G
Guest
I just saw a 15mm f3.5 Zeiss C/Y at ProCamera, Charlottesville, VA for $2000. 434-979-1915
Talk about a wide angle!
Talk about a wide angle!
-
Quick access all forums:Photography and Techniques Nature & Wildlife Landscape & Travel City, Street & Transportation People, Portrait & Wedding Black & White Macro & Still Life Sport & Action Everything else Editing / Hardware & Software
Assignments & Critique Images I took this week Photo Critique Challenges Challenge Discussions
Gear-Talk General Gear Talk Canon Nikon Sony & Minolta Fujifilm X System & DSLRs L-Mount Alliance MicroFourThirds (MFT) Pentax & Ricoh Medium Format Leica M, Leica R, Leica Q Other brands Contax MTF Charts, Broschures etc Information Contax & Zeiss Sigma SA/ DP/DPMerrill/Quattro Others Smartphones, P&S and Drones Adapted Lens Talk Classifieds
General stuff Announcements Forum-Help/ "Have you seen...?" Introduce yourself DPRF Cafe Suggestions regarding this forum
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
Guest
Mohan,
>I bought a 2nd hand Contax 159. I am new to this system, can some one tell me how are the Yashika lenses on it, what is their optical quality compared to Tamron or other lenses apart from CZ and Leica.<
I would endorse the advice you have already had on steering yourself towards Zeiss lenses once you have made the decision to go with Contax. I too have a 159 and it's a lovely little camera. Although Zeiss is glass you'll never regret buying, there are some very acceptable Yashica lenses in the ML range. I recently acquired a 28-85ML lens, and was quite taken aback by how good the images were, especially as I only bought it because it was inexpensive and my wife, who supervises all my spending with a furrowed brow, was momentarily distracted and looking the other way. When they're side by side with the Planar images on the same set, you can tell the difference, but the ML lens cost a fifth the price I paid for the Planar.
>I bought a 2nd hand Contax 159. I am new to this system, can some one tell me how are the Yashika lenses on it, what is their optical quality compared to Tamron or other lenses apart from CZ and Leica.<
I would endorse the advice you have already had on steering yourself towards Zeiss lenses once you have made the decision to go with Contax. I too have a 159 and it's a lovely little camera. Although Zeiss is glass you'll never regret buying, there are some very acceptable Yashica lenses in the ML range. I recently acquired a 28-85ML lens, and was quite taken aback by how good the images were, especially as I only bought it because it was inexpensive and my wife, who supervises all my spending with a furrowed brow, was momentarily distracted and looking the other way. When they're side by side with the Planar images on the same set, you can tell the difference, but the ML lens cost a fifth the price I paid for the Planar.
G
Guest
Mohan wrote: "I bought a 2nd hand Contax 159. I am new to this system, can some one tell me how are the Yashika lenses on it, what is their optical quality compared to Tamron or other lenses apart from CZ and Leica."
Hi Mohan,
Congratulations with your new camera - one of the most delicately designed Contax models ever in my eyes.
This may sound a bit biased to you - or even weird - but I don't know what other way to give you my advice.
Having used Contax cameras and most of the Zeiss lenses ever since 1977 I had kind of grown into taking the quality of Zeiss lenses for granted. And to be honest: I had begun to think that with new technology and computerized designing ... welll, all lenses probably were more or less the same quality. It may sound strange, but there I was.
Two incidents made me wake up. First, I bought af Tamron zoom for my girlfriends camera. Second, I bought a set of Yashica FXD and three Yashica lenses (two of them the distinguished ML-line) for her son. Both buys were great bargains and great quality ... I thought.
And what did I get? The most convincing proof that Zeiss quality is NOT general quality.
Those other lenses produce pictures, right ... but pictures with these other lenses seems to lack so much in detail and colors - not to talk about vignetting (dark corners), distortions (straight lines not being straight) and other highly visible drawbacks. Such optical failures that Zeiss engineers just must be so much more caring about and seem to avoid much better than others.
To me, this experience was a real eye opener. There are so many qualities to a lens that you take for granted and tend to forget about when you have them. Fact is that many producers do cut 'heels and toes' and make many compromises with picture quality.
And - Yashica and Tamron, I would say, generally is in quite different leagues from Zeiss.
Kind regards,
Jak
Hi Mohan,
Congratulations with your new camera - one of the most delicately designed Contax models ever in my eyes.
This may sound a bit biased to you - or even weird - but I don't know what other way to give you my advice.
Having used Contax cameras and most of the Zeiss lenses ever since 1977 I had kind of grown into taking the quality of Zeiss lenses for granted. And to be honest: I had begun to think that with new technology and computerized designing ... welll, all lenses probably were more or less the same quality. It may sound strange, but there I was.
Two incidents made me wake up. First, I bought af Tamron zoom for my girlfriends camera. Second, I bought a set of Yashica FXD and three Yashica lenses (two of them the distinguished ML-line) for her son. Both buys were great bargains and great quality ... I thought.
And what did I get? The most convincing proof that Zeiss quality is NOT general quality.
Those other lenses produce pictures, right ... but pictures with these other lenses seems to lack so much in detail and colors - not to talk about vignetting (dark corners), distortions (straight lines not being straight) and other highly visible drawbacks. Such optical failures that Zeiss engineers just must be so much more caring about and seem to avoid much better than others.
To me, this experience was a real eye opener. There are so many qualities to a lens that you take for granted and tend to forget about when you have them. Fact is that many producers do cut 'heels and toes' and make many compromises with picture quality.
And - Yashica and Tamron, I would say, generally is in quite different leagues from Zeiss.
Kind regards,
Jak
G
Guest
Hi Dirk,
Thanks for your comments. I have seen the prices, for Leica one 2nd hand 35mm is 1000 euro and for contax it is 320 Euro, The contax quality which I can only compare with Leitz and the price difference. I will start looking for the real CZ lenses.
Mohan
Thanks for your comments. I have seen the prices, for Leica one 2nd hand 35mm is 1000 euro and for contax it is 320 Euro, The contax quality which I can only compare with Leitz and the price difference. I will start looking for the real CZ lenses.
Mohan
S
sol74
Yes, Sigma is ok for sunflare resistance etc (considering its a zoom) I had a 28-70 macro sigma on a Nikon F80 a while back but the experience propelled me to Zeiss/contax. The only thing outstanding about this lens is it's macro mode - better quality images than off-macro , but nowhere near the quality of my 50mm1.4 reversed on my RX
I am looking for a decent zoom to fit into my trusty Contax S2, fitted since new with a Planar 50/1.4.
I had used to fit from time to time a Tamron 28-70 with quite bad results (out of focus, difficult to get the picture focused -well, it was 13 years old an had had a very hard life, through three cameras-).
As I mainly use the 50mm I had thought about getting one Cosina zoom lens 28-105 f 2,8-3.3 in C/Y mount or a Tokina or Sigma in similar focal distance and aperture instead.
But after having read much of what the users say, then I think I will have to come back to Zeiss again.
Obviously the Vario-Sonnar 28-85 3,3 is the best bet, but it's too heavy for usual hand-held shots and for trekking, and does not fit in my C-3 case.
Then that takes me to the 35-70 Vario-Sonnar, which is both light, one-touch zoom and performant, but lacks the 28mm choice.
Then the last contender is the Vario-Sonnar 28-70. It's a very good lens, not very bright (f3,5-4,5 is just the same as my old Tamron), but whats puts me off is that many people have told me that does not deliver the usually great optical quality that Zeiss lenses deliver.
Has anybody had some experience with the three VS lenses and other third-party lenses who could give me some advice?
I know Zeiss is the best, and I prefer to use Zeiss lenses in my Contax, simply I would like somebody to point me some alternative.
Great forum. Thanks a lot.
I had used to fit from time to time a Tamron 28-70 with quite bad results (out of focus, difficult to get the picture focused -well, it was 13 years old an had had a very hard life, through three cameras-).
As I mainly use the 50mm I had thought about getting one Cosina zoom lens 28-105 f 2,8-3.3 in C/Y mount or a Tokina or Sigma in similar focal distance and aperture instead.
But after having read much of what the users say, then I think I will have to come back to Zeiss again.
Obviously the Vario-Sonnar 28-85 3,3 is the best bet, but it's too heavy for usual hand-held shots and for trekking, and does not fit in my C-3 case.
Then that takes me to the 35-70 Vario-Sonnar, which is both light, one-touch zoom and performant, but lacks the 28mm choice.
Then the last contender is the Vario-Sonnar 28-70. It's a very good lens, not very bright (f3,5-4,5 is just the same as my old Tamron), but whats puts me off is that many people have told me that does not deliver the usually great optical quality that Zeiss lenses deliver.
Has anybody had some experience with the three VS lenses and other third-party lenses who could give me some advice?
I know Zeiss is the best, and I prefer to use Zeiss lenses in my Contax, simply I would like somebody to point me some alternative.
Great forum. Thanks a lot.
J
jgban
You've seen the different opinions on this thread, so there is little to add...
2 years ago I had the same question: 28-70 or 35-70? I had been happily using a Vivitar 28-105, but I realized I could afford Zeiss...
My main consideration was the range of focal lengths. The 35-70 may be wonderful, but if you like to shoot wider or longer, it just does not make sense. If truly most of your shooting is between 35 and 70, then go for it.
The point I am trying to make is that to me the focal length is the number 1 deciding factor. The long controversy re. the performance of the 28-70 is kind of boring. I got the 28-70 and I was a very happy user. If you want to convince yourself you want another lens, go to Photodo and see it has a very low mark. If you want to convince yourself it is a very nice lens, go to
http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/Test.htm
Later I found a bargain VS 28-85, and now it is the one I use, not so much for the quality (which is, as everybody has said, outstanding) as for the range--85 is much better than 70 for my shooting. Unfortunately, as more people has pointed out, flare IS a problem.
And now that I have 2 VS zooms (of which I don't need one, obviously) I would still prefer a 28-105...The reviews of the current Tamron are excellent, with quality (and price: list $1,491, available for $850 new!) at Zeiss level, they say. But I have never used one. The Vivitar Series 1 I used, still in production (list 330, available new for less than $150), was very good (or so I thought)-- at least the one I have (someone has complained about it in this forum, and the mark it got in Photodo was an abysmal 1.9! --one of the worst, go figure).
Bottom line: the VS are all good, you can't go wrong with them. My advice is to choose based on focal length. Regarding non-Zeiss short zooms, my only experience may not be representative.
Good luck,
Juan
2 years ago I had the same question: 28-70 or 35-70? I had been happily using a Vivitar 28-105, but I realized I could afford Zeiss...
My main consideration was the range of focal lengths. The 35-70 may be wonderful, but if you like to shoot wider or longer, it just does not make sense. If truly most of your shooting is between 35 and 70, then go for it.
The point I am trying to make is that to me the focal length is the number 1 deciding factor. The long controversy re. the performance of the 28-70 is kind of boring. I got the 28-70 and I was a very happy user. If you want to convince yourself you want another lens, go to Photodo and see it has a very low mark. If you want to convince yourself it is a very nice lens, go to
http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/Test.htm
Later I found a bargain VS 28-85, and now it is the one I use, not so much for the quality (which is, as everybody has said, outstanding) as for the range--85 is much better than 70 for my shooting. Unfortunately, as more people has pointed out, flare IS a problem.
And now that I have 2 VS zooms (of which I don't need one, obviously) I would still prefer a 28-105...The reviews of the current Tamron are excellent, with quality (and price: list $1,491, available for $850 new!) at Zeiss level, they say. But I have never used one. The Vivitar Series 1 I used, still in production (list 330, available new for less than $150), was very good (or so I thought)-- at least the one I have (someone has complained about it in this forum, and the mark it got in Photodo was an abysmal 1.9! --one of the worst, go figure).
Bottom line: the VS are all good, you can't go wrong with them. My advice is to choose based on focal length. Regarding non-Zeiss short zooms, my only experience may not be representative.
Good luck,
Juan
Dear Juan,
Thank you very much for your advice. I don't rely very much in what magazines say, I prefer comments based upon experience, such as yours.
So I will probably go for the 28-70, even though I would prefer the 28-85 or the Tamron 28-105, but size and weight really matter in this case because they would not fit into my S2's case.
Thank you and best regards,
Robert
Thank you very much for your advice. I don't rely very much in what magazines say, I prefer comments based upon experience, such as yours.
So I will probably go for the 28-70, even though I would prefer the 28-85 or the Tamron 28-105, but size and weight really matter in this case because they would not fit into my S2's case.
Thank you and best regards,
Robert
V
vdipiet
Robert, I agree with Juan -- the 28-70 is a very good lens. I also use the 35-135 vs which is a great lens, as sharp as any of my primes, but very large. I like the 28-70 for crowd scenes at rallies or events. In my opinion both lenses have great bokeh.