a nice trip
Feb 05, 2011 at 09:15 PM
p.30 #11Contax N Image Thread
OK, back to the first page with a curve ball: Contax N 50/1.4 on a Contax N digital body. The N50 on Canon is certainly great, but somehow the same lens on Contax body produces smoother bokeh - or am I just dreaming? Anyhow, if not for 6MP and the price of Contax N Digital body it would be a sweeet combo.
http://s006.radikal.ru/i215/1102/f9/8bcb7c835748.jpg
http://s006.radikal.ru/i215/1102/f9/8bcb7c835748.jpg
Feb 11, 2011 at 04:07 PM
p.30 #12Contax N Image Thread
What is the going price of the Contax N Digital nowadays...?
Awesome picture BTW......
Awesome picture BTW......
Feb 11, 2011 at 04:20 PM
p.30 #13Contax N Image Thread
It's in the vicinity of $2k... A lot of money for a 6MP camera that cannot take memory cards bigger than 1GB! But it does take great pictures, every pixel fully counts. And it can go as low as ISO 25, which is unusual.
Apart from great image quality, the high price is caused by the fact that it was the first full-frame digital camera ever made, and only a small number of them was produced, so it's popular among collectors.
Apart from great image quality, the high price is caused by the fact that it was the first full-frame digital camera ever made, and only a small number of them was produced, so it's popular among collectors.
Feb 11, 2011 at 04:25 PM
p.30 #14Contax N Image Thread
I have 3 unconverted prime N lenses, and I'm debating myself at the moment.....
Feb 11, 2011 at 04:36 PM
p.30 #15Contax N Image Thread
I've run a side-by-side test with converted and unconverted 50N and saw two differences from Canon: 1) bokeh looks smoother and 2) highlights don't get blown out (in the above picture I did it myself with autocontrast). Unfortunately I used JPEG mode for that test and like with most old cameras JPEGs kind of suck compared to RAW converted in Lightroom. Not as bad as with but still...
I am still debating myself whether use this Contax N (it probably only has 20 or so actuations on it right now) or 5D or the Contax AX and do film scanning - with that thing I can use my Contax 85/1.2 and have pretty fast and very accurate autofocus! Yeah baby!
I am still debating myself whether use this Contax N (it probably only has 20 or so actuations on it right now) or 5D or the Contax AX and do film scanning - with that thing I can use my Contax 85/1.2 and have pretty fast and very accurate autofocus! Yeah baby!
Feb 11, 2011 at 04:55 PM
p.30 #16Contax N Image Thread
grasmuc - Nice pics!
mMontag - Very nice shot of the I.M. Pei building.
Paul - I always like your shots around NYC. I need to get down there more often.
Ataboy...I'll see your kitty and raise you a kitty of my own with the 50N. This is on a 5D mkII and the bokeh looks pretty smooth to me at f1.6. That said, I do like the very smooth transition from in focus to out of focus on your shot. You can see the transition really well in the individual sections of the ?coffee table?.
http://photos.jlambertartworks.com/jpgs/Abbey-8765.jpg
mMontag - Very nice shot of the I.M. Pei building.
Paul - I always like your shots around NYC. I need to get down there more often.
Ataboy...I'll see your kitty and raise you a kitty of my own with the 50N. This is on a 5D mkII and the bokeh looks pretty smooth to me at f1.6. That said, I do like the very smooth transition from in focus to out of focus on your shot. You can see the transition really well in the individual sections of the ?coffee table?.
http://photos.jlambertartworks.com/jpgs/Abbey-8765.jpg
Feb 11, 2011 at 05:34 PM
p.30 #18Contax N Image Thread
mMontag - Cats always crack me up hiding in bags. Nice capture.
APOLLO13ZX - Love the blue reflection in the grey kitty's eyes. Very nice.
Paul - That 70-200 looks like a great little walk around lens. Definitely a lens I'll have to consider in the future. I like your New York scenes, they capture that NY essence very well. (looks like you got some dust bunnies in there too.
)
APOLLO13ZX - Love the blue reflection in the grey kitty's eyes. Very nice.
Paul - That 70-200 looks like a great little walk around lens. Definitely a lens I'll have to consider in the future. I like your New York scenes, they capture that NY essence very well. (looks like you got some dust bunnies in there too.
)Feb 15, 2011 at 12:29 PM
p.30 #19Contax N Image Thread
Indeed, the N 70-200 is much underrated IMHO....
It has plenty of Zeiss' 3D quality to it...
It has plenty of Zeiss' 3D quality to it...
Feb 15, 2011 at 03:29 PM
p.30 #20Contax N Image Thread
Paul Yi wrote:
Few more from the N 70-200 ....
Paul very nice 3D pop
I hope my 70-300 will perform as 70-200 too
Here is N85.that I'm in love with B/W than colore as someone say leica look but it's not , I think.
Few more from the N 70-200 ....
Paul very nice 3D pop
I hope my 70-300 will perform as 70-200 too
Here is N85.that I'm in love with B/W than colore as someone say leica look but it's not , I think.
Feb 19, 2011 at 08:19 AM