DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Contax N Lenses vs Canon L Lenses

Marc, I'm not a Canon user now. Last time I was I had just purchased a new Canon Pellix; shows you how long ago that was. I know that both Nikon and Canon produce image stabilizing lenses and I recall in reading the initial tests from possibly Pop.Photo, that images a re degraded when this feature is used. Can't tell you the reason, just know that I remember the reference. Maybe some diehard Canon owners can enlighten us.
Colin
 
There have been several lens tests in german photo magazines all stating that non-IS lenses were better than their IS counterparts.... I have been using the 28-135 IS and I haven't been that happy with the lens. I Git same quality with other cheaper lenses from Sigma for ex&le. And for the IS benefit I'm using primes instead - much better quality is same light conditions ! (2.8/28, 2/35, 1.8/50 and 2/100). Just my 2 cents... Paul
 
Switch to Leica SLR lenses and you won't have any problems. They are far better optically and mechanically.
Doug
 
I'm interested in Contax/Zeiss, not Canon (or Nikon). Why don't move this thread to a Canon site. This Canon talk is of no interest.
 
This thread indeed drifts out of focus...IS lens is more proned to flare and ghosting because of the additional image stablising optical elements (approx. 5-7)added to the design. The more optical elements, the worst flaring occurs particularly shooting towards the sun with IS zooms.The IS optical elements also introduce additional aberrations and therefore you will often find more LD glasses are needed in more expensive L IS- zooms and primes.
 
Hi! Having just decided that digital is not for me, I am soon to go back to the RX Body. Having had in the past the AX,RX, and the N1,I have decided that the one I favoured best was the RX.As I cannot remember the lenses which I carried for that body, I am hoping that some of you will be able to make constructive, comments or suggestions of a suitable combination of about 4 lenses for the RX.
Kind Regards. Ken.T.
 
Hi Ken, Maybe you could tell the group what sort of subjects (people, landscape, architecture, etc) and in what types of conditions (indoor, low light, outdoors, sandy dusty places, etc) you like to shoot. That would make it easier to make suggestions. Good luck. -Lynn
 
Ken,

As Lynn said, it depends
happy.gif
I personally have following 4 lenses that cover most of my needs - Distagon 28mm f/2.8, Planar 50mm f/1.4, Sonnar 85mm f/2.8 and Sonnar 135mm f/2.8. I also need Planar 85mm f/1.4 and Distagon 35mm f/1.4, but I will add these later
happy.gif


Marc,

The main problem with IS is the fact that it is accomplished via a group of additional elements positioned inside the lens. This group is there regardless of whether you use IS or not. IS is accomplished by moving this group "correcting" your handshake. The problem with it is that:

a) it requires complete redesign of a specific lens to make it an "IS" lens.

Case in point - 70-200mm f/2.8 L "IS" has 23 (!) elements in 18 groups (thus 36 air-to-glass surfaces)

70-200mm f/2.8 L has 18 elements in 15 groups (30 air-to-glass surfaces) and 160 grams lighter

b) with these extra air-to-glass surfaces light loss becomes more significant and it's more prone to flare. See point "a".

c) more elements means more complex manufacturing, harder to achieve tolerances when assembling, mounting and centering lenses and different barrel from a regular lens

d) mechanism that moves these "IS" group lenses has to be very precise, which is easier said than done. It also depends on how accurate these gyro sensors are. Thus - shifts in focus and various aberrations even when the IS is turned off are possible, since that group moves up or down perpendicular to the optical axis - meaning there is a room for it in the barrel.

Nikon didn't start making VR lenses until relatively recently for pretty much the same reasons - they saw more cons than they saw pros. Only demand for these kind of lenses forced them to start making them.


Mike.
 
Thank you Mike. I didn't know all that.

Kenneth, I have contemplated going back to an RX myself. There were some legendary Zeiss lenses in the manual system that I wish I had never parted with... and a few I never got around to getting.
 
Hi Folks! Many thanks for your replies which are much appreciated. My interests are portrait, landscape,and just wandering around the countryside where I live and shooting old barns,derelict farm machinery, and farmers who have never had a shave for about four days etc. I think two of my previous lenses were the 25mm f2.8,and the 50mm f1.4 and I'm almost sure that I had the 85mm as well. At a mere 75yrs young carting weight around has to be another consideration.My present camera is a featherweight Nikon Coolpix 5700, not a bad little machine, but as I said before digital is not for me. It is common knowledge or beleif that prime lenses are superior to zooms,which could eleviate some of the weight,which now gives rise to the question, Is the differential in weight between four primes,as against two zooms,worth the differnce in quality. Over to you my friends.
Kind Regards Ken.T.
 
Back
Top