Contax G vs Leica M lenses

[afranklin]

Hi Tim,

> As an aside, I dont see much discussion here about the 35-70. That > lens is fanatastic, and its certainly something Leitz cant do w/ the > M. Anybody disagree?

IF you want to use a zoom, then you're right, the M doesn't have any zooms...but, at least for me, I have no interest in zooms. I've got quite a few Contax SLRs, and have tried the Zeiss zooms on them, and they are just too slow (aperture size that is), and the image quality is always less than I can get from a fixed lense.

But, I would like to hear some info on the G zoom, and how it fairs compared to the fixed focal length G lenses.

Regards,

Austin

 

[afranklin]

Hi Dale,

> > Austin: By all means I mean autofocus.

That contradicts another poster's experience, outlining the differences between the G1 and G2, saying the G2 doesn't have the auxilary light...so he said it was (and I'm paraphrasing) not as good as the G1 in low light.

> Also, you are right that > Leica has many more available wide f-stop lenses but they are out of > reach financially for all but the most dedicated, financially affluent > photographers.

Understood, and the quality you get with a G2 plus lenses is simply financially unbeatable given what you get. I am really surprised they don't market it better...not meant in any demeaning way at all, but it is a point and shoot camera in a sense (which is why I am attracted to it, BTW), but not really...it still requires some skill of operation (as does my TVS...) to get great images from it.

> Today's fast films (e.g. 800 in particular) that using > one of them with F2.8 will give you far better results than you would > have gotten just a few years ago with 400 speed film and a wider > aperture.

I happen to use the Fuji Press 800 quite a bit, I'm not sure I agree with your statement, but it is great film. That is one reason I don't need to use a flash, as the films with the fourth color layer work exceptionally well in mixed lighting situations.

> But, of course, there is a place in the world for both > systems. But, having both, and already having a 21mm lens for the G2, > it would be foolish of me to sell the G2 and lens for $1000 in order > to buy a 21mm Leitz lens for $2000.

Unless you want the type of image the 21mm Leitz lense gives you, and you already have an M system...and other M lenses, and didn't want to carry two camera systems. But, in sentiment, I agree.

> I will shoot some pictures with both cameras > just to compare (using 45mm lens on G2 and 50mm lens on M6). I doubt > if I will see any difference.

That very well may be true...for your case. It really is a matter of personal preference, as well as what your needs are.

There is an issue with the slow lenses, if you are a bokeh lover...and that is where the M lenses do shine, as their bokeh is stupendous...as are some of the fast Contax SLR lenses as well. That, IMO, is the one thing the G system is lacking...simply fast lenses, and they may have done that purposely, because of the accuracy (or inaccuracy as the case may be) of the autofocus. I don't know, that's simply a guess on my part.

Regards,

Austin

 

[dag321]

The lens carrier I referred to has been marketed by Leica as 'Lens Carrier M' #14 404 for as long as I can remember. Very simple devise. First saw them being used by photo journalist in Vietnam so the extra lens can't be too vulnerable. We minimalists would welcome a similiar device for the Contax G.

 

[felipe]

Austin,

By the "best in the field" I meant the field of 35mm rangefinder cameras. I use three different cameras for different purposes: the G2 most of the time (when a lens of 90mm or less is called for), an Olympus OM4-Ti when I want to use a lens longer than 100mm, and a Leica (God forbid!) Digilux 1 for taking digital photographs. The Leica, by the way, is splendid, but has its limitations too. The Olympus may be the greatest 35mm camera of all time.

 

[afranklin]

Hi Philip,

> By the "best in the field" I meant the field of 35mm rangefinder > cameras.

Technically, I don't believe the G2 is really a rangefinder, in the sense we refer to cameras as "rangefinders"...but that's for another discussion.

If you want to name the category "35mm rangefinder cameras", that's OK...but still, as I said, it's got some points that are better than other cameras, and in some ways, there are other cameras that are better. It all depends on what points are important to you, and what your needs are. You can't expect that everyone else's criteria and needs are the same as yours.

> The > Leica, by the way, is splendid, but has its limitations too.

Well, the Digilux wasn't designed/made by Leica, I don't believe ;-)

> The > Olympus may be the greatest 35mm camera of all time.

One camera I have not used, but I have heard great things about it. I'm not sure about the optics though (I don't know one way or the other how they fair), but for size/features/reliability, it's at the top of the heap. Another favorite of mine is the Canon F-1/F-1N.

Regards,

Austin

 

[daleh]

>While the 35-70 might well be fantastic, any short zoom that doesn't go down to 28mm is not worth the investment to me. 35 just ain't short enough. For now, I'll live with having to change lenses to get down to 28mm or 21mm. My primary camera for travel the past couple of years has been a Nikon AF with a 28-200 Tamron zoom. I also bought a cheap Sigma 24-70 zoom. It is terrific as long as the sun is behind the camera. But if the sun is overhead in front of the camera (and I don't mean the camera is looking right at it), the flare created is huge. Just packed up for my trip to Palm Desert tomorrow. Travelling in a Honda Odyssey van so can be sloppy. One Hasselblad with a 50mm, 250mm and 2X Mutar. Leica M6 with 35mm and 50mm. G2 with 21mm, 28mm, and 45mm. One tripod and lots of film, just in

 

[rickd]

I know this is primarily a "G3" thread but since the topic was raised, the zoom lends the ability to travel with one or two lenses only, and remain adaptable (important for we slide shooters). I think the zoom + 21 make a tremendous combination, and carry them quite often. Rather than lens speed, I'm more often limited by the zoom's 1m minimum focus distance.

Results from the zoom are uniformly "Zeisslike."

--Rick

 

[tomasjpn]

"That contradicts another poster's experience, outlining the differences between the G1 and G2, saying the G2 doesn't have the auxilary light...so he said it was (and I'm paraphrasing) not as good as the G1 in low light."

I believe that the person who originally posted that idea was mistaken, but if anyone out there clearly knows the technical differences, please explain them. Cheers.

Mark Edwards

 

[felipe]

Austin,
The Zuiko optics are superb, in some cases just as good as Zeiss — depends which lens one is talking about. The zoom lenses that Olympus made towards the end of the OM’s life (R.I.P. March 2003) were not a great advertisement for the company, although there is a 35-70mm f/3.6 and similar f/2.8 that are very good indeed. Take some ex&les of prime lenses that can match or surpass the Carl Zeiss:- 24mm f/2; an exquisite pancake light 40mm f/2 — damn near impossible to find; 85mm f/2; 100mm f/2.8 and arguably a compact, elegant 200mm f/4. All are outstanding, as are the standard 50/55mm f/1.4 and f/1.2. Where the Zuiko lenses are said to really shine is in macrophotography, but it’s not a field I am into, so I can’t comment. I’ve done a couple of series of outdoor portrait shoots of an extraordinarily handsome model who also happens to be a part-time highly critical photographer himself, and he liked the results produced by the Carl Zeiss 45 and 90mm G . . . until we did a series with the Olympus Zuiko 100mm f/2.8 (some using the Olympus F280 flash that will synch to 1/2000th): those results blew him away and now just loves what the Zuiko lenses do for his photographs. I’ve turned the G2 to landscapes, with great results using 21mm and 28mm in Hong Kong. A little favourite of mine that I wish Zeiss had made is the Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 Shift lens for architectural photography: horrendously expensive but it’s the only thing that does the job.

If I may just play with the comparison to the Olympus/Zuiko range for a second, the value that photographers put on this kit is reflected in the prices that people are prepared to pay on eBay or in shops for used equipment in good condition. Just today, an Olympus OM4-Ti body, stated as unused, sold for nearly £1000; I paid a great deal for my 24mm f/2 and a mint 300mm f/4. There is, according to dealers, huge pent-up demand for fine quality Olympus OM kit. Olympus may be trying to kick-start an OM digital system by another name with their E1 series four/thirds digital camera. Just a week or so ago it was announced in Amateur Photographer that Olympus will be making available an adaptor so that the Zuiko OM lenses can be fitted to the E1 body. Now that made me salivate . . .

But to return to the Contax G2, I admire what it does every time I take it out of its beautifully made grey leather case, satisfied in the knowledge that people don’t buy a Contax to show off a red dot, but to take first-class photographs.

 

[derekstanton]

Wish we could just drop the whole Leica/Red Dot dialog. It's not constructive, and just seems like insecurity.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using/prefering Leica. Not all of its users are brand-wielding, arrogant, gear snobs. Leicas are amazing tools, with great glass. Same with Contax. But Leica glass IS different. Whether those differences are significant to you, in your style of shooting or aesthetic preferences is the only question worth exploring, and that's all personal.

I used to own a (black) G2 kit. I sold it, and later bought an M7. When i carried it, i didn't "show off a red dot." Actually, i covered it with black tape. Lots of other Leica users do the same. So, comments relative to 'Leicaphiles' "showing off" are overly simplistic generalizations, and as such are invalid and ridiculous. Nevertheless, I just sold the M7, as well. Frankly, i liked characteristics of both cameras. I prefer Leica lenses, for the tonality, bokeh and speed. I don't particularly like the rangefinder window that shows image area that the film will not capture. I liked that i knew what would be in focus. With the G2, i liked the fast shutter speeds that would allow me to shoot wide-open with Tri-X; the motordrive; the sharpness, the handling.... but i don't like the little, blurry viewfinder; the park at infinity focusing; that there are no faster lenses....

Whatever. There are no perfect cameras. Each fits or doesn't fit an individual's style. That's it. What possible cause can there be for such 'camera wars?' Forget your prejudices and enjoy what you use and the images we ALL can make.