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 N-System

I don't have the review in front of me, but I remember that there was a general comment that the resolution figures were comparable (or "on par"?) with the manual focus lens; the implication of this, and the wording you quote is that the lens they tested was a good or better than the manual focus lens. I will try to find my old copy of the Pop Photo test (Feb 99) that compared 50mm 1.4 optics from several manufacturers, to see that actual lines-per-mm results for the manual focus lens. The review of the NX is now on the web, at http://www.popularphotography.com. Unfortunately the lens tests aren't. I was surprised at the results of the 28-80 N zoom lens test; it appears to be a superb lens, despite its relatively low cost.
 
Hello,

Here are the resolution tables from the 2/99 and 6/02 PopPhotos:

manual 50/1.4 N 50/1.4

1.4 60/32 60/30
2 75/36 67/35
2.8 95/43 76/42
4 85/43 76/42
5.6 85/50 76/50
8 85/55 67/53
11 75/57 67/53
16 60/48 60/48

Again, has anyone actually used the N 50/1.4 and
what do you think of it's performance? Also, any
comments on mirror vibration in the N1?

Thanks,

Paul
 
Paul W. wrote: "Here are the resolution tables from the 2/99 and 6/02 PopPhotos"

If I understand your schema right, the 'old' manual 50/1.4 according to these tests is significantly superior to the 'new' N-AF 50/1.4 in all apertures from 2.0 to 11 - and on par as far as aperture 1.4 and 16 goes.

Strange.

Jakob
 
Paul, those are interesting results, indeed. I already have a good autofocus system (Canon EOS) and if I want autofocus on my Zeiss lenses, I can always pick up a used AX body. Thanks for going to the trouble to find and post the figures.
 
Do you really think those numbers alone are a criteria for the overall quality of a lens ? Please read the appropriate articles by Zeiss, available at this web side.

Uli
 
Thanks for posting the Pop Photo resolution results for the 50mm manual and N-series lenses; saves me finding the old magazine. These results are weird. I can't understand why there should be much difference between the manual and autofocus versions. The information sheets show that, apart from nuts and bolts changes made to accommodate the larger N series lens mount, the optical design is almost identical (most critical parameters are within 0.1mm). Note that the famous Zeiss MTF charts, which supposedly come from actual measurements of production lenses, are also practically identical! What is going on here? Do individual lenses vary this much? Are Pop Photo resolution tests reliable? Are the Zeiss MTF charts reliable?

Brian
 
Brian,

I would suspect the lenses are optically identical, with the difference being s&le variation. For many years I followed Modern/Pop Photo's resolution tests on the Canon 50/1.4 manual focus - one of my favorites. Their results for various s&les of this lens more than covered the above range, with no design change.

I don't consider their evaluation of lens quality very useful, but their resolution test is probably reliable.

Dan
 
You should not put to much faith in Pop Photo's tests - if you take the time you can find many strange result. Does everybody remember the glowing report they wrote on the Nikon 24-120 lens? I think everybody agrees that this lens is mediocre at best. They have also tested numerous Sigma lenses which apparently beat the pants of many a camera maker (Nikon, Canon). Take their reports - even their resolution charts - with a huge grain of salt. I personally only trust Chasseur D'Images; they have no problem calling a lens bad when they see one, another thing you will rarely, if ever, encounter on Pop Photo. Color Photo also has good "scientific" tests of lenses.
If I may summarize, then, stop wondering about those mysterious pop Photo charts - they are NOT reliable! (I will still keep my subscription, though)
 
N1 is really great fun to use. People often coment on the lack of performance on AF yet i think they miss a point. The design of this camera allow people to use both AF and MF at the same time, and to me, the AF will bring the object to near forcus, yet the MF allow detail on the image on which part to be forcus on! I have made some amazing drangon fly photo using this approach which was immpossible before using my milnota! I think this is new way to take photo!
 
I found some comments by the Leicaphile Erwin Puts on www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/contaxn1.html in which he says that the viewfinder is "relatively dark and coarse-grained". His other comments appear to suggest that the N1 is well-built, but very fundamental, and fits uneasily into a niche for "a user who knows his craft and wants specific support". That's me, but the comment on the "dark and coarse-grained" viewfinder is worrying, as the reason I sold my Aria and CZ lenses was because I now need autofocus to help my worsening eyesight. Can anyone say whether they have found the same trouble with the N1 viewfinder, and is there a workaround, such as a Beattie screen available ?
 
Back
Top