Which lenses do you use mostly and why

[Guest]

Ideally, I would like to minimize the use of zooms because of their size. It has never before occurred to me that they might be intimidating to the subject, as a previous poster had suggested, but I think he may be right. Having said that, I continue to use my 28-85 for at least half my shots, simply because it allows me to quickly get the right perspective (and try out some alternatives). Interestingly, the MTF charts on the Zeiss web page would indicate that the zooms outperform most of the prime lenses at most focal lengths --if you believe that MTF charts are a good measure of lens performance; I know that's a controversial subject.

 

[Guest]

Similar observations. While, somehow on the contrary, I would like to minimize the use of primes because of their overall weight is more than the weight of a few zooms, I am still attracted towards the higher degree of optical perfection primes promise. So, as an N1 user, I can hardly wait for the 1.4/85 and for any future developments, like a 2.8/21, 1.4/35, 2.8/135 and of course longer tele-lenses, like a 2.8/300... I think I will have the courage to carry all that glass on a long tour, for the pleasure of optical perfection.

I agree with you - at least regarding the new N varios - that their MTFs look better at most focal lengths than the MTFs of the good old MM primes. The old C/Y-mount lenses were designed quite long time ago, and I suspect - and hope - that the reason for the apparent improvement in the MTF charts is that Zeiss has improved its design methods and manufacturing technology during the recent decades. Possible, that they are now capable of designing and building zooms that often outperform primes that were designed e.g. 30 years ago. I am curious to see how the MTF curves of their N-zooms will compare to new N-primes... I sincerely doubt that the core reason behind the difference is not a change in technology but a "development" in marketing communications approach.... I trust CZ is a fair player.

By the way, I do not really like their method of measuring at full aperture and at closed down by 2-stops. Apart from the wide open position I would be interested in the maximum performance of a lens, which I expect at f8. Just like the guys at photodo.com do it. Oh yes, and I would like to see some new results from their lab. They seem to be on a long-long holiday...

And of course, the MTF charts are a good measure, at least I would prefer lenses only above a certain MTF performance. But I think most people would agree that, apart from any numerical measurement results, there is something you can only feel. And that is absolutely subjective.

 

[Guest]

I just wanted to point out that the for what it is worth, the MTF data supplied by Zeiss actually suggest that the new N series zooms offer somewhat less optical performance than some of the newer manual focus zooms lenses. They do offer a somewhat wider range of focal lengths. The MTF curves provided by Zeiss indicate the 100-300/4.5-5.6 MM out performs the 70-300/4-5.6 N; the manual 28-85 MM has better MTF curves than the 24-85 N.

Many of the older prime lenses offer perfomance comparable to the newer N zooms. For instance, the old 85/2.8 manual focus lens is very comparable in performance at least as far as MTF curves go to the new 24-85 N zoom at 85mm. The 85/2.8 is a real nice compact light weight lens and about a 1/2 stop faster.

Jason

 

[Guest]

My girlfriend now uses my rts2 most of the times. She really likes the 2,8 135mm and has made wonderful pictures of people with it. I Kike this lens also a lot but would like to have a 200 or 85.

 

[Guest]

Hey, this is becoming a really good discussion...

Regarding MTF curves and real life image quality I would like to invite you to look at my comments and the Zeiss articles in the News/Info folder on the left.

The tests of Photodo have a certain kind of weighting to get their final results. So it is not easy to compare these tests with other MTF tests. I think since June 2000 they did not test any Zeiss or Leitz lenses anymore.

Maybe they just stopped doing this...

Buy the way I did some comparison pictures with my new N24-85 zoom and some FFL of Zeiss and Leitz. The N zoom blew the FFL almost entirely away...

You can read more about this in the N1 review...

dirk

 

[Guest]

Since I only have the three common lenses for the G2 (28, 45, and 90) I tend to take them all with me whenever I'm out with the G. I don't have the 35 because I use the T3 to cover that focal length.

The SLR is more problematic. I have a couple of overlapping zooms (28-85 and 80-200) which I use as a "travelling" set. However, I cover a similar range with fixed focal length lenses (28/f2.8, 50.f1.4, 60/f2.8, 85/1.4, 135/f2.8 and a Mutar II and extension tube set to extend the range at both ends.)

That said, I guess that I would have to say that my absolute favourite lens is the 135/f2.8.

 

[Guest]

Hi,

I won't consider zooms until they get as fast as my FFL lenses. Part of why I went with Contax in the first place (I bought my first Contax, a 139Q, in about 1980) was the fast lenses. I have the f1.4 50mm, 85mm and 35mm, and f2 135, and I use them wide open as often as I can. It depends on the picture, of course; it's not always appropriate. I use fast lenses more for the control over depth-of-focus rather than for shooting in low light.

For many years, the f/1.4 85mm was the lens I used most often; it was practically my normal lens. Now I tend to use the 50mm most often. It's only been in the last five years or so that I've started to like using wide angles. I usually tend to be more interested in details within a scene, rather than the 'big picture' that you get with a wide angle. My wide-angle pictures have always tended to be my most boring shots.

I have used zoom lenses in the past, and I discoverd that they help make me lazy. Instead of planning the picture in my head and then moving around to get where I need to be, I simply zoom until I get an OK composition. This may not be true for other people, but manual focus, FFL lenses, and little or no automation help me slow down and think more about the picture. If it gets too easy or too fast, I don't always think as much as I should about what I'm doing. I'll just push the button a bunch of times and end up with pictures I'll never want to look at again.

- Paul

 

[Guest]

My favorite is an older, "Made in West Germany" 85mm f2.8 AE.There is something special about the quality of the photos this lens produces. I can't quantify it, and my other Zeiss lenses, both Japanese and German made, are really excellent. It reminds me of my old f3.5 35mm Leica lens with "bugeyes" for M3. I couldn't quantify the difference between it and my other Leica lenses, either. But there was a difference. Has anybody had a similar experience with a particular lens?

 

[Guest]

The Planar 50/1.4. It's light weighted with excellent optical performance. One of the best 3 Japan made Carl Zeiss lens, other 2 are Distagon 21/2.8 and Planar 135/2(60th Ann'y). So, 50/1.4 is the highest C/P zeiss lens!

 

[Guest]

I survived over 20 years as a wedding photographer with 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. I traded all against some Nikon kit. The first lenses I bought for Nikon were 35/2 and 85/1.8. One year later I traded all back, ( plus a Hassy ), for a Contax 645.

I have also now bought an RTS 3, 35/1.4, 85/1.4 and still have my 50/1.4. I shoot mostly people and have convinced myself that I'll never use any other SLR/Lens combination.

My 85 has just proven itsself in my new studio, perfect sharpness/contrast/colour rendition, and the 35 is my standard, and will always be my favourite.

Zooms? maybe. AF? maybe, as my eyes get older, I may not have the choice.

When the time comes I'll move to AF without fear of "inferior" lenses. A "bad" Zeiss Lens, ( if it were possible for one to exist ), would still be far superior to many manufacurers good lenses.