I am thinking of getting an Aria, but I can't figure out which zoom I would like to get to go along with it. The 28-85mm seems like the logical choice, but the downside seems to be a possible weight distribution issue and a lack of macro capability. The 35-70mm looks good with its macro capability, and I may want to couple this with a 25mm (more like a compromise between a 21mm and a 28mm). The reviews that I have read about the 28-70mm makes me hesitate about buying it. Or should I just stick to the primes?
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are 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. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Review Contax Aria
- Thread starter dirk
- Start date
My decision was to stick with primes, because the Aria is my modern day substitute for the Leica Ms I used to use. However, I did add a 28-85 zoom - the old Tamron Adaptall SP, which costs far less than the Zeiss and produces excellent results. Still, I only use the zoom when I think I might not have time to change lenses without missing a shot. But that rarely happens with my photography, which is scenic, travel, portrait, primarily. I think much depends on your style of photography.
Many thanks for the reply, Tom. Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind me asking, which primes do you use with the Aria?
I don't do any serious shooting, and I plan to use the Aria for my travels and family outings. I kinda figured out that I would like to have at least the 25,35 and possibly a 50 for a start if I were to stick to primes. But I would like to experiment a little with a lens that can do closeup photography i.e. not insects, but maybe something like a door knob, the buttons on a lift etc etc
Any other suggestions?
I don't do any serious shooting, and I plan to use the Aria for my travels and family outings. I kinda figured out that I would like to have at least the 25,35 and possibly a 50 for a start if I were to stick to primes. But I would like to experiment a little with a lens that can do closeup photography i.e. not insects, but maybe something like a door knob, the buttons on a lift etc etc
Any other suggestions?
C
craignorris
Gary,
I use the CZ 35-70 f3.4 and find it to be a great match with the Aria. It's small and light, but has great image quality and is very solidly built. The bonus is the very good macro capability at the 35mm end. For your kind of photography I think a zoom like the 35-70 will be much more enjoyable than primes. The Aria feels great in the hand with the 35-70 attached. The 28-85 was too big for the Aria (I used to have the 28-85 but I traded it for the 35-70).
I use the CZ 35-70 f3.4 and find it to be a great match with the Aria. It's small and light, but has great image quality and is very solidly built. The bonus is the very good macro capability at the 35mm end. For your kind of photography I think a zoom like the 35-70 will be much more enjoyable than primes. The Aria feels great in the hand with the 35-70 attached. The 28-85 was too big for the Aria (I used to have the 28-85 but I traded it for the 35-70).
J
jgban
Gary,
The 28-70 is, by all accounts (including Zeiss MTF charts), inferior to the 28-85, but I have found it much more than adequate as a lightweight lens that includes the commonly used focal lengths (it is roughly half the price of the 28-85). As you say, the macro feature is a nice touch (not a "Makro-Planar", I am sure, but convenient).
Someone has complained of "unacceptable" distortion at 28mm. According to the Zeiss charts, the 28-85 and the 28-70 have very similar distortion. I have not found it to be a problem.
Contax used to have an excellent price on the Aria + 28-70. I think it has to be a great combo (I don't have an Aria).
Juan
The 28-70 is, by all accounts (including Zeiss MTF charts), inferior to the 28-85, but I have found it much more than adequate as a lightweight lens that includes the commonly used focal lengths (it is roughly half the price of the 28-85). As you say, the macro feature is a nice touch (not a "Makro-Planar", I am sure, but convenient).
Someone has complained of "unacceptable" distortion at 28mm. According to the Zeiss charts, the 28-85 and the 28-70 have very similar distortion. I have not found it to be a problem.
Contax used to have an excellent price on the Aria + 28-70. I think it has to be a great combo (I don't have an Aria).
Juan
crocus63
Well-Known Member
> I have been using the 35-70/3.5 as my "one lens" travel pkg with an RTS II. It is a bit heavy, but the results justify the weight. There are 2 things I've noticed on travel with this lens: (1)I don't use the macro mode as often as I thought I would; maybe on a flower here and there, (2)I sometimes wished it would go down to 28mm for interior shots and up to 85mm for tighter portraits. Being discontinued, you may have to look around a bit to find this lens; usually goes for around 500-600USD. I've read that the performance of the 28-85 is even better. The Aria is a light camera, but it should go well with the 28-85 or the 35-70. The Aria is usually sold with the 28-70 as a special package, but don't let that limit you to the lens you really want or require. >
Gary,
I have to admit that I am not super critical regarding lens resolution and sharpness. Nevertheless, I have found the 28-70 zoom to be a wonderful lens with the Aria especially for travel. The lens is light and compact and, to my eye, provides excellent results. I think it is quite underrated. I have used that lens and my Planar f1.4 as travel lenses (the latter is essential for low light interior shots without flash) and have been quite pleased with the results.
Dennis
I have to admit that I am not super critical regarding lens resolution and sharpness. Nevertheless, I have found the 28-70 zoom to be a wonderful lens with the Aria especially for travel. The lens is light and compact and, to my eye, provides excellent results. I think it is quite underrated. I have used that lens and my Planar f1.4 as travel lenses (the latter is essential for low light interior shots without flash) and have been quite pleased with the results.
Dennis
The concern from me in using ARIA is the quality of focusing screen. A dim viewfinder and no pure microprism screen type is a weak point for ARIA. As ARIA does not come with pure microprism screen, I have to replace one of my ARIA with a Canon T-90 Type A microprism screen (by removing the screen metal holding frame and using file to scrape the plastic screen to fit ARIA body) and then found out that the screen brightness and the laser matte surface fineness from Canon show considerable improvements. Viewing with f2.8 lenses would enable much easier focusing in dim light situation. Calibration for the 'before' and 'after' situation at infinity using 85mm/1.4 lens confirmed that there is no observable shift in focus and metering value. I have also tried EOS-1 A type screen but as EOS screen size is much larger than ARIA size, more scraping work is required. Also the circle laser mark is not as fine as T-90 screen and the microprism circle is so small for EOS_1 A type. Members may try this alternative approach for their ARIA.
> A > dim viewfinder and no pure microprism screen type is a weak point for > ARIA.
I primarily use an Aria over an RTS-III, and do not find the viewfinder dim in any way, and certainly have no problem focusing it. Have you actually USED an Aria?
What is your issue with "pure microprism screen"? I know of NO pure microprism screen on any SLR camera. They typically have microprism collars typically around a central split, like I believe the Aria does as well.
I also question your Canon screen modification. How to you ensure that it is perfectly aligned? It just doesn't happen by magic, and the alignment is going to require it be precise to a very very small tolerance, which I can't imagine how you achieve.
I also have the LaserMatte screen for my Canon, and I do not find it brighter than the Aria...so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Another issue with replacing the screen in the Aria is that possibly you are changing the metering. I believe the Aria takes it's metering from after the screen, which means, it will be effected by a different screen that isn't calibrated to be used in the camera.
Austin
I primarily use an Aria over an RTS-III, and do not find the viewfinder dim in any way, and certainly have no problem focusing it. Have you actually USED an Aria?
What is your issue with "pure microprism screen"? I know of NO pure microprism screen on any SLR camera. They typically have microprism collars typically around a central split, like I believe the Aria does as well.
I also question your Canon screen modification. How to you ensure that it is perfectly aligned? It just doesn't happen by magic, and the alignment is going to require it be precise to a very very small tolerance, which I can't imagine how you achieve.
I also have the LaserMatte screen for my Canon, and I do not find it brighter than the Aria...so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Another issue with replacing the screen in the Aria is that possibly you are changing the metering. I believe the Aria takes it's metering from after the screen, which means, it will be effected by a different screen that isn't calibrated to be used in the camera.
Austin
Austin,
We can safely assume Edmond has used an Aria, given his custom hatcheting! By "pure microprism screen type", I believe he means a central microprism disk without the split-image rangefinder. Such screens are less distracting for certain kinds of work.
Screens brighter than ground glass are implementations of a fresnel lens, and gain that brightness at the cost of focus ease. This makes sense for AF cameras where the VF is only used for framing. For MF, I think it's a mistake unless you can zone focus and have light problems (slow glass, night work). Hasselblads have changeable screens that drop right into your hand: I would swap to the brightscreen for night work and was then able to see what I was shooting.
I received a shiny new Aria on Friday, and will write up a short review when I get some film through it. Science allows us to measure VF brightness, and I will do so for the Aria, RTS III, and Canon D30. For the reason given above, I expect the D30 to win, but the interesting comparison is between the Contax SLRs (both with GG screens).
We can safely assume Edmond has used an Aria, given his custom hatcheting! By "pure microprism screen type", I believe he means a central microprism disk without the split-image rangefinder. Such screens are less distracting for certain kinds of work.
Screens brighter than ground glass are implementations of a fresnel lens, and gain that brightness at the cost of focus ease. This makes sense for AF cameras where the VF is only used for framing. For MF, I think it's a mistake unless you can zone focus and have light problems (slow glass, night work). Hasselblads have changeable screens that drop right into your hand: I would swap to the brightscreen for night work and was then able to see what I was shooting.
I received a shiny new Aria on Friday, and will write up a short review when I get some film through it. Science allows us to measure VF brightness, and I will do so for the Aria, RTS III, and Canon D30. For the reason given above, I expect the D30 to win, but the interesting comparison is between the Contax SLRs (both with GG screens).