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.41 #1Contax N Image Thread
Carl Zeiss T* on Foveon, Contax N 28-80mm on SD9
50' Peugoet
50' Peugoet
 |
||
| http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6095/6234122300_9bf9823e4d_b.jpg | ||
|
Oct 11, 2011 at 04:55 AM
p.41 #2Contax N Image Thread
Carl Zeiss T* on Foveon, Contax N 28-80mm on SD9
Morgan car? unsure - who knows?
Morgan car? unsure - who knows?
|
||
| http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6231/6234124756_0176a34798_b.jpg | ||
|
Oct 11, 2011 at 04:58 AM
p.41 #3Contax N Image Thread
Carl Zeiss T* on Foveon, Contax N 28-80mm on SD9
|
||
| http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6221/6233599791_b13ace4b17_b.jpg | ||
|
Oct 11, 2011 at 05:01 AM
p.41 #4Contax N Image Thread
ManWearPants wrote:
MarkJones wrote:
I have liked the images I have seen from the ZE100 so much I am thinking of getting one. BUT home much better or worse is it than the 100N? I already have one and while it is very good stopped down I think it's not so good open wide. Is the ZE better open wide?
There are pros and cons of both lenses.
Would you care to elaborate? I know that there is a difference in speed, MFD and one is autofocus but what about IQ, sharpness etc. Mark
MarkJones wrote:
I have liked the images I have seen from the ZE100 so much I am thinking of getting one. BUT home much better or worse is it than the 100N? I already have one and while it is very good stopped down I think it's not so good open wide. Is the ZE better open wide?
There are pros and cons of both lenses.
Would you care to elaborate? I know that there is a difference in speed, MFD and one is autofocus but what about IQ, sharpness etc. Mark
Oct 11, 2011 at 06:57 AM
p.41 #5Contax N Image Thread
MarkJones wrote:
[Would you care to elaborate? I know that there is a difference in speed, MFD and one is autofocus but what about IQ, sharpness etc. Mark
I have not owned either lenses so would leave this to someone who has done so. My conclusions are from photos in this forum which you probably already know.
Edited on Oct 13, 2011 at 08:48 PM · View previous versions
[Would you care to elaborate? I know that there is a difference in speed, MFD and one is autofocus but what about IQ, sharpness etc. Mark
I have not owned either lenses so would leave this to someone who has done so. My conclusions are from photos in this forum which you probably already know.
Edited on Oct 13, 2011 at 08:48 PM · View previous versions
Oct 11, 2011 at 08:08 AM
p.41 #6Contax N Image Thread
contas wrote:
Your knowledge about zeiss is a kind of "I've heard about", your statement is an insult to Zeiss QC policy.I have my own experiences on both lenses, from outside to inside, they have much higher quality than of today EX Sigma lenses.We all didn't know what is the true in blackbox of coorperation between them.As my recognition lens optics structures like vario-sonnar ( and other planar, tessar...) belongs to the Zeiss and precise mechanical base to hold optics is very high quality, made of alloy metal not like in Canon, Sigma or Tamron lenses.The part I considered look like Sigma...Show more →
The exact wording from Carl Zeiss's reply was, "The [28-80 and 70-200] lenses you mentioned were results of a co-operation with Kyocera and Sigma." and that "the quality control was done by Carl Zeiss according to our specifications."
You are right in that we don't know what is in the black box of cooperation between them. What we do know is that the cooperation did take place. Also by taking apart the Contax N Vario-Sonnar 28-80/3.5-5.6 and the Sigma 28-80/3.5-5.6 lenses, I do find similarities in the autofocus gear train, motor and the EMD between the two lenses, so you are also correct about Sigma contributing to the electro-mechanical part. I have to emphasize however that the electronics are not the same - the Contax N has zoom and distance encoders of far greater resolution than Sigma.
I am no optical expert and won't be able to comment on the optical design. What I do know for a fact is that the Sigma lens has a rotating front element but the Contax N lens has a non-rotating front element, so the focusing helicoil definitely has a different design.
Both lenses are constructed almost entirely of plastic, however, although the Contax N appears to have a more robust feel to it and definitely has better dampening for its focus ring and zoom ring. The Contax N in clearance sales is not that much more expensive than Sigma but you are clearly getting substantial improvements in construction and handling. That said we have to remember the Contax N 28-80 is the budget lens in the Contax N line up. It does have Zeiss' QC standards but even so, not all Zeiss lenses are created equal. The Contax N 24-85 is definitely the better lens with more zoom range, metal construction, ultrasonic motor, full time manual focus, better corrected optically (not necessarily sharper, but aberrations are better controlled) and a better reliability record.
Bo-Ming
conurus
Your knowledge about zeiss is a kind of "I've heard about", your statement is an insult to Zeiss QC policy.I have my own experiences on both lenses, from outside to inside, they have much higher quality than of today EX Sigma lenses.We all didn't know what is the true in blackbox of coorperation between them.As my recognition lens optics structures like vario-sonnar ( and other planar, tessar...) belongs to the Zeiss and precise mechanical base to hold optics is very high quality, made of alloy metal not like in Canon, Sigma or Tamron lenses.The part I considered look like Sigma...Show more →
The exact wording from Carl Zeiss's reply was, "The [28-80 and 70-200] lenses you mentioned were results of a co-operation with Kyocera and Sigma." and that "the quality control was done by Carl Zeiss according to our specifications."
You are right in that we don't know what is in the black box of cooperation between them. What we do know is that the cooperation did take place. Also by taking apart the Contax N Vario-Sonnar 28-80/3.5-5.6 and the Sigma 28-80/3.5-5.6 lenses, I do find similarities in the autofocus gear train, motor and the EMD between the two lenses, so you are also correct about Sigma contributing to the electro-mechanical part. I have to emphasize however that the electronics are not the same - the Contax N has zoom and distance encoders of far greater resolution than Sigma.
I am no optical expert and won't be able to comment on the optical design. What I do know for a fact is that the Sigma lens has a rotating front element but the Contax N lens has a non-rotating front element, so the focusing helicoil definitely has a different design.
Both lenses are constructed almost entirely of plastic, however, although the Contax N appears to have a more robust feel to it and definitely has better dampening for its focus ring and zoom ring. The Contax N in clearance sales is not that much more expensive than Sigma but you are clearly getting substantial improvements in construction and handling. That said we have to remember the Contax N 28-80 is the budget lens in the Contax N line up. It does have Zeiss' QC standards but even so, not all Zeiss lenses are created equal. The Contax N 24-85 is definitely the better lens with more zoom range, metal construction, ultrasonic motor, full time manual focus, better corrected optically (not necessarily sharper, but aberrations are better controlled) and a better reliability record.
Bo-Ming
conurus
Oct 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM
p.41 #7Contax N Image Thread
I know you are the one have a real practice on the lens, but today is weekend , I will discuss this with you later certaintly- I like the real .Btw, you wrote : "Both lenses are constructed almost entirely of plastic", so what do you mean?optics? mechanical base? cover? motor gear?.You know what I know so state clearly because around us many people don't know.
Oct 14, 2011 at 06:59 PM
p.41 #8Contax N Image Thread
Thank you for your very good question. All lenses are made of both metal and plastic, but we know not all lenses have the same construction. Some clear definition is required. My personal definition is for all the glass elements to be in metal housing(s) in order to be considered as "made of metal".
For example, all glass elements of the Contax N 24-85 are in metal housings, even though the exterior shell is a mix of metal and plastic. I would still call that a metal lens.
The Contax N 28-80 fails my personal definition of a "metal" lens. The Contax N 70-200 only meets that definition partially, so I would also call that a fail.
It is hard to evaluate without taking the lens apart. For instance, Sony NEX lenses have metal exteriors, but inside, almost everything is plastic.
It is another debate whether it is important or not. For example, the Contax N 70-300 completely fulfills my definition, but I personally would still rather use the 70-200. Whether you want to base your lens choice on whether it is made of plastic or metal is a personal decision.
For example, all glass elements of the Contax N 24-85 are in metal housings, even though the exterior shell is a mix of metal and plastic. I would still call that a metal lens.
The Contax N 28-80 fails my personal definition of a "metal" lens. The Contax N 70-200 only meets that definition partially, so I would also call that a fail.
It is hard to evaluate without taking the lens apart. For instance, Sony NEX lenses have metal exteriors, but inside, almost everything is plastic.
It is another debate whether it is important or not. For example, the Contax N 70-300 completely fulfills my definition, but I personally would still rather use the 70-200. Whether you want to base your lens choice on whether it is made of plastic or metal is a personal decision.
Oct 15, 2011 at 10:55 AM
p.41 #9Contax N Image Thread
Let me summarize this topic! If photographers embrace Cosina-manufactured Carl Zeiss lenses as genuine Carl Zeiss, we should do the same to the Contax N 28-80/3.5-5.6. It is "genuine", despite Sigma's involvement and some similarities to Sigma's own 28-80/3.5-5.6. We also know for certain that when you buy a Contax N 28-80 you are getting a lens which is very significantly different from the Sigma 28-80. Not just higher QC, but both the mechanical design and even the quality of the electronics are of higher quality.
Oct 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM
p.41 #11Contax N Image Thread
cyberstudio wrote:
contas wrote:
The exact wording from Carl Zeiss's reply was, "The [28-80 and 70-200] lenses you mentioned were results of a co-operation with Kyocera and Sigma." and that "the quality control was done by Carl Zeiss according to our specifications."
You are right in that we don't know what is in the black box of cooperation between them. What we do know is that the cooperation did take place. Also by taking apart the Contax N Vario-Sonnar 28-80/3.5-5.6 and the Sigma 28-80/3.5-5.6 lenses, I do find similarities in the autofocus gear train, motor and the EMD between the two lenses, so you are
My answer is in italic
You’re Failed.Their PCBs are very similar in electronic main “bulbs” and schema (for 28-80mm) even have nearly the same size.All inputs on Sigma PCB match 90% to the N lens outputs they only have a tiny difference that I’ll keep for myself.
Sigma had no 70-200mm f/3.5-4.5 model (this must be a wow news for you ).So here is my question : Could Sigma take that task : design something they aren’t familiar with? Could Mexico design new advanced model shuttle for US?
The 70-200mm is IF, so front group elements rotate inside the lens.
I am no optical expert and won't be able to comment on the optical design. What I do know for a fact is that the Sigma lens has a rotating front element but the Contax N lens has a non-rotating front element, so the focusing helicoil definitely has a different design.
So you must draw a conclusion here for your-self: 28-80mm and 70-200mm are not the Sigma designs.
Both lenses are constructed almost entirely of plastic,
You failed again, 28-80mm and 70-200mm have alloy metal base for all glass elements and also have alloy metal trunks, here my conclusions for you :
a. you’re a dumb who can’t differentiate what is what, metal or plastic.
or
b. you’re un-honest person, your purposed lying motivated by a certain plot.
Hope not both.
however, although the Contax N appears to have a more robust feel to it and definitely has better dampening for its focus ring and zoom ring. The Contax N in clearance sales is not that much more expensive than Sigma
wow, you must be joking, in clearance sales I can buy a house for the price of an old car.You can’t say that here to prove that ‘s cheap.Ok , you don’t know how to compare , I’ll help ( many people here say things they are uncertain of ).OK take the time of 2002, when those lenses are released: one person with avatar Michaela bought N 28-80mm at Adorama paid US $ 500 and at the same year a person with avatar Paparazzi paid US $89 to get a Sigma 28-80mm from B&H.Are they at the same value?People must know what they get for that price.Both of them were happy with their own ways.
Now on Ebay N 28-80mm average US $ 300 to 400 and Sigma 28-80mm US $ 30-50 most of them have error 99 when using on Canon DSRL (no iris control, you must shut off the camera )
You failed again.
but you are clearly getting substantial improvements in construction and handling. That said we have to remember the Contax N 28-80 is the budget lens
You failed again not to keep–up Contax N producing history: Spring 2002 , Contax Kyocera released new camera Nx, and with it those are : 28-80mm , 70-200mm and 17-35mm lenses .Their pronounce at that time: aiming to advanced amateurs .Pls look into yourself, and tell on behalf of yourself only not of someone else if you don’t have any official permission.
in the Contax N line up. It does have Zeiss' QC standards but even so, not all Zeiss lenses are created equal. The Contax N 24-85 is definitely the better lens with more zoom range, metal construction, ultrasonic motor, full time manual focus, better corrected optically (not necessarily sharper, but aberrations are better controlled)
So you your-self refused MTF analysis that shows at every F and at every focus distance 24-85 mm always better 28-80mm ?.Strange.Contax N lenses are all good in control of optical aberration, by all they have aspherical elements.But for CA control , definitely non of them except N400 is a only APO N lens.
Now tell about N 24-85mm , if both of those above listed have alloy metal trunks , this one has not.Wow, it has strong alloy aluminum core, that adheres to the strong alloy metal rear frame and this one fixed to a plastic ring by screws and front group of elements (big and heavy ) also fixed to the same plastic ring by opposite screws .I can’t believe my eye , when realized it is the very weak point of 24-85mm construction. After 2 times of dissemble ,assemble I need to add rubber cement to holes or screws are loosing and front element was shaking.24-85mm has AF-MF transformer that ease you when you choose the type of focus, this module reside inside that plastic ring, and it self is compose of many tiny plastic gears( more than 10 of them ), my 24-85mm broke one of those gears, and I had to have a lather mechanic to make it by aluminum instead.24-80mm is heavy, large filter (82mm ) but still consider slow lens of f/3.5.So if this 24-85 mm drops perpendicularly to the ground it’ll be turn aparts infront of you and not have a protection enough for the internal optics.So I don’t think 24-85mm is a successful design of Contax N .
Contax N serie lenses is the first Zeiss motorized optics, they are driven by DC or US motor and controlled by electronic chips, which are have short life-time.As Kyocera commitment in 2005, that they support of a period of 10 years for all Contax N users, and as the deadline is very near, you must be technically very strong to keep N lens, or you’ll pay much for it’s service or no-service at all after 2015.
and a better reliability record.
Bo-Ming
conurus...Show more →
contas wrote:
The exact wording from Carl Zeiss's reply was, "The [28-80 and 70-200] lenses you mentioned were results of a co-operation with Kyocera and Sigma." and that "the quality control was done by Carl Zeiss according to our specifications."
You are right in that we don't know what is in the black box of cooperation between them. What we do know is that the cooperation did take place. Also by taking apart the Contax N Vario-Sonnar 28-80/3.5-5.6 and the Sigma 28-80/3.5-5.6 lenses, I do find similarities in the autofocus gear train, motor and the EMD between the two lenses, so you are
My answer is in italic
You’re Failed.Their PCBs are very similar in electronic main “bulbs” and schema (for 28-80mm) even have nearly the same size.All inputs on Sigma PCB match 90% to the N lens outputs they only have a tiny difference that I’ll keep for myself.
Sigma had no 70-200mm f/3.5-4.5 model (this must be a wow news for you ).So here is my question : Could Sigma take that task : design something they aren’t familiar with? Could Mexico design new advanced model shuttle for US?
The 70-200mm is IF, so front group elements rotate inside the lens.
I am no optical expert and won't be able to comment on the optical design. What I do know for a fact is that the Sigma lens has a rotating front element but the Contax N lens has a non-rotating front element, so the focusing helicoil definitely has a different design.
So you must draw a conclusion here for your-self: 28-80mm and 70-200mm are not the Sigma designs.
Both lenses are constructed almost entirely of plastic,
You failed again, 28-80mm and 70-200mm have alloy metal base for all glass elements and also have alloy metal trunks, here my conclusions for you :
a. you’re a dumb who can’t differentiate what is what, metal or plastic.
or
b. you’re un-honest person, your purposed lying motivated by a certain plot.
Hope not both.
however, although the Contax N appears to have a more robust feel to it and definitely has better dampening for its focus ring and zoom ring. The Contax N in clearance sales is not that much more expensive than Sigma
wow, you must be joking, in clearance sales I can buy a house for the price of an old car.You can’t say that here to prove that ‘s cheap.Ok , you don’t know how to compare , I’ll help ( many people here say things they are uncertain of ).OK take the time of 2002, when those lenses are released: one person with avatar Michaela bought N 28-80mm at Adorama paid US $ 500 and at the same year a person with avatar Paparazzi paid US $89 to get a Sigma 28-80mm from B&H.Are they at the same value?People must know what they get for that price.Both of them were happy with their own ways.
Now on Ebay N 28-80mm average US $ 300 to 400 and Sigma 28-80mm US $ 30-50 most of them have error 99 when using on Canon DSRL (no iris control, you must shut off the camera )
You failed again.
but you are clearly getting substantial improvements in construction and handling. That said we have to remember the Contax N 28-80 is the budget lens
You failed again not to keep–up Contax N producing history: Spring 2002 , Contax Kyocera released new camera Nx, and with it those are : 28-80mm , 70-200mm and 17-35mm lenses .Their pronounce at that time: aiming to advanced amateurs .Pls look into yourself, and tell on behalf of yourself only not of someone else if you don’t have any official permission.
in the Contax N line up. It does have Zeiss' QC standards but even so, not all Zeiss lenses are created equal. The Contax N 24-85 is definitely the better lens with more zoom range, metal construction, ultrasonic motor, full time manual focus, better corrected optically (not necessarily sharper, but aberrations are better controlled)
So you your-self refused MTF analysis that shows at every F and at every focus distance 24-85 mm always better 28-80mm ?.Strange.Contax N lenses are all good in control of optical aberration, by all they have aspherical elements.But for CA control , definitely non of them except N400 is a only APO N lens.
Now tell about N 24-85mm , if both of those above listed have alloy metal trunks , this one has not.Wow, it has strong alloy aluminum core, that adheres to the strong alloy metal rear frame and this one fixed to a plastic ring by screws and front group of elements (big and heavy ) also fixed to the same plastic ring by opposite screws .I can’t believe my eye , when realized it is the very weak point of 24-85mm construction. After 2 times of dissemble ,assemble I need to add rubber cement to holes or screws are loosing and front element was shaking.24-85mm has AF-MF transformer that ease you when you choose the type of focus, this module reside inside that plastic ring, and it self is compose of many tiny plastic gears( more than 10 of them ), my 24-85mm broke one of those gears, and I had to have a lather mechanic to make it by aluminum instead.24-80mm is heavy, large filter (82mm ) but still consider slow lens of f/3.5.So if this 24-85 mm drops perpendicularly to the ground it’ll be turn aparts infront of you and not have a protection enough for the internal optics.So I don’t think 24-85mm is a successful design of Contax N .
Contax N serie lenses is the first Zeiss motorized optics, they are driven by DC or US motor and controlled by electronic chips, which are have short life-time.As Kyocera commitment in 2005, that they support of a period of 10 years for all Contax N users, and as the deadline is very near, you must be technically very strong to keep N lens, or you’ll pay much for it’s service or no-service at all after 2015.
and a better reliability record.
Bo-Ming
conurus...Show more →
Oct 17, 2011 at 01:49 AM
p.41 #12Contax N Image Thread
24-85mm vs 28-80mm MTF = 24-85mm win (tho on longer end its a bit tie)
Only interestin feature of 28-80mm is 1:2 macro (impressive for all-around zoom).
For construction, well.. since Bo-Ming is actually converting this lens I would say that he probably knows what hes talking, right?
If you really want to know who made 28-80mm I can ask someone who probably knows that for sure.
Only interestin feature of 28-80mm is 1:2 macro (impressive for all-around zoom).
For construction, well.. since Bo-Ming is actually converting this lens I would say that he probably knows what hes talking, right?
If you really want to know who made 28-80mm I can ask someone who probably knows that for sure.
Oct 17, 2011 at 02:45 AM
p.41 #13Contax N Image Thread
Mescalamba wrote:
For construction, well.. since Bo-Ming is actually converting this lens I would say that he probably knows what hes talking, right?
If you really want to know who made 28-80mm I can ask someone who probably knows that for sure.
Not seem like that.
Ok go ahead everyone wants that .
For construction, well.. since Bo-Ming is actually converting this lens I would say that he probably knows what hes talking, right?
If you really want to know who made 28-80mm I can ask someone who probably knows that for sure.
Not seem like that.
Ok go ahead everyone wants that .
Oct 17, 2011 at 02:57 AM
p.41 #14Contax N Image Thread
Paul Yi wrote:
This thread needs to be on the first page.....
N85 ... on Nex-5N
I know.... I was just curious......
For the nth times, someone is selling his N lenses. Sure you are not going to buy them back again?
http://conurus.com/forum/fs-converted-n17-35-n85-t883.html
This thread needs to be on the first page.....
N85 ... on Nex-5N
I know.... I was just curious......
For the nth times, someone is selling his N lenses. Sure you are not going to buy them back again?
http://conurus.com/forum/fs-converted-n17-35-n85-t883.html
Oct 17, 2011 at 07:35 AM
p.41 #15Contax N Image Thread
Mescalamba wrote:
If you really want to know who made 28-80mm I can ask someone who probably knows that for sure.
Does the origin matters more than the fact that the lens can have excellent results?
If you really want to know who made 28-80mm I can ask someone who probably knows that for sure.
Does the origin matters more than the fact that the lens can have excellent results?
Oct 17, 2011 at 07:38 AM
p.41 #16Contax N Image Thread
contas wrote:
keep on posting images from N + foveon .+1Thanks guys, as this combo I mostly use for flower shooting so you can see it's pictures on Alt Flower thread.I thought, I discovered something for both sides Zeiss and Foveon when couple them together.Btw, there is an opinion that among SD , the SD9 is the sharpest - and dust cover of SD9 also was removed by me to reduce any obstacle to light path to sensor ( I can't assusure you can do it with other SD).
To answer your question about to converse SA TC to accept Canon mount:
1- Check your lens compatibility with TC you want to...Show more →
Thankyou so much , I can't write alot due to not fluence in english , anyway thanks again I will try as you suggest.
Bifurcator wrote
nalahm wrote
thx@contaskeep on posting images from N + foveon .
To answer your question about to converse SA TC to accept Canon mount:
1- Check your lens compatibility with TC you want to...Show more →
Thankyou so much , I can't write alot due to not fluence in english , anyway thanks again I will try as you suggest.
Oct 17, 2011 at 09:45 AM
p.41 #17Contax N Image Thread
ManWearPants wrote:
Does the origin matters more than the fact that the lens can have excellent results?
+1
I just care the result only.
Mescalamba wrote
If you really want to know who made 28-80mm I can ask someone who probably knows that for sure.+1
I just care the result only.
Oct 17, 2011 at 09:48 AM
p.41 #18Contax N Image Thread
Although contas used the word "failed" to refer to my post many times, I do not see how my overall position contradicting his. His position is that the Contax N lens cannot be considered the same lens as the Sigma 28-80. I share the exact same position, and I even supported his view by relating to my own extensive experience in disassembling these lenses. I am not debating with him but adding to what he is saying. I consider myself contas' ally, not his foe.
Contas, by your own reckoning, the PCBs are similar, that implies they are not the same, right? How did I "fail" by claiming the Contax N version is superior?
Your overall position is that the Contax N is superior to the Sigma, but then you "fail" me because I claimed the electronics of the Contax N is superior?
Based on that, I do not see any need to address the rest of your reply, until you demonstrate a consistent position yourself, and that you understand the fact that we share the same views.
Contas, by your own reckoning, the PCBs are similar, that implies they are not the same, right? How did I "fail" by claiming the Contax N version is superior?
Your overall position is that the Contax N is superior to the Sigma, but then you "fail" me because I claimed the electronics of the Contax N is superior?
Based on that, I do not see any need to address the rest of your reply, until you demonstrate a consistent position yourself, and that you understand the fact that we share the same views.
Oct 17, 2011 at 10:22 AM
p.41 #19Contax N Image Thread
ManWearPants wrote:
Does the origin matters more than the fact that the lens can have excellent results?
No it doesnt matter, its just curiosity.
Mescalamba wrote
If you really want to know who made 28-80mm I can ask someone who probably knows that for sure.No it doesnt matter, its just curiosity.
Oct 17, 2011 at 04:03 PM
p.41 #20Contax N Image Thread
Electronics in N mount was probably made by Sigma and glass for 24-85N was made in TOMIOKA Optical, which is today Kyocera Optec. Same should apply on 28-80mm.
Who designed lens is a bit mystery, but considering MTF of 28-80mm I would say Zeiss. Just guess tho..
QC should be same for every Contax N lens.
Who designed lens is a bit mystery, but considering MTF of 28-80mm I would say Zeiss. Just guess tho..
QC should be same for every Contax N lens.
Oct 18, 2011 at 07:54 AM