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.