Sorry, my fault !
In the comparison tests, the images in the left column were shot using the Planar. The images in the other 2 columns were shot with Voightlander lenses, a 50mm 1.5 Nokton, in the middle, and a 50mm 2.5 Color Skopar in the right. If you click in the image you'll get a larger image. The Cosina site says that the Biogon 21, 25, 28, 35 and the Planar 40 will be made by Cosina in Japan, while the Distagon 15 and the Sonnar 85 will be made by Zeiss in Germany. The Japanese site is basically an IT news site much like News.com. So you better judge yourself by the test images. Though, they were all shot in the streets of Tokyo, not in a studio, so you get the idea. Basically the site says the Planar is a very sharp lens at its center, but maybe a litle soft in the borders. The last group of images were all shot with the Planar. I hope this helps you.
I prefer the Contax 645 w/Kodak back for both of those applications ... and more ( like any studio work for commercial applications).
While the meg count is the same, the Kodak sensor is larger, which produces visibly better tonal gradations and detail.
Then there is the matter of the Zeiss lenses and their color renditions ; -)
I also like the square sensor which allows me to just mount a bare bulb 120J right in the hot shoe and never have to turn the camera or use a bracket.
I am actually selling all of my Contax 645 gear along with the Kodak ProBack 645C ... but not because of the 1DsMKII. I am returning to using my Hasselblad 503CW with the new digital back for C cameras that they just came out with. The 503CW is one of my favorite cameras ever ... sporting Ziess glass of course ; -)
Super deal to anyone that buys the whole Contax 645 kit ... have everything from an adapted 24mm Fisheye to the 350 with 1.4X.
Thanks Marc for your info. I have the dilemma that Canon L glasses are not the same as the Zeiss. The only way to keep me with the Contax System would be a digital back that is less than the 1Ds Mk II body. Right now there is only the used Kodak back.
Marc, are you referring the $9K digital back for the Hasselblad shown on various magazine ads? I think they are from Imacon and it also support Contax 645. If it fits the Contax, it would be within my budget. I think it is a 35mm sensor size, for the money for a 22meg digital back, the price is right. I also want to see how the Mamiya back and the Leica back turns out. 2005 is going to be a exciting year for digital options.
Humâ€¦, I think I will end up getting the 1Ds MK II for the resolution, handling, and price.
It is sad to see more and more people is dumping Contax. It is all Kyrocera's fault.
I may just keep it all if I can't get the price I want ... and then get a 22 meg back for the Contax 645 later when the prices are more reasonable.
So, I may sell just the ProBack, which is the same size as the Hasselblad one I'm getting for the 503CW.
The ProBack is selling used in the neighborhood of $5,000. to
5,800. which is a lot less than the 1DsMKII @ $8,000. What's wrong with picking up one of those? There's nothing to go wrong with the back, there's no moving parts.
Going back to the discussion on the ZM 50mm Planar. I went to the site provided by Cristiano. I compared the corners of the photos at different f nos. and situations. My conclusion is ZM Planar performs better than Nokton 50 1.5. Color Skopar 50 2.5 comes as the last. Planar comes first even at corners in term of fine details,colour rendition,sharpness and large scale contrast in all f nos. It comes first with least distortion as well.