First leaks about Zeiss lenses

[rfcontax]

I noticed the following factoid in an on-line review of the alpha dslr:
http://www.digit.no/wip4/detail.epl?id=93588
which talks about a FF 24-70/2.8 vario sonnar in za mount. The article goes on to speculate about the possibility of ff alpha hardware.

 

[rfcontax]

i suspect there are a few lenses, designed some time ago with the contax n mount in mind, which never saw light of day. "sources" once told me of an n24-70/2.8, an n70-200/2.8, an n17-35/4ish and an n28/1.7 for n mount. maybe this za 24-70/2.8 harks back to those design studies.

 

[wang]

''It makes me feel that i should have invested more in leica r/m, rather than in zeiss/contax. I now look forward to my M8.....''

Well, I don't regret on my Contax C-Y system. I should have paid more for more C-Y lenses. I sold two of them and got a profit of USD3000. As a user of C-Y, Leica M and Leica R system, many C-Y lenses are stars not replaceable by any other systems.

 

[rfcontax]

That's good news. Unfortunately, all the equipment i EVER bought in the N and G systems is only sellable at a very considerable loss. Of course, I have never been in the position that I owned the more exotic c/y lenses...my budget is far more modest. Indeed, if I had opted for c/y glass, I would most probably have followed the practice of many in this forum by using adaptors and Canon Eos dslrs. anyway, c'est la vie; i still like the way my last set of portraits looked look with an ND and the 85/1.4 or 100/2.8

 

[albert4321]

Canon dSLRs are my work horse. But I still love the images from my ND. Those Zeiss AF glasses are just hard to beat.

 

[wang]

Let us not talk about the C-Y exotics. We will talk about the bread and butter of Contax like the G, the N and the C645. Even though these gears could not be used in the other systems, I really don't think it is a good idea to sell them. The second hand price is just too low for these repectable gears.

Recently, I brought a new scanner, by doing this you can revivd all these gears. It happens once again to me that they all become valuable again. With the G and N and a good scanner, the images you produce are just more natural and harmonious than the digital cameras.

I also believe that the images from the C645 could be better than the Hasselblad 39Mp digital H camera when you are using a good scanner.

People goes for digital cameras because they have to get the job done quickly. When it comes to image quality in the end, film prevails and will remain so for quite a bit of time.

 

[rfcontax]

Albert, I agree with you re Zeiss AF glass: there does seem to be something special there!
CYJ: thanks for your comments. I am glad to see your enthusiasm re scanning...and, no doubt, your new Imacon purchase is proving lots of fun

. I do use my KM5400 a bit, and always get results which are very satisfying for me. But I am a sucker for the speed, preview facilities etc etc of digital. Nearly all of my stuff is now shot on the ND. And i do like the lack of inhibition about taking digi pictures without a £10 hit per 36 exposures (film plus lab).

 

[fotografz]

"I also believe that the images from the C645 could be better than the Hasselblad 39Mp digital H camera when you are using a good scanner." " When it comes to image quality in the end, film prevails and will remain so for quite a bit of time."

There is a difference between "Quality" and "Qualities" IMO.

I use a Hasselblad H2D-39 with HC lenses and all my Zeiss V lenses on it via the CFV adapter.

I also use film ... both 35mm and MF scanned on a high end Imacon scanner.

The 39 meg backs are astoundingly good, and the quality is undeniable. If it wasn't, highly paid professional photographers wouldn't be using it.

But there are Qualities that film provides that also keep me using it. Best of both worlds.

Here's a H2D-39 image from a recent fashion shoot. The lips are a crop from the smaller inset image. The crop represents "pixel peeper" detail that would be seen in a 35"X 50" print.

 

[deshojo]

There is a difference between "Quality" and "Qualities" IMO.

Marc,

I do agree that there is a difference, but I would be very interested to hear what "qualities" you feel film offers, that digital does not.

Cheers,
Matt

 

[fotografz]

Dynamic range to begin with Matt. Color neg about a stop more, and B&W films maybe 2+ more. That's a lot more visual information to start with.

In a dark room or color lab you can take advantage of that increased dynamic pretty readily. You need a high-end scanner or get drum scans to pull it out of film when translating it to digital.

With film you are dealing with the randomness of grain structure verses the uniformity of pixels. Digital can get pretty plastic looking in a hurry ... and adding noise isn't the same as having grain.

Lastly, IMO there is an emotional asthetic component to film that's less apparent in digital. Digital is perfect and film isn't. Film often has a raw gritty element to it ... kind of like it has soul ... like jazz ... not regimented ... has a depth to it.

I use film for all my personal work ... like my business trip to NYC last week, where I stole a few minutes to do some street shooting with a M ... here's one of the shots where film's dynamic range helped keep from blowing the open truck door being hit with direct noon day sun ... while still capturing shadow detail of the passing girl.