wfrank wrote:
From my unscientific experience given my particular copies I'd say the Contax G on a 16MP NEX 5N rivals the CY (28/2.8) on a Canon 5D2 on the per pixel sharpness. And in my mind that is quite an achievement given the difference in pixel density.
People are rightfully saluting the CY 28/2.8 for colors, cross-frame performance and so forth. And the sharpness for landscaping is good, but not exceptional like e.g. the ZE 21/2.8.
What the CY may have, compared to the Contax G, is more Zeissyness.
interesting, i do think the g45 has more of a classic zeiss look than the g28 does, but i like the g28 more because of that, and the g28 still has plenty of 3dness for me.
have you compared the c/y to g on the same camera or are you just comparing the c/y on the 5DII to g28 on the 5N?
Dont know much about the G45 despite having it, it's a tricky focal length for me. The G21 suits me better and is by far the sharpest thing (per pixel wise) I put on the NEX 5N. But that one suffers badly in corners.
Generally the CY's are too big to justify putting on the NEX as I have the 5D2. But the smallest CY around is the super-pancake 45/2.8 with the potential of protruding less from the body than the G45. Quite a feat for a SLR lens :-)
A couple more random shots with the Samyang 14. They're all linked to full-size images if anyone is interested in pixel peeping. The resolution into the corners is impressive, particularly on APS-C. I think I still like the rendering better with the CV15, but I haven't found time to do a direct comparison.
I'd say that the Samyang 14 is good in the corner because of APS-C. On FF it is significantly worse in corners but better in the rest of the frame. This is one lens I tried on both the 5N and 5D2. But it is ridiculous on the NEX especially compared to the CV15. But it grabs unique attention in the city :-)
Yeah, it is a ridiculous combo. I only found myself stuck with that combo for a weekend because I thought I was going to be taking pictures of a dark indoor art installation where the faster aperture would help: turned out I couldn't even get into the installation. The Samyang's distortion is also hard to ignore, and I don't think that there is a Lightroom lens profile for using the lens on NEX. Is PT Lens my only option?
I agree that the corners are worse on FF, but they're still probably better than any other full frame option that wide short of the Zeiss 15?
Right, I keep it because of that (lack of options). It's a specialty lens and cant justify a ZE/ZF 15 for such usage. If so I would be into digital medium format by now :-)
But it is F/2.8. I couldnt have done this with the CV15. Sry old pic but it serves a point.
Dont know much about the G45 despite having it, it's a tricky focal length for me. The G21 suits me better and is by far the sharpest thing (per pixel wise) I put on the NEX 5N. But that one suffers badly in corners.
Generally the CY's are too big to justify putting on the NEX as I have the 5D2. But the smallest CY around is the super-pancake 45/2.8 with the potential of protruding less from the body than the G45. Quite a feat for a SLR lens :-)
you should try the c/y on a NEX just to see if it still seems more zeissy to you and report back. part of what your seeing could be the difference in formats. i've heard many film users claim that the g version was preferible in all ways. i can't bear the though of shooting an AF rangefinder myself though.
adymitruk wrote:
The crispy Sigma 19mm. The best $100 I spent on my NEX-7. This is OOC. My settings have saturation and contrast at -1 and sharpness at +2.
That almost makes me want an automatic lens. That is amazingly sharp!
Here are a few shots from the yard this afternoon. Nex 7 with Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 at 5.6 The final shot was taken with a Leica Elmar 50mm f/2.8 and a Fotodiox focusing mount.
Jim Schemel wrote:
I agree for the price those Sigma / Nex lenses look like a great value.
-Jim
Jim. educate me. I see you have a tilt shift lens but I really don't know much about them apart from the surreal pictures I have seen coming from them. They apparently are designed to serve a function in architectural photography. What is it? In this picture did you alter the perspective or the DOF or both? The Picture is great. What part did the tilt/shift play? What was the goal and what were you able to do that would not have been possible before?
-Dale
Shift allows for in-lens perspective correction and can simplify panos. Tilt adjusts the plane of focus, and I believe that's what Jim employed here. He was able to point the camera up to frame his subject and use the tilt to maintain great depth on the subject without have to resort to a diffraction-inducing small aperture.
I only found myself stuck with that combo for a weekend because I thought I was going to be taking pictures of a dark indoor art installation where the faster aperture would help: turned out I couldn't even get into the installation. 
