Sounds like that age old winless debate of prime IQ vs. zoom convenience - I have both - and the C/Y 21 prime is probably my most unused lens - love the IQ but inconvenienced by the wide fixed 21mm FL and too large and heavy to carry around "just in case". I use a C/Y 35-70 for my 35mm landscape prime - very, very close to the IQ of the Z* 35mm prime - but has the convenience of a zoom with those cool C/Y colors. I find 24-28mm a more useful FL than 21mm.
mMontag,
I don't doubt that the prime will fare better than a zoom lens. I am interested in how different is the IQ of a Zeiss lens made during the early days of digital sensors by the now defunct Kyocera and the modern ones optimized for digital made by Cosina.
My observation is that the vintage lenses have a deeper color saturation which gives off richer and vibrant colors while the modern lenses have a lighter color, retains highlights and shadows better, thus giving a brighter and livelier image and wider tonal range appearance.
j.liam wrote:
The now-moribund 16:9 website has this comparison of the Nikkor 14-24 vs. Contax N 17-35 vs Contax 21 shot on a Canon 1Ds Mk III. It may answer some of your questions (or perhaps all of them) as well as save you the effort:
The upshot: At 21mm the Distagon appears to better them both, with the 17-35 weakest of the three.
j.liam,
I have seen the review before. That test only verifies all 3 are superb lenses. Each will have their strength and weaknesses that if I go into it, will start the age old debate and more.
ManWearPants wrote:
metagraphica, if you are suffering from seller remorse, I do have a spare copy of N50. Just in case you didn't know. Bo-Ming is in the midst of creating an adapter for EF lenses to go onto NEX with AF and electronic aperture. When he launched that adapter, the N50 will be the first lens that I use on the NEX.
[added] I read that the OM35 PC is a preset lens, will be quite a challenge to use.
Correct! Sidon Sea Castle , or Kalaat Saida al-Bahriya, in Lebanon. Built by the Crusaders in 13th century. The Zeiss managed to retain some shine in the small ancient castle (by today's standard)
I still am not competent with this lens. How do you get any bokeh out of it. It seems like unless the subject is 0.7m away, I cannot get any bokeh out of this lens.
I still am not competent with this lens. How do you get any bokeh out of it. It seems like unless the subject is 0.7m away, I cannot get any bokeh out of this lens.
It's not a fast lens at the long end. So at the distance of the subject in your example at f4.5 and 85mm, you're not going to get much bokeh with any lens. Get closer to your subject (which I suspect you already understand). But I would say that I think you're barking up the wrong tree trying to use a modest speed zoom lens for bokeh.
Lotusm50 wrote:
It's not a fast lens at the long end. So at the distance of the subject in your example at f4.5 and 85mm, you're not going to get much bokeh with any lens. Get closer to your subject (which I suspect you already understand). But I would say that I think you're barking up the wrong tree trying to use a modest speed zoom lens for bokeh.
Yes, I am barking up the wrong tower. I am hoping for a lens that can do landscape on a wide end and subject isolation at the far end. I am hoping this lens can do everything cos it is so good to hold in the hands
Completely different optical layout (10 element vs. 6 element) as can be seen in the PDFs. The MTF charts don't support the clearcut conclusion that it's "improved" though, but it surely is different.
I heard that the redesign was not to improve MTF charts, but to enhance other characteristics considered desirable in portraiture, such as smooth bokeh and skin tone transitions. IMHO it gives more flattering look to people with less than perfect skin by having "just right" sharpness, contrast curve and skin color tones.
