Cindy Flood
Super Moderator
An HDR (3) with the Contax 90 f/2.8 at F8. I adjusted the curve a little.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Yes, you sure did ! Thanks.I'm sorry . . . . but maybe I saved you a bob or two?
I didn't test it today, but my CV 28 f/1.9 looks promising. It was good on micro 4/3, so it should be good on the NEX. I'll post something this week after I test it.35/2 Contax G Planar is pretty much confirmed.
Thanks for stepping up and volunteering to be the guinea pig ! :thumbs: The price (brand-new), the max aperture and the lightness are all highly attractive factors in the lens's favor. I might opt for the MC version, however (depending on how your tests turn out).Well, I've decided to risk it and I ordered a Voigtlander 35 1.4 S.C. I figure that if the corners are terrible, I can resell it, but I can't imagine them being THAT bad. We'll see.
Cindy,I'm testing mine out, but there are some problems. This one was shot on daylight wb and processed in Aperture3. I did nothing in PS except size and sharpen lightly. Note the magenta. It isn't always this noticeable, but bright sky shows it at its worst.
There is such a nice look to the rendering of this lens.
Definitely some valuable bit of information. So I guess the 35/2 Contax G, 35/2 Zeiss ZM Biogon are both viable options.35/2 Contax G Planar is pretty much confirmed.
No, I don't have the 28 f/2 version.Cindy,
Thanks for answering this one. We need a Cornerfix for this one too I guess. You wouldn't happen to have tried the CV 28mm f2 Ultron would you?
Cheers,
Bear in mind the Biogon and the Planar are completely different optical designs, the Planar more of an 'SLR' style and the Biogon more 'RF', generally speaking. The Planar working well on the NEX doesn't guarantee the Biogon will also.Definitely some valuable bit of information. So I guess the 35/2 Contax G, 35/2 Zeiss ZM Biogon are both viable options.
Yes, Simon. I have the f/1.9 28mm CV. I will try to shoot it along side the 25 Biogon this week. (I'm not keen on lens testing), but I'll post some informal results. Remember that the CV 28 f/1.9 and the CV 28 f/2 did not give the same results on micro 4/3. CV 28 f/2 had a smearing problem.If I'm not mistaken, you've shot with the CV 28 (maybe the earlier f1.9 version), how would you rate the Zeiss 25 against the CV (in terms of IQ)?
Cheers,
Yes, Cindy, I had the f1.9 also and used it to great result on my R-D1 cameras. Please don't do any brick wall/newspaper tests, I'd rather see images that were taken for their own merit and see the results that way. (I'm one of the minority that don't seem to shoot walls and newspapers as subjects.)Yes, Simon. I have the f/1.9 28mm CV. I will try to shoot it along side the 25 Biogon this week. (I'm not keen on lens testing), but I'll post some informal results. Remember that the CV 28 f/1.9 and the CV 28 f/2 did not give the same results on micro 4/3. CV 28 f/2 had a smearing problem.
Rest assured, Simon, you won't see brick walls from me. I don't do that kind of testing.Yes, Cindy, I had the f1.9 also and used it to great result on my R-D1 cameras. Please don't do any brick wall/newspaper tests, I'd rather see images that were taken for their own merit and see the results that way. (I'm one of the minority that don't seem to shoot walls and newspapers as subjects.)
Ciao,
Thanks. I am referring to deepdiver's posts in the first page, with the ZM 32/2 biogon and he states that it performs well on the NEX:Bear in mind the Biogon and the Planar are completely different optical designs, the Planar more of an 'SLR' style and the Biogon more 'RF', generally speaking. The Planar working well on the NEX doesn't guarantee the Biogon will also.
From earlier in the thread: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=233941&postcount=15
From what I understand, the difference between the sc and mc versions is terribly slight. The sc is harder to find, so I figured it would be easier to sell if the lens doesn't work, and I like the idea of a slightly more vintage look.Thanks for stepping up and volunteering to be the guinea pig ! :thumbs: The price (brand-new), the max aperture and the lightness are all highly attractive factors in the lens's favor. I might opt for the MC version, however (depending on how your tests turn out).
Very good. One advantage of the Contax G 35 Planar is closer focusing.Thanks. I am referring to deepdiver's posts in the first page, with the ZM 32/2 biogon and he states that it performs well on the NEX
Simon,Yes, Cindy, I had the f1.9 also and used it to great result on my R-D1 cameras. Please don't do any brick wall/newspaper tests, I'd rather see images that were taken for their own merit and see the results that way. (I'm one of the minority that don't seem to shoot walls and newspapers as subjects.)