Where has everyone Gone

[djg]

I think Paul and Bobby brought out some excellent points on the zoom vs. fixed FL debate, so a lot depends on what you shoot and when. For myself, with the ND I use the 24-85 as my main lens, sometimes switching to the 70-300 when appropriate. I have not missed having fixed FL quality when using the 24-85, though I have at times wished it was faster

. I am astounded at the lack of distortion and the excellent color & contrast, even in backlit situations.

As a side point to the speed of lenses, I have to say I consistently am able to get sharp images at half the usual rule of thumb (one over the FL) with my ND, a tribute to its smoothness. I tell you if I had 12 megapixels and a fast buffer in my ND I wouldn't be looking elsewhere

.

I also have the 50 1.4 N which I think I have used once or twice. If I continue with Contax (based on Photokina 2004 ... I know, I know) I want to get the 85 1.4, just so I can hold it

.

While sensor dust is a PITA, I have not found it that big a deal. I check the sensor for dust with an overexposed blank frame every couple of days of active shooting, and clean it if I find anything. If I don't catch it in time, I have one word for you: Photoshop, bless it's digital heart. a little bit of clone tool, a little bit of magic wand, and VOILA! What dust?

Cheers,

DJ

 

[bobbytan]

DJ - true to a certain extent - that you can clone out most "clumps" of spots and wriggly marks, but that depends on where the blemishes fall - it's an easy fix if it's in the sky area, but what if the dirt marks fall right across the eye of a person, or on some place where it's next to impossible to touch up because of the hairline details?

 

[gfp1931]

Hi, I'm back pecking at your knowledge.
80-200mm f4 Vario-Sonnar MM. Any comments on this lens? Is it worth considering? I would find this focal range very useful and second-hand prices are reasonable. Your feedback is very welcome.
Regards,
Gordon.

 

[fotografz]

Some interesting observations recently.

I think those with a ND have a unique camera that, while a pain in the rump to use sometimes, produces images like no other digital DSLR (and I have or have had all the others). Regardless of the mega-pixel race, this camera produces beautiful images.
Perhaps the least "digital" looking image of them all.

If the marketing geniuses at Kyocerea (sp?) had just positioned the darn thing as an artistic tool, and the engineers had addressed the few technical flaws (make a regular battery like everyone else, give it a RAW preview, increase the buffer) this would've kept it in the Contax tradition.

 

[planar]

Hi Gordon, great to see you are enjoying the forum and I for one am glad to see it going back to real use again. Firstly the difference between RX and RX II is as you have seen very little, the RX II has the improvement of 20% brighter therefore the need for DFI is not as important and the price is £100 less so this is a good thing also the 80 - 200 Lens is superb, all the zooms except the 28 - 70 perform well.
35 - 70, 80 - 200, 35 - 135 and 100 - 300 great optics and look at the old tests in A.P.
Great to see so much activity lets keep this going like old times, especially with the lead up to Photokina and perhaps something new.
Gordon hope you enjoy your Contax like I do
Bob.

 

[gfp1931]

Hi Bob, thanks for your reply. I have picked up some useful information and encouragement from all you Contax users. As you probably know, there is no coverage in the various magazines, it is like the Contax doesn't exist. Even Jessops, one of the UK's biggest retailers only supply to order, so there is little chance to handle and examine these cameras before deciding which to purchase. Still, most car showrooms don't stock Rolls Royce. The weather has improved so I am off out again.
Best Wishes,
Gordon.

 

[thedruid]

Long, lean and light would describe the 80-200mm, the used prices are a steal I just about gave mine away this week. For me it did not work out I was consistantly getting soft images, mostly my fault with the combo of RX screen and f4, using it against the Canon 70-200 f4L for stock work....people ,movement etc I got consistantly sharper images from the Canon maybe because of the AF. The difference between the two is the Conax has a certain contrast oomph not seen with the Canon but I felt it was not as sharp. Used the Contax on a job recently tripod mounted static image lots of time to focus and printed some nice 8.5x11's for the client. This was my experience only and I've worked on and off with Contax for years, I love the look and feel of both bodies and lenses but I think the others have caught up at this stage. Is the 100f2 from Zeiss three to four times better than the 100f2 from Canon?

 

[jsmisc]

Well spoken Bob. I was hoping that Photokina would generate activity on the site with the anticipated new launches even though whatever is to come is still a closely guarded secret. Personally I would love digital support for my C/Y lenses although I think that is too much to hope for.

Hello Gordon. Welcome to the fraternity. I think you will love your RXII and it's lenses. I suspect that the Which Camera article considered that the RXII is expensive in relation to its features against other makes which have autofocus etc. I wouldn't agree with that because the RX is a very classy camera which is a joy to own and use. Some things are just not directly comparable in those sort of terms. For ex&le, a Leica M is very expensive but many people value its individual qualities for what they are in themselves and not how they compare with other cameras.
I have the old RX which I bought second hand in as new condition. It is a lovely camera to use and just to enjoy owning. I acquired a 50mm f1.4 fairly recently and it has become one of my favourite lenses. I find it especially good when scanning images from it because you can easily crop from it to give other than 50mm effects, making it something of a universal lens. I also like the fast maximum aperture.
I don't think that I would ever part with my Contax gear. Apart from the significant investment I have made, I like them too much. At the moment I use my Aria the most.
I may go digital SLR eventually but I think when I do decide, it will probably have to be an as well as current gear option. In which case I think I'd better start saving or talking to the bank manager! Contax can become something of an addiction.
Best wishes,
John

 

[jsmisc]

Hello again Gordon,
I just wondered if you'd tried Jacobs for Contax as I think they advertise it in their catalogue too. Whether their prices are any good I'm not sure though.
John

 

[stan_parry]

I often travel with a 28-85 and a 80-200 and a 28PC shift lens. I shoot mainly architecture, landscape and some stained glass. The 80-200 is a fine lens. check it out on www.photodo.com. It gets a 3.8 rating, just below the 28-85's 4.0. the 28-85 is considered one of the finest zooms ever made. If I don't take the 80-200, I take the 135 2.8, which is a super lens. At today's prices you won't be disappointed with any of these lenses.

Regards,

Stan