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 G2

David,

Thanks so much for your reply. I think I'll probably start with the 28 and go from there.

One more question: Have you found the 35 to be less inherently sharp than the 28 and 45, as is commonly reported?

Has anyone else seen this? Thanks again,

Jamey
 
Hi Jamey,

I'm finding that the 45 is so good that nothing can touch it. It's a very tough standard and no normal lens from any one (including Zeiss and Leitz) can beat the quality. We're spoiled with this lens. The 35 stopped down a couple of stops is one of the best made for a 35 mm lens anywhere, so any difference between the 35 and 45 indicates NOT that the 35 has shortcomings, but just how good the 45 really is. I find that in order of use generally, Generally, I use the 28, 21, 90, 45 and finally 35 for my subjects and eye, but it has little to do with the quality of the lenses. (It's because I happen to like wider angles for street shooting and landscaptes, and for more formal portraits depending on whether their head and shoulder shots or encompass more of the body the 90 and 45 respectively. The 35 is the best 35 that I've used, so I guess it would need shown to me that another of that focal length is better (I just happen to use it less). By comparision to any other brand of lens, for their focal length, they're all outstanding!

David
 
I have the 45 and the 28. It might just be me, but I can't get quality from the 28 that is anywhere near as good as the 45.

Colorado Jeff
 
As much as I love the images and performance from this camera, I really miss the weight of my old G1. The G2 is a very heavy camera and I find myself leaving it at home a lot when I always at my battered G1 on me.

My 2 cents.
SMN
 
Now I can't wait for the 45mm to arrive.<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">•<font color="ff0000">• you're right, David, about the 35. I keep hearing it referred to as the "weak link" but I shot with it extensively in SE Asia and it performed extremely well. Even wide open at night, so long as there significant distance between the camera and the subject, it did very well.

So, I guess it's the 45 and 28 for me. Thanks again for the responses.
 
Jamey,

7 people, 7 answers:
I find the 28 and 35 angle of view too equal and sold my 35 for that reason; so I would rather go for the 21 in your case.
This would really enhance your toolbox!

Till
 
Hi Till-
Agreed, but I keep hearing that the 28mm is optically superior to the 35, especially at wider aperatures. So I thought the 28 would replace the 35. ?
 
Jamey,

that would be what I have done. At that time I thought I would be better off adding a T3 (which is reported to have the better 35mm lens!) and "en passant" gain an ultra protable complement.
Actually I live without any 35 till this day.
But I have the 45 as well! I think the step from 28 to 90 is just too wide, leaving many shots along the street.

My proposal would be either 21-35-90 or 28-45-90.
The latter would be cheaper, the former more special.

Till
 
Till,

Substituting a T3 for the 35 is an excellent idea, if you can live with the limitations. The T3 is a brilliant camera (my experience with it is what made me purchase into the G-series).

So, you have a third option: 21-T3-45-90
 
Heck, why not a 4th?

21 + zoom

(Ignoring the poor fellow's budget.)

--Rick
 
Back
Top