I held onto my Canon 70-200/4 IS with the same reservations that the Contax just couldn\'t be a \"better\" lens - if you need fast focus and IS - (though fast focus and subjects usually require a high SS - negating the usefulness of the IS) - the Canon might be a better choice.
The Canon has a better build - is much larger/heavier and has a weaker IQ at minimum distance and the long end - the minimum distance on the Canon is around 48\" (1.2m) and the Contax is around 24\" (.6m) - the bokeh on the flower above is most due to MFD. The Contax imo has a much better IQ at the long end - is much smaller/lighter and - though produced by Sigma - has a Zeiss like color/contrast.
For a fast action lens go with the Canon - for landscape / nature go with the Contax - but you may want to include with the use of a tripod if you can\'t get high SS.
I held onto my Canon 70-200/4 IS with the same reservations that the Contax just couldn\'t be a \"better\" lens - if you need fast focus and IS - (though fast focus and subjects usually require a high SS - negating the usefulness of the IS) - the Canon might be a better choice.
The Canon has a better build - is much larger/heavier and has a weaker IQ at minimum distance and the long end - the minimum distance on the Canon is around 48\" (1.2m) and the Contax is around 18\" (.45m) - the bokeh on the flower above is most due to MFD. The Contax imo has a much better IQ at the long end - is much smaller/lighter and - though produced by Sigma - has a Zeiss like color/contrast.
For a fast action lens go with the Canon - for landscape / nature go with the Contax - but you may want to include with the use of a tripod if you can\'t get high SS.
Jan 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Previous versions of mMontag's message #9266988 « Contax N Image Thread »
