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!

CY Lens Collection Question

C-Y 70-210 has good bokeh at 130mm f3.5. At 70mm, it is alright. At 210mm,bokeh is poor. N70-300 has poor bokeh all over. ref: Zeiss MTF data. This data is confirmed by Marc's photo above.
 
Alex!!!!

Watch out!!!

If all the women on sunset Blvd Los Angeles charged $200 for their company and some young lady was offering the same service for $49, would you stop to think: Risk, risk, risk!"

Check on reseller ratings.com. I haven't seen a worse record where people claim dishonesty and raising prices and bait and switch!

Of course, the young lady on Sunset Blvd could be a UCLA graduate in fine art that simply fell in love with you for your charm and good lucks!

Also you may actually get these lenses!

Asher
 
Hi Asher

I wasn't going to order the lens from them (or from anybody else for that matter).

FWIW my experience of hot buys and the 18mm distagon is as follows:

I ordered (and paid for by CC) the lens. They contacted me and said that there had been a mistake but they were waiting for delivery. They then said that the lens they got was damaged. They then said that the (next) replacement was made in Taiwan and was plastic (I'm not making this up) so they would get me a proper one. At this point I realised they were pulling something and it wasn't my leg. I told them to cancel the order. They then e-mailed me to tell me that they had my lens. I said no thanks. They didn't refund the money so I had to go to the CC company to get it back, which I did with no trouble. I realise that this experience may be the exception rather than the rule but what you say does resonate with my own dealings with them.

I ended up buying one from Kevin Li (www.kevincameras.com) and I can wholeheartedly recommend him (I'm a UK resident and he's in Los Angeles). He has a few Contax lenses up for sale at the moment including a few 60mm macros, a 28mm f2 and two 135 f2 Planars.

Alex
 
Well my 70-210mm f3.5 arrived today, and I can absolutely agree with Marc, it is a truly astonishing lens.

The sharpness wide open is absolutely excellent, and the colour, contrast, bokeh etc. are all superb.

It is actually better than my 100-300mm, which has an excellent reputation, wide open or stopped down.

I can safely say that this will now be included in my 'top 5'.

Matt.
 
HI don't know about Matt's top 5 but here are mine that I own and use:

PRIMES:

Hasselblad/Zeiss 110/2F


Leica 35/1.4 Summilux M ASPH


Hasselblad 38/4.5 Biogon


Contax Zeiss 120/4 Macro for 645

Leica 75/1.4 Summilux M


ZOOMS:

Contax/Zeiss N 17-35/2.8

Contax/Zeiss 35-135/3.3

Contax/Zeiss N24-85/3.3

Contax/Zeiss 70-210/3.3

Hopefully the Leica R 28-90/2.8-4.5 (we'll see ; -)
 
I have not tried most of the primes and zooms but I certainly agree with you on the 38mm Biogon, its reputation is ginormous. I am going to get the 35-135 in ebay. This lens has very good 50-70mm range. Last week I brought Contax 35-70 3.5. This lens brightens up at 5.6. It has a very good 35mm, beats my Contax primes.

My list for the best five in 35mm photography.

1. Contax 21 2.8

It performance is as good as the Zeiss M 21 2.8, but its ability in close focusing garantees its uniqueness.

2. Zeiss M 25 2.8

Zeiss Biogons, I don't have to say any further.

3. Zeiss M 50 2

New generations of Zeiss Planar. Compared with those Contax 50, it has good f2 and good bokeh. Zeiss managed to get rid of the astigmatism.

4. Contax 35-135 3.3

I believe it has the best 70mm in the Contax lens family. Does everyone agree with me on this ? How does the 70mm of this lens compared to N24-85 ?

5. Zeiss M 85 2

This lens is not even in the market. Recently, there is a trend in both German lens companies to make the short teles f2 instead of f1.4. Instead of improving the old 75 1.4, Leica made 75 2. Instead of annoucing 85 1.4, the new Zeiss is f2. In the past, the trend was like 75 1.4, 80 1.4, 85 1.4. I continue the trend by making my Contax 85 1.4 to 85 2 as posted in other part of the forum. The problem of making a lens 1.4 is that it will badly affects its performance at f2. The same conclusion is reached when I change my Contax 50 1.7 to f2. So I can see why they are now making f2 instead of 1.4.
My apo M 90 2 asph has a minor degree of astigmatic bokeh at f2. I am assuming that if Zeiss is going to charge more than Leica for their 85 2, she should be clever enough to give us a lens with no astigmatism at f2.
 
One point to Matt Sallis, do not underestimate 100-300, it is very good at 100mm,much better than 70-210 at 100.
 
I will have to try the C/Y 100 to 300. I've never shot with this lens. Is it acceptable at 300 Chi? Studies of zoom lens use have revealed that most people use them at the extreme ends ( 100 or 300) far more often than in-between focal lengths.

The problem with real world testing of the N24-85 verses any C/Y lens is they don't fit the same cameras. However, If some of you recall, I did manage to jerry-rig the Contax N 17-35 onto a 1DsMKII to compare it against the Canon 16-35, where the Contax showed clear superiority in edge sharpness and less distortion with both lenses set to 17mm. To bad N lenses can't be adapted.

Now that I have the C/Y 85/1.4 and the N 85/1.4, it would be interesting to see how they differ in pictorial qualities.

Lens evaluation is a tricky business. It has its logical elements which can be determined by charts ... a decent predictor of performance. Then there are the emotional elements where certain characteristics or performance attributes converge to make pleasing images despite specific flaws. IMO, the 70-200 is one of those lenses that have a collection of attributes that outweigh any flaws... like the usefulness of the range coupled with macro ability, it's rendering of color, among others ... it isn't for no reason this lens is highly valued by many top professional shooters and continues to command premium prices. The first time I saw it in action was by a top NY based lifestyle shooter we had hired to do a highly emotional print c&aign for Unilever International. The results were stunning.

After many years of heavy shooting with a number of systems you come to some general over-all conclusions based on actual picture making in different conditions and for different reasons ... admittedly some being subjective.

After extensive use of 35mm systems such as Nikon, Canon, Contax and Leica ... I've come to favor Leica first, Contax, then Canon trailed by Nikon. Leica verses Contax: in general Leica has a warmer over-all cast across their entire lens line (both R and M). I've come to marginally prefer Leica for both Color (although less so) and definitely for B&W. I think is has to do with Leica having even more "Micro Contrast" characteristics than Contax where the Contax may appear sharper, but the Leica looks more lifelike.

Leica offers more low light rangefinder lenses than Contax. Anyone who extensive uses rangefinders uses them for available light work, especially wide open in lower light. While the G system cameras clearly out-perform Leica Ms in attributes like AF, top shutter speed, sync speed, etc. they are performance characteristics of secondary importance to many if not most rangefinder users. 28/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.0 & 50/1.4, 75/1.4, 90/2 exist in the Leica M line for a reason.

In a aggregate and subjective evaluation of lens systems I have come to favor German designed glass that features the concept they call Micro Contrast verses edge sharpness. While I have to keep some Canon glass in the mix for high performance AF work , I have never liked the results compared to either German lens maker. Some of the Canon lenses perform quite well on paper, but leave something to be desired when actually shooting with them. The Canon 200/1.8 is legendary for it's performance, but I
found it lacking in how it rendered color compared to Zeiss glass.

Now that I am extensively using both Zeiss and Leica glass on a Canon 1DsMKII, I've discovered that the adapted lenses render flesh tones far more realistically to the eye than the L glass. When you grossly enlarge a Canon shot it appears to be sharper than the Leica shot for ex&le. But 12 X 18 prints reveal the Leica shots to be superior in terms of lifelike rendering of skin where the Canon skin looks slightly plastic. This is a wide spread criticism of digital capture in general ... but may be a function of lens design philosophy as much as the capture medium itself.

It was the first thing I noticed in actual prints when I started to adapt other lenses to the 1DsMKII.
 
Chi, you may well be right about the mtf performance of the 100-300mm, it is an excellent zoom at the short end, and even at 300mm it is pretty good. It is also very compact for a lens with such reach. However if I know I need 300mm, I would tend to use my Canon 300mm f2.8L IS for the speed and autofocus, and it is actually sharper (though certainly not a 'carry round' lens!).

My 'gripe' with the 100-300mm is the slow maximum aperture. I just find focussing at f5.6 difficult when the split prism blacks out. It can be done of course, it just takes longer. I think this is the main reason I have never really used the 100-300mm as much as I would like to have.

The 70-210mm is 1-1.5 stops faster, has an excellent macro facility (when you work out how to use it!) and in 'back-garden' tests on my 20D this week, I found it to equal or exceed the 100-300mm at all comparable focal lengths. This may not match what the MTF charts say, but it's what I found.

I have to agree with Marc with regard to the subjective, or emotional qualities of lenses - it cannot all be ascertained from MTF charts.
There is a look to images, slides in particular, taken with German glass which is very difficult to define, but screamingly obvious to those who can see it (not all can). Although my Canon 300mm is sharper, faster and much more 'useable' than the Zeiss 100-300mm, there is something about the Zeiss shots which just looks more pleasing (and this goes for their other lenses too). There is more detail in the shadows, smoother tonal gradation, and just a wonderful depth and richness to the images which other glass can't seem to render.

At that level it is certainly a personal preference as to which look is better; but if I could only use one system, I know where my money would go. Deutschland Uber Alles (and I'm English!).
 
Back
Top