Thanks for the info! I'll try to do a little shooting with the 35 G on my NEX-7 next week. Doesn't sound perfect, but certainly sounds like it should be OK.
I can't believe the images from my ZM 50 Planar -- stunning sharpness and contrast!
douglasf13 wrote:
Planars are still symmetrical designs. I have the ZM 35/2 and Contax G 35, and both the Nex-5 and Nex-5N. As far as I can tell, the ZM 35/2 is sharper in the corners than the Contax G at all apertures (the ZM 35/2.8 is also sharper) on both cameras. Both have some color shift, and, while you're likely rarely going to notice it from either lens, the Contax's color shift is less. I probably wouldn't expect sharp corners with the Contax on the Nex-7 until f5.6 or so.
All below first photo set with my Contax Zeiss 50 1.4
At 1.4 or 2.0.
Like it on my 5N, not to big and the Zeiss signature seems to be there..
My G45 is not bad either but hmm 1.4 is good to have sometimes..
MCO, very nice portrait with the pooches. Putting the 90 to good use it looks like.
Thebrats, the 50/1.4 looks very good on the 5N, and I agree Zeiss feeling is there.
The family and I went for a short hike today and visited the tide pools. Looks like the NEX black hole is going to suck money from my wallet for a circular pol. I've been putting off buying one and really wished I had it with me today.
I don't think there have been many (or any) samples posted here from the Ultron 35. I haven't had it out too many times, the 35/2.5 is so much more compact it's easier to reach for (and had a focusing tab, which is nice). My impression of the Ultron is that it's a more modern draw compared to the 35 and 40 Noktons, and controls CA poorly, like they do. It has more punchy colors, looking more like the Color Skopar lenses. One of these days I'll get around to a direct comparison between the Ultron 35, Skopar 35, and Nokton 40.
Someone else gave me this tip: Flickr's sharpening algorithms are designed around the idea that photos will be uploaded at larger sizes. Any photos that are close to one of Flickr's standard sizes will have obvious processing since no resizing was involved. Thus, upload your photos larger than 1024 wide if you want them to look closer to your own processing after Flickr resizes them.
I don't know if any of that is true, but I started uploading them at 1600px wide and the results are a lot better (most of the time).
