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

simonli

Member
I seek the advice of those who have experience with both. How close does Canon's best L lenses come to their T* cousins in terms of color, sharpness and bokeh? What quality(s) will I sacrifice?

Would their 17-40L F4 give better color and sharpness than a FFL 20mm F2.8 & 35mm F2 at respective focal lengths? (for use on their 1.6x crop cameras)

I've read that Canon's quality control is pretty poor. What advice can you give upon purchasing? Would you shoot a few s&les of a lens, note the serial numbers, go home & analyse and come back another day to buy? What kind of variations can I expect?

P.S. Yes I am a loyal, heavily invested, Contax fan. Nevertheless, I am calculating a way out if Contax Kyocera fails to deliver in their next ND.
 
Simonli:

What is wrong with using film with your fine equipment? It was designed for it.

If you have to go digital with new lenses why not buy those specifically designed for digital?

Regards

Gilbert
 
Gilbert,

> If you have to go digital with new lenses why not buy those > specifically designed for digital?

What do you think they do that normal lenses don't?

Austin
 
> Austin: > > Olympus has the answers to your question. > > Regards > Gilbert

Gilbert,

Perhaps you could put the answer in your own words ;-)

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Simon, I have a small bit of info but can't answer all your questions. My favorite Canon lens was the 70-200 2.8 L (Not IS version). Combined with my A2 body (no longer in the EOS line up) I could track anything that was moving fast. I tracked galloping horses frequently, moving in all directions, towards me, away from me and across my path. I shot it wide open very often and loved it to bits. It was quiet too. The bokeh was quite pleasing, the colors popped brilliantly (with good film choices and good processing of course) and were contrasty. The images were razor sharp. However, I never honestly looked that corners, my subjects were more central in the image since they were typically horses. I know that my subjects were always razor sharp. I used it for many years very happily.

I used the 24-70 2.8 L as well, although I didn't own it for as long, nor did I use it as much. Still, it was very hand-holdable (as was the 70-200), colors were saturated, sharp as a tack and lovely. Not quite as lovely as the 70-200 if you can even compare them fairly - but then that is no slight to the 24-70, it just says the 70-200 was stellar.

I have heard - but can not confirm, that the 200 2.8 might be EVEN sharper and better than the 70-200. I have heard that the 70-200 f4 L is also a contender with the 70-200 f2.8, smaller of course.

I never liked the non-L glass, but am tempted at present to try their 100 2.8 macro which is said to be L-like, although it uses no fluorite elements. I have been told the 85/1.8 (non-L) is also worth checking out, but not quite as sharp as the 100 macro at similar apertures and that stands to reason in my mind. In general, I didn't like any of the lenses that offered IS - but that might just be me - and no I didn't mount them on a tripod.

I have also been told that the 400 5.6L might under-perform. There are a few others that do as well, like the 100-400.

I have NOT heard that there is a difference between the same lenses in different batches. I think across the board that Canon is pretty consistent. Meaning, a 70-200 f2.8 is excellent as a general rule, while most 100-400 L live down to the reputation of not deserving L-class (if L stands for luxury in anything other than price).

Hope this helps? This was based on my opinions of my experience, plus additional hearsay. If anyone loves the lenses that I don't - please don't flame me, it is my opinion.

If you can shoot some of the gear - give it a try for a weekend rental. That's a really good way to know how it performs. I shot it strictly with negs and slides, not digital.

Good luck, -Lynn
 
Hello Simon, You worry to much. Planning way ahead is very difficult with digital equipment. Your Contax gear is second to none, and in some cases better than most (depending on your criteria). Use it with film, and if you wish get a nice 4000dpi scanner for digital printing.

I am currently using both Contax and Canon (N1, ND, EOS 1Ds and a 10D). I have all the glass for both systems: from 16-35 to 70-200/2.8 Canon L zooms, all the fast primes from 24/1.4L to 135/2L (sold my 200/1.8 and 400/2.8 ) plus the 50/1.4 , 100/2.8 Macro non Ls; Zeiss 17-35/2.8 to 70-300/4.5 zooms plus 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. I do not have the N Macro or big 400/4 because I use my Contax 645 Macro and 350/4 on the N cameras. I shoot a lot with both systems. The Canon for weddings because of range of fast prime lenses, AF speed, ability to shoot RAW and process the files in PS with the Adobe RAW processor and full sized digital sensor. The ND and N1 for the Zeiss look, especially the Zeiss color and how the files convert to B&W (which are better than the mighty Canon 1Ds IMO).

All the Canon lenses are quite good and a few are stellar. The 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2 are astounding performers. The 135/2 may be the best I've ever used.
Yet there is a look, a signiture if you will that I can detect in Canon glass that can't quite compare to the Zeiss look or signature. But it is a subjective opinion based on preferences only.

I will say that the Canon non L 50/1.4 has a nicer Bokeh than the N 50/1.4. And there is no counterpart to the 70-200/2.8L IS for the N. IS makes that lens far more versatile than the non IS version, at least for my work.
 
I agree 100% with Marc. For now, shooting films and scan is the best solution (for me at least). I understand that there are a lot that a dSLR can offer. And I am, too, frustrated that Contax does not seem to have any promise in that market, and wanted to get a 10D for the transition period.

At time I even consider dumping my whole N1 and C645 system to get a 1Ds and some L glasses. However, every time when I pick up my film and look at the quality of my prints or slides, I change my mind. The zeiss lenses are hard to beat. Eventually, I end up getting more and more zeiss lenses. My new favorite is the N17-35. It is a killer lens. My satisfaction/fun level has reached to a different level. I have even purchased the 45-90 zoom few days ago. It is so cool (to be able to zoom in medium format for ex&le) that I don¡¯t want to put it down. I have not had a chance to shoot with it but when I do, I will keep you guys posted.

I have played with the Olympus E1 in their promo event. It appears to be a pretty good system. The lens seems to be nice and crisp judging from the viewfinder. I offer no opinion on it since I have not really used it nor learn the system enough. I understand that there are new optical challege and technology for the digital capture devices (CCD or CMOS, etc). However, for the new E1 lenses, I think they just make it smaller to take advantage of the smaller 0†6 sensor.

Back to wedding as Marc mentioned. I shot one two weeks ago. I was frustrated as the N glasses are so slow (both in AF and aperture). Having said that, the result was amazing. The bride and broom are so happy with the prints. Considering the wedding was on the beach 3pm in a sunny California day. The sun was shining at my lens most of the time and my subjects were mostly against the sun. The fill flash with the TLA 360 was right on the dot in 100% of my shoot. Lens flare? What lens flare!
 
Gilbert,

> Why did Carl Zeiss produce Digiprimes for cinematography?

I can answer that question (and there is a paper on the Zeiss web site that discusses this), but the answer is not really applicable to this discussion...as cinematography has different requirements than our still images does.

Regards,

Austin
 
Back
Top