G
Guest
>I would start with 1.7 50 mm and with 2.8 135 - if you've just started photography. If not, go for 50 and f 2.8 28. Why 135 instead of 28? Because it's easier to compose pictures with longer lenses. > Jerzy
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!
G
Guest
Thanks for the info.
Ive been shooting for a long time.
I bought a Contax 35mm camera so I can try out the quality Zeiss lens, After having a dissapointing 24mm and 35mm Nikon AFD lens. Whilst the Nikon 50mm 1.8 AFD is super sharp that is not so with some of thier wider lens.
(I still have my FM2 and 50mm/1.8 plus motor drive.)You can never have enough good reliable gear.
I also tend to prefer that Zeiss tone that I get with my Hasselblad.
Hope the Contax 35mm gear lives up to my expectation. I know 35mm is not upto roll film specs. But there has to be some very good 35mm lens around. ( Its also eaiser to carry around
.
than the MF iron.
But I have to get used to the film take up on the Aria.
I like to take photos of buildings and travel shots. Just snaps of course. (outside without tripod).
Ive been shooting for a long time.
I bought a Contax 35mm camera so I can try out the quality Zeiss lens, After having a dissapointing 24mm and 35mm Nikon AFD lens. Whilst the Nikon 50mm 1.8 AFD is super sharp that is not so with some of thier wider lens.
(I still have my FM2 and 50mm/1.8 plus motor drive.)You can never have enough good reliable gear.
I also tend to prefer that Zeiss tone that I get with my Hasselblad.
Hope the Contax 35mm gear lives up to my expectation. I know 35mm is not upto roll film specs. But there has to be some very good 35mm lens around. ( Its also eaiser to carry around
than the MF iron.
But I have to get used to the film take up on the Aria.
I like to take photos of buildings and travel shots. Just snaps of course. (outside without tripod).
G
Guest
The 45mm f:2.8 should be a really nice combination size/weight with the Aria. I know I would buy the 50 mm 1.4 because I like pictures with available light and so on, but choosing the tiny 45 is a big temptation with the Aria.
G
Guest
> >>The 45mm f:2.8 should be a really nice combination size/weight with >>the Aria. I know I would buy the 50 mm 1.4 because I like pictures >>with available light and so on, but choosing the tiny 45 is a big >>temptation with the Aria. > But you have to check if Tesar handling is good for you. For me it's too thin and very uncomfortable - but I haven't played with it long time.
Jerzy
Jerzy
G
Guest
Thanks everybody for the input. I bought a used Distagon 28/2.8 AE and I love it. It has definitely become my favorite lens and I'm practing tremendously. I also bought a used Yashica ML 70-210 f4.5 which came highly rated from www.cdegroot.com. We shall see.
G
Guest
Hello guys
(Finally) I am to buy an Aria and I cant decide which lens should I purchase with it.
First option is to get the famous deal zoom lens that comes with the Aria (28-70) and another CZ 50mm/1:1.4.
Another option is to forget about the deal (Aria+lens) and get the 50mm + a 28mm or 35mm/1:2.8.
I do mostly landscapes and street photography: not portraits or fashion.
In other words, can the zoom compete with Distagon or Planner for landscape work?
Love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks
Ethan
(Finally) I am to buy an Aria and I cant decide which lens should I purchase with it.
First option is to get the famous deal zoom lens that comes with the Aria (28-70) and another CZ 50mm/1:1.4.
Another option is to forget about the deal (Aria+lens) and get the 50mm + a 28mm or 35mm/1:2.8.
I do mostly landscapes and street photography: not portraits or fashion.
In other words, can the zoom compete with Distagon or Planner for landscape work?
Love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks
Ethan
G
Guest
Although I like this zoom alot, because of it's weight and versatility it has one major drawback for me:
It distorts really heavily on the 28mm end, which is quite a problem shooting Architecture and the like. For landscape it's ok, although I must admit it's slighly less contrasty and sharp than the 28mm fixed lense. The 28-85mm is better in terms of Contrast and Sharpness, but not distortion.
I would recommend the 28mm Lense and the 1.7/50 Planar. It's optically a much better solution than the zoom.
I prefer the 1.7/50 over the 1.4/50. It weights considerably less and is slightly sharper. For outdoor I only use the 1.7.
However I must admit that I never travel without the 28-70 and shoot ca. 50% of my pictures with it. I like especially the combination with the very light FX3-2000 which makes a travel combo which looks so cheap that no one cares about it.
It distorts really heavily on the 28mm end, which is quite a problem shooting Architecture and the like. For landscape it's ok, although I must admit it's slighly less contrasty and sharp than the 28mm fixed lense. The 28-85mm is better in terms of Contrast and Sharpness, but not distortion.
I would recommend the 28mm Lense and the 1.7/50 Planar. It's optically a much better solution than the zoom.
I prefer the 1.7/50 over the 1.4/50. It weights considerably less and is slightly sharper. For outdoor I only use the 1.7.
However I must admit that I never travel without the 28-70 and shoot ca. 50% of my pictures with it. I like especially the combination with the very light FX3-2000 which makes a travel combo which looks so cheap that no one cares about it.
G
Guest
thanks Michael, Do you really think the 50/1.7 is sharper than the 50/1.4? I always had the impression that it is 100$ cheaper for aperture, biensur, but for optics too. I don't care for weight so it might be a great solution for me. ethan
G
Guest
> one more thing, Michael, I just read the 50mm 1.7 or 1.4, and all agree that in some cases the 50/1.7 can provide you with a better optics.
G
Guest
Ethan, both 50 1.7 and 1.4 Zeiss Planars are nice lenses. Contax Real Time NewsVol 1 #4 reproduced the MTF charts for both lenses. The article analysis is: The 50 1.7 provides slightly higher contrast wide open than the 1.4. At the best f/stops (5.6 on the 1.7, and 2.8 on the 1.4), contrast is better on the 1.4, but resolution is better with the 1.7. That writer stated that contrast was more important over resolution.
A Contax lens brochure states that the 1.7 gives the same optical performance as the 1.4. The 2/99 Popular photography had an article in response to a Zeiss representative claiming that the 50 1.4 Planar was the best 50mm 1.4 in the world.
Of course, there are plenty of "test reports" out there. The best solution is to see if you can shoot tests with both and decide! I have used some lenses which came out great in the "tests", only to find them inferior to others.
By the way, I have and use a Carl Zeiss 50 1.7 Planar, and am satisfied with it's performance.
A Contax lens brochure states that the 1.7 gives the same optical performance as the 1.4. The 2/99 Popular photography had an article in response to a Zeiss representative claiming that the 50 1.4 Planar was the best 50mm 1.4 in the world.
Of course, there are plenty of "test reports" out there. The best solution is to see if you can shoot tests with both and decide! I have used some lenses which came out great in the "tests", only to find them inferior to others.
By the way, I have and use a Carl Zeiss 50 1.7 Planar, and am satisfied with it's performance.