What's new
CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Which lenses do you use mostly and why

G

Guest

I own a 28/2.8 Distagon and 85/1.4 Planar, both are great lens. The 28/2.8 are great fit for most landscaping, and portrait as well, it can focus clossly up to 45cm, dramatical view for human face.
The 85/1.4 is definitly great appricable for most portrait. Easy to control the distant to talk to the object human, high speed and depth of view.
I use both lens covered most of my pictures, and love them at all.
 
G

Guest

OK. 25mm - 2.0, 300mm 4.0, 70/210mm zoom, 60mm/macro. 40/80mm zoom. Bought these lenses
years ago to take photo's of children. The 300mm
gave me great "close-ups" at play ground. For hiking or excursions I used the 60mm as a favorite. I am stricly amateur, still mix up f-stop and depth of field. I'm thinking of selling
but second thoughts that I'm giving up items that are keepers. Would appreciate opinions.

I do have the 50 1.4, just didn't use.
RC
 
G

Guest

german made 25F2.8, 35f2.8, 50f1.4 & 135f2.8..in that order..my only set of zeiss lenses. the wides for landscapes,travel, environmental photos, 25mm especially, since i only have 1 camera body. 35mm for its medium wideness, 50 & 135 for candids & portraiture and tight detail shots..
 
G

Guest

hi my name is paul,i'm a bassplayer by profession,and an amateur photographer for 25 yrs.or so.i have a 137 ma,and a 167 mt,my lenses are: planar 50 1.7 ae, 35 2.8 ae , 135 3.5 cz jena ddr my fav. 4 portaits and my only german cz lens,and a 28-85 3.3 mm w/c i carry almost everywhere w/ my 167 mt. i took a shot outside my hotel room in macau (used to be a portuguese colony ,near hong kong,now given back to china)thru' glass , at around 5:00 pm using 167mt w/28-85 lens,1/125 sec. 5.6 , on a windy aft. i'd like an honest opinion fr.long time contax users and professionals,if this shot is good enough,or what's lacking ? answers greatly appreciated .
 
G

Guest

Interesting discussion on lenses. As a photojournalist for over 25 years I have gone through several stages of what lenses to carry/use. First off, Zeiss optics, both for the G system and the slr's are better than any other out there. Forget the graphs and curves, Provia or Reala on a light table, properly exposed through Zeiss glass will beat all challengers. There is one exception, sports, the Nikon or Canon 400 2.8's with supporting F5 or D1H or Canon EOS are the rulers of the sidelines. For sports that is what I use. For all other situations my prime lens is the 45 mm on the G2 or the 50mm 1.4 on an RX. I don't feel my eye or reflexes are good enough for zoom lenses, if you use a zoom, ask yourself how often you use it any other focal length besides it's widest or longest setting. In the bag or on another body I keep a 28, 90 (G) (NOTE: I think the 90 for the G is perhaps the sharpest lens made for 35mm, portraits shot wide open with this lens look 3D!, even better than the 85 1.4) I also carry a 180, a 60 macro a 21(G) and a 18 in case my back is to the wall, but 80% of my work is done with a normal lens. It has taken me many years to learn that if the shot is not there with a normal lens, than perhaps it's just not there. The 50mm is better than any other focal length to "layer" a composition with different elements, and conversely, also the best at creating a "flat" seamless composition. Check out the "Classic" photos shot through the years by the masters, most have been shot with a "normal' or near normal focal length. Forget the gimmicks, if you are reading this you already have the best lenses, spend more money on film, load up your camera and get out there.
 
G

Guest

Dear Paul,

this thread might not be the right place to upload your photos. The old photo-section is still under construction. As soon as the newly purchased software is reliable enough to go online, I will make an announcementg. I am sorry that this is taking so long, but the software developper was overpromising and underdelivering, so I have to wait till all the bugs are fixed.

dirk
 
G

Guest

I would like an opinion. I recently purchased an
RTS11 in excellent condition. I realize I may have made a mistake. I am getting older and blinder. Maybe I should, instead, purchase the G2? Any comments or converts who have left the RTS system and bought into the G2? I have never had auto focus since Zeiss was my glass of choice. I shoot medium format Zeiss glass and love the contrast and colors. With 35 I really need something for headshots as well as occasional scenics. The primary reason I bought the RTS11 was to use in conjunction with the 85 or 135 mm lens for headshots. I further dislike the idea of buying more manual focus stuff that will be extinct, especially since Contax appears to be putting the manual focus stuff to rest. Thanks for any and all
opinions...
 
G

Guest

> I would like an opinion. I recently purchased an > RTS11 in excellent condition. I realize I may have made a mistake. I> am getting older and blinder. Maybe I should, instead, purchase the> G2? Any comments or converts who have left the RTS system and bought > into the G2? I have never had auto focus since Zeiss was my glass of> choice.

I'm not sure that "extinct"is the right word , dormant perhaps - we are expecting a replacement for the RX at Photokina....... Either way , for the limited usage for which you intend , the G2 would certainly make a fine replacement[and portable!] , however , you need to consider if you can get on with a non-SLR camera . Some can and some cant - you could also maybe consider the new AF 35 mm line , either the N1 or the cheaper and smaller NX might fit the bill better for your purposes....... Steve
 
G

Guest

John: Your mileage may vary, but I've been pleased with the G2. I have done occasional head shots for friends and family (including some that we used in conjunction with other G2 shots for an actor's portfolio/media package) using the 90/2.8 and been pleased. I use 135mm manual focus lenses on my SLR (167MT) for head shots and find that a slightly more pleasing (tighter, obviously enough) focal length for that particular shot, but the 90mm for the G-series is certainly adequate (particularly given that I do my own processing and printing). I usually shoot it with a Softar filter (particularly for women), though, as it's a little too sharp for some portraits. As to the predicted extinction of manual focus zeiss glass, I'm not sure it's as close as you think. Their model line may change, but some of their highest-end, professionally-geared systems are manual focus 35mm cameras -- I don't think they're going to abandon that too terribly soon. Good luck with your choice.
 
G

Guest

John:

G2 is a different animal -- an automated rangefinder. For the same price, an AX will provide auto-focus.

Assuming that hyperfocal focussing is insufficient for your situation, perhaps your eyesight would benefit from the eye-piece magnifier F-2N (under $50).

Besides an RTS III, I have a Canon D30 and AF does allow for casual, one-handed operation. For deliberate photography like portraiture or scenics, I find AF has no advantage.

Quality MF lenses (like CZ) will retain their value and, without motors and electronic chips, will be easier to service into the future.
 
G

Guest

Over the years I've owned the following lenses: 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 60 makro f/2.8C, 85 f/1.4, 100 f/2, 180 f/2.8, 300 f/4. The lens I use most is the 35. My second favorite is the 85. It along with 35 & 180 were stolen. I replaced them with 35, 60, 100, and 300. I miss the 85 and 180 very much. The 100 always seems a bit long and the 300 is very difficult to hand hold. But optically both are terrific. The Makro is superb up close, especially wide open. I rarely use the 50. I find its field of view to be too pedestrian. One last point regarding the 35 f/1.4 is its close-up potential. It focuses to 12 inches, and at 1.4 that close you get very shallow DOF which combined with the slightly wide FOV gives a very interesting look. If I could only have one lens, it would be the 35 f/1.4 hands down.
 
G

Guest

Erik,

Thanks for your len report. I'm in the happy situation of owning just one lens (the awesome 21mm Distagon). Why happy? Because more lens purchases are in my immediate future! 21-45-85 and 21-50-100 are my contenders for the next stage.

There is considerable difference in cost between the two 85s and the 100/2. MTF for the 100/2 shows uniform performance center-to-edge, which is my preference. However, your experience with this lens would help my decision.
 
G

Guest

Hi Rico,

I have the 100/2, it is my favorite lens, superb portrait lens, sharp excellent colour fantastic skin tones and great wide open with lovely out of focus effect on background. I have no experience of the 85/1.4 this is a much loved lens by many, but even though I once thought of getting one, now I have the 100 I wouldn't swap it for anything! I think I'd miss the focal length going to 85. I also have the 50/1.4 which gets a lot of use, I would recommend this over the 50/1.7 if you are likely to go below f2.8 frequently, I've had noticably better results.

Hope this helps your decision, all I need now is that awesome 21mm Distagon! Can't find any one anywhere at the moment, having to use a Zeiss Jena 28/2.8 for my wide stuff currently, need wider though!

All the best,

Art.

"MTF for the 100/2 shows uniform performance center-to-edge, which is my preference. However, your experience with this lens would help my decision."
 
G

Guest

>[Rico,

The image quality of the 100/2 is superb. As it also was with the=20 85/1.4. I never did any side-by-side comparison because I didn't own=20 both lenses at the same time. My preference for the 85/1.4 is based=20 on the following:

1. The 85/1.4 is smaller. It's by no means a compact lens but it is=20 smaller than the 100/2 2. The 85/1.4 is faster. This is useful not so much because I would=20 need the extra stop due to low light, but rather I would shoot wide=20 open to get extremely shallow depth of field. 3. But most importantly, I just seemed to prefer the field of view of=20 the 85 compared to the 100. The 100 always seems a little longer than=20 I need, and the 85 always just seemed right.

I hope this has been helpful.

>]
 
G

Guest

I have been using Contax equipment since 1985. Over the years, I used 5 different bodies, a Yashica FX-7, then the Contax 139q, the 159MM, and the RTS's I & II. Today I still use the RST-II, and I'm presently debating whether I should upgrade to an RTS-III or just move to the newest N-System.

The lenses I used the most are (and were) the 25/2.8, 35/2,8, 50/1.4 and 100/2.0. I especially remember an expedition in Northern Saskatchewan's forest (Canada) in 1990, when I carried both an RTS-I and a 159MM; the best pictures I took were all made with the 25/2.8, a gem of a lens in my opinion, with natural perspective and fabulous color rendition. I made amazing pictures of waterfalls in the northern forest with that lens. I parted with that lens a few years ago because I was in desperate need of cash, and today, I wish I didn't! Nowadays, I mostly use the 35/2.8 and the 18/4, since I mostly do urban landscapes.

A few days ago, I have acquired a 85/2.8 from eBay, but cannot comment about it just yet (too recent); however it is much more lightweight than the beautifull 100/2.0, so it's possible I will start carrying this lens with me on my nature treks next summer. The 100/2.0 is a fabulous lens for sure but it is big and heavy. Practicality is also a consideration.

In the end, the lens you use most is the lens best suited to your needs. It depends on a variety of factors. If you're doing mostly fieldwork, you'll prefer those slower but much lighter lenses (25/2.8, 35/2.8, 100/3.5, etc). If doing a lot of studio pictures, marriage or portraits, than you will probably benefit from using those faster lenses (28/2.0, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2.0, etc.)
 
B

bmurrell13

Has anyone used the 35-135 MM zoom? I was interested in knowing how good it is.I travel alot and can carry only one zoom. Your advise is apreciated.
 
M

msadat

Well-Known Member
this is probably on of toe best contax zoom lens ever (35-135), much = better than the 28-85. this lens and the 21 re perfect for a light travel. the colors out of this lens are the best i have seen.=20
 
V

vdipiet

Brian, I own and use the 35-135 CZVS zoom lens. It is, in my opinion, one of the great lenses of all time. It is as sharp as my Zeiss primes and people are amazed at the over all "look" of the photographs I take with it. It renders color superbly. Now it is a big lens and takes 82mm filters. I purchased a lens hood for it since the barrell is so wide that it can be subject to lens flair on occasion. I don't necessarily agree with Mr.Sadat that the "(35-135),[is]much better than 28-85..." I think it all depends on what you use and are comfortable with. The 28-85 from what I read and hear is as good as the 35-135, it certainly is more popular. By the way, I noticed in your profile that you own the Aria, so do I along with the RX. I feel that the 35-135 balances much better with the RX than with the Aria. As I get older (soon to be 57) I find I prefer traveling about NYC with lighter gear so I have been taking out the Aria with the 28-70 or with primes and leave the RX with the 35-135 for special occasions/events. Still the 35-135 is a great, great lens and is for me the crown jewell of my lenses. Regards, Vincent
 
B

bmurrell13

Vincent,Thank you for your response. So far all I have used is my 28-70. Although I am happy with it's performance so far I miss that extra sharpness and contrast that are said to be in the 28-85 and the 35-135. Actually, I have yet to compare the 28-70 with anything else. How do you think the 28-70 compares with the 35-135?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top