The extreme corners of the kit lens are blurry in the f/8 infinity sample, and they look kind of stretched due to pincushion distortion. The Contax looks to have warmers colors and slightly better color separation and contrast. The kit lens looks more neutral and a bit more flat. The differences are quite small though and best detected in the full size files.
I don\'t have any experience with rangefinder lenses, but I think the field curvature at f/2.8 at inifinity is quite normal. The better rangefinder lenses (ZM/Leica M) are so much more expensive than this Contax G.
Also, I\'d try some shots at closer distance. If the Biogon 28 is anything like the Distagon 28/2.8 (which I\'ve heard it should be), it will have a good amount of pop and impressive central sharpness at f/2.8.
One final note: I don\'t know how long your experience with alt lenses is, but I get the impression that you expected near perfection from your new Zeiss lens. I\'ve gone through a phase where I was questioning the qualities of my best lenses and found small flaws when pixel peeping, which overshadowed my appreciation of the main strengths of those lenses. I guess it\'s just something one goes through when learning the technical capabilities of lenses, but I have adjusted my expectations to a somewhat more realistic level.
The extreme corners of the kit lens are blurry in the f/8 infinity sample, and they look kind of stretched due to pincushion distortion. The Contax looks to have warmers colors and slightly better color separation and contrast. The kit lens looks more neutral and a bit more flat. The differences are quite small though and best detected in the full size files.
I don\'t have any experience with rangefinder lenses, but I think the field curvature at f/2.8 at inifinity is quite normal. The better rangefinder lenses (ZM/Leica M) are so much more expensive than this Contax G.
Mar 20, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Previous versions of AhamB's message #10457919 « (un)impressed by my new G28 »
