The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

fotografz

Well-known member
I agree! Although I have the Sony 50mm, which is pretty good, a Zeiss 50mm for Sony is the lens I've been hoping for the most.
Hope it isn't like the Zeiss N 50 ... its notorious for horrible wormy Bokeh ... same for the ZF 50/1.4.

That's one Zeiss focal length I'll skip. The Sony 50 is better than the N 50 in that regard.

Now a 55/1.2 similar to the CY 55/1.2 Anniversary wouldn't break my heart :thumbup:
 

wayne_s

New member
Hope it isn't like the Zeiss N 50 ... its notorious for horrible wormy Bokeh ... same for the ZF 50/1.4.

That's one Zeiss focal length I'll skip. The Sony 50 is better than the N 50 in that regard.

Now a 55/1.2 similar to the CY 55/1.2 Anniversary wouldn't break my heart :thumbup:
Looks pretty good in these shots:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/762543

Judging by the photozone review of sony 50 it has alot of CA and not great bokeh wide open and suffers low contrast and very dismal border sharpness at 1.4. I would go for the sigma 50 1.4 over this Sony lens anyday.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Looks pretty good in these shots:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/762543

Judging by the photozone review of sony 50 it has alot of CA and not great bokeh wide open and suffers low contrast and very dismal border sharpness at 1.4. I would go for the sigma 50 1.4 over this Sony lens anyday.
Well, just sharing real experiences. I know this Sony forum is getting intolerant of any observation that isn't Zeiss centric. But I won't let that stop me from making observations based on experience just in case someone hasn't drunk the cool aid. :ROTFL:

I owned the N50/1.4 ... and tried the ZF 50/1.4 which is similar. The Bokeh is schizophrenic ... and I'm not alone in that observation. ANY 50/1.4 shot wide open close to the subject with the background a mile back or with no specular details will show decent Bokeh ... its when the background is closer or there are specular details that worms come out to play : -)

This ZF 50/1.4 user review says it all.

"Yes, this lens produces the beautiful tone and contrast that is a Zeiss hallmark. It's warm and detailed at the same time. HOWEVER, as discussed all over the Internet, this lens suffers from horrible bokeh -- especially wide open. You can have a classic portrait with spectacular eyes and focus feathering off into the face and hair, then wham any specular details in the background blow up into harsh double lined spots and worms. Everyone remarks on the bokeh before they even see the subject. You need to stop down to 5.6 to get a handle on this, but then you lose the ability to isolate the subject from the background with selective focus."

I also owned the Siggy 50/1.4 in Nikon mount ... which is an interesting lens but buying it was a mistake since it has an odd way of rendering ever so slightly OOF brights ... which bloom badly. I posted examples of this in the Nikon forum. It is the opposite of the micro detail characteristics of many popular Leica and Zeiss lenses. I stupidly tried the Siggy 28/1.8 in Alpha mount ... same result and I returned it.

BTW, I wasn't advocating the Sony 50/1.4 (which I also own) ... I merely said I'd stick with it before ponying up for a Zeiss 50/1.4 IF it was like the N or ZF 50/1.4. But I leave 50mm work for Leica M and a M50/1.4 ASPH anyway.

The Zeiss CY 55/1.2 is a completely different story.

Anyway, to each his or her own. Just sharing experiences.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I got my Sony 50 expecting the worse, but it's actually not a bad lens. I was pleasantly surprised.
Me too. Evidently it doesn't get the the greatest reviews, but actual use of the Sony 50/1.4 seems fine so far. I also was pleasantly surprised since I was also expecting the worst.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Me too. Evidently it doesn't get the the greatest reviews, but actual use of the Sony 50/1.4 seems fine so far. I also was pleasantly surprised since I was also expecting the worst.
According to Jean-Marie Sepulchre in his book on the Sony A900, the 50 is extremely sharp even in the corners from f/4 to f/11, showing MTF that better both ZA primes. Of course MTF is not everything, but this small lightweight lens is a real pleasure to use.
 

douglasf13

New member
Agreed with the above points, which is why I was hoping for a Zeiss 50mm 1.2, since we don't really know how the bokeh will be in an all new 1.2 ZA. I'm currently splitting my time between the Sony 50 and a Pentax SMC Tak 50.
 

carstenw

Active member
The Zeiss CY 55/1.2 is a completely different story.
Any tiny bit OT, but just a little question: you have, AFAIK, owned a Contax 645, and I am curious what your experiences were with this system, and specifically the various lenses. I have the 35, 80 and 120, and both 35 and 120 behave very well most of the time, if not all, but the 80 I haven't used that much yet, so I cannot say. It would be great to be able to use these lenses on an A900.
 

conurus

New member
The only other things I would add is that the N 85 is supposedly to have better smoother bokeh and sharper wide open in the center than the ZA with low CA.
But the N versions requires electronics to close the aperture down to the aperture you have selected. I just bought a N 50 1.4 to be converted for my 1ds3 by Conurus who only converts the N series for Canon. It becomes a nice AF 50 on Canon with lower CA than the Canon for less money too. The large physical mount of the N series is another problem I would think in trying to adapt it to the smaller Sony bayonet mount. Main problem is the electronic conversion needed between N and Sony.
The current Sony camera with AF Zeiss glass is the 2nd coming of the Contax N series and zoom lens designs like the N24-85 may have been dusted off and of course improved to get the current 24-70 and 16-35. Sony needs to let Zeiss take the old N 50 1.4 design and produce an excellent AF 50 1.4 lens in ZA mount. That would nicely complete the fine Sony Zeiss portrait lens trifecta of 50,85, and 135. :)
Also, the N85 does not change length during focusing. I think all other versions extend as they focus closer. That may partly account for the N85's more complex optical formula.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Any tiny bit OT, but just a little question: you have, AFAIK, owned a Contax 645, and I am curious what your experiences were with this system, and specifically the various lenses. I have the 35, 80 and 120, and both 35 and 120 behave very well most of the time, if not all, but the 80 I haven't used that much yet, so I cannot say. It would be great to be able to use these lenses on an A900.
I think the issue is that the C645 lenses are electronic aperture control rather than mechanical like the Hasselblad V lenses. Even if you could mount them on an A900 there would be no way to stop them down manually or otherwise.

Someone would have to develop an e-adapter or swap the mounts like the Conrus Contax N mount conversions to Canon mount ... which maintained full auto aperture and AF functions. Unlikely to happen I fear.

Irakly uses the Contax 645 80/2 all the time to excellent effect. But I think he could shoot with a broken Coke bottle bottom to good effect ... ;)

BTW, I was never a big fan of the Contax 645 35mm ... at least for some applications ... too much distortion. The 120/4 Macro is THE macro to own IMHO. Best I ever used bar none. :thumbs:

Oh, an added thought ... the C645 55mm is a really special lens. Its one of the few where the front OOF bokeh is as beautiful as the back OOF bokeh.
 
Last edited:

carstenw

Active member
Yes, I have been on the lookout for a 55mm for a long time now, but when I find one, the price is always high. I really need to decide between MFDB and A900 before I make that investment. The 55mm only makes sense on a crop sensor, for my uses.

Have you tried the 140, 210, or 350? I am especially curious about the latter two.
 

wayne_s

New member
Well, just sharing real experiences. I know this Sony forum is getting intolerant of any observation that isn't Zeiss centric. But I won't let that stop me from making observations based on experience just in case someone hasn't drunk the cool aid. :ROTFL:

I owned the N50/1.4 ... and tried the ZF 50/1.4 which is similar. The Bokeh is schizophrenic ... and I'm not alone in that observation. ANY 50/1.4 shot wide open close to the subject with the background a mile back or with no specular details will show decent Bokeh ... its when the background is closer or there are specular details that worms come out to play : -)

This ZF 50/1.4 user review says it all.

"Yes, this lens produces the beautiful tone and contrast that is a Zeiss hallmark. It's warm and detailed at the same time. HOWEVER, as discussed all over the Internet, this lens suffers from horrible bokeh -- especially wide open. You can have a classic portrait with spectacular eyes and focus feathering off into the face and hair, then wham any specular details in the background blow up into harsh double lined spots and worms. Everyone remarks on the bokeh before they even see the subject. You need to stop down to 5.6 to get a handle on this, but then you lose the ability to isolate the subject from the background with selective focus."

I also owned the Siggy 50/1.4 in Nikon mount ... which is an interesting lens but buying it was a mistake since it has an odd way of rendering ever so slightly OOF brights ... which bloom badly. I posted examples of this in the Nikon forum. It is the opposite of the micro detail characteristics of many popular Leica and Zeiss lenses. I stupidly tried the Siggy 28/1.8 in Alpha mount ... same result and I returned it.

BTW, I wasn't advocating the Sony 50/1.4 (which I also own) ... I merely said I'd stick with it before ponying up for a Zeiss 50/1.4 IF it was like the N or ZF 50/1.4. But I leave 50mm work for Leica M and a M50/1.4 ASPH anyway.

The Zeiss CY 55/1.2 is a completely different story.

Anyway, to each his or her own. Just sharing experiences.
Marc,

1. I am not Zeiss centric and intolerant of other lens makers. I have lenses from Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony-CZ, and Minolta.

2. I wasn't contesting the wormy bokeh of the C/Y and ZF 50 1.4 so you don't have to YELL. I was under the impression that the N 50 1.4 and N 85 1.4 designs are different than the C/Y and ZF versions and were optimized more for portrait having better bokeh and better center sharpness wide open versus the ZF's which were sharper across the frame. So far I haven't seen a wormy bokeh shot taken with the N 50 1.4 but if you have one to post pls. do. I would like to see it.

3. I can see from the photozone review results that the Sony 50 is very sharp in the center from f4 on. Alot of lenses are sharp too when stopped down. When I think of a 50 1.4 or 50 1.2 lens, I think the main reason to get such a lens is its performance wide open or at f2. If you want a 50 just for f4 or greater shooting thats fine and you could probably be ok with a zoom or some other average 50 out there. Not saying anything unreasonable here.
The Sony 50 1.4 is an average ok 50 lens at a cheap price of $379. We all recognize that it is not in the same performance level as a 50L 1.2, ZA 85 1.4, or ZA 135 1.8.

4. I am getting a N 50 1.4 converted right now by Conurus and will hopefully have it back in a few months to test out. I wanted a fast AF 50 lens to go along with my MF Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 which is a very good fast 50. The Canon has too much CA, not as sharp as the Rokkor wide open, and has some known focusing problems and costs alot.
My other AF 50 choices for my 1ds3 were the Siggy 50 and the converted N 50 1.4.
I think you would agree that the Siggy has better bokeh and better sharpness wide open that the Sony 50?

5. I think it is wrong to think that Zeiss couldn't come out with 50mm lens for Sony which has good bokeh if they wanted to optimize it for that. The ZA 85 seems to have better bokeh than the ZF version and the ZA 135 has very nice bokeh.

6. Just expressing my views like you and its ok if we have different likes and dislikes in lenses. :)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Yes, I have been on the lookout for a 55mm for a long time now, but when I find one, the price is always high. I really need to decide between MFDB and A900 before I make that investment. The 55mm only makes sense on a crop sensor, for my uses.

Have you tried the 140, 210, or 350? I am especially curious about the latter two.
The 140 is nice, but the 350 is stellar. Never used the 210.
 

wayne_s

New member
I also owned the Siggy 50/1.4 in Nikon mount ... which is an interesting lens but buying it was a mistake since it has an odd way of rendering ever so slightly OOF brights ... which bloom badly. I posted examples of this in the Nikon forum. It is the opposite of the micro detail characteristics of many popular Leica and Zeiss lenses. I stupidly tried the Siggy 28/1.8 in Alpha mount ... same result and I returned it.

BTW, I wasn't advocating the Sony 50/1.4 (which I also own) ... I merely said I'd stick with it before ponying up for a Zeiss 50/1.4 IF it was like the N or ZF 50/1.4. But I leave 50mm work for Leica M and a M50/1.4 ASPH anyway.

The Zeiss CY 55/1.2 is a completely different story.

Anyway, to each his or her own. Just sharing experiences.
I do agree the Siggy 50 and 28 1.8 has the fault you mention about the OOF brights blooming so yes it is not perfect and would limit its usefullness for outdoor portraits with sunlit foliage backgrounds.
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
I'll see how wormy my converted N 50's bokeh turns out.
 

woodyspedden

New member
I do know that some of the rare earth elements such as the ones containing lead arsenic are now banned for use by various governments.

Thus the deservedly famous Zeiss/Contax 21 2.8 is redone using modern technology and not necessarily better but conforming to governmental requirements.

I think we will have to evaluate and then wait and see whether we have gone forwards or backwards. I do know that my copy of the Contax 21 2.8 while having severe "moustasche" distortion was a wonder of a lens. I have never seen anything better but the Leica 19 latest version is a stellar performer that should be evaluated for use on the modern bodies e.g. A900 or the D3X

We live in a blessed age with all the choices we have to get spectacular images.

Woody
 

dhsimmonds

New member
You are so right Woody, we do live in a blessed age of choices. :D You also mentioned the Leica R19mm lens which is a great lens.

Did you know that Leitax now have a lens mount adaptor kit to fit most Leica R primes to the Sony A mount. If you supply Leitax with a Sony lens chip, he will fit this to the adaptor FOC before shipping. It will still mean stop down metering etc and manual focusing but for many subjects such as landscapes or macro work this will be just fine. The advantages of focus confirmation and steady shot will also help!:thumbs:

In the absence of a Zeiss macro lens for the A900, I am seriously considering modifying a Leica R100 F2.8 macro (which is a stellar lens BTW) using the Leitax Leica to Sony adaptor kit.
 

wayne_s

New member
You are so right Woody, we do live in a blessed age of choices. :D You also mentioned the Leica R19mm lens which is a great lens.

Did you know that Leitax now have a lens mount adaptor kit to fit most Leica R primes to the Sony A mount. If you supply Leitax with a Sony lens chip, he will fit this to the adaptor FOC before shipping. It will still mean stop down metering etc and manual focusing but for many subjects such as landscapes or macro work this will be just fine. The advantages of focus confirmation and steady shot will also help!:thumbs:

In the absence of a Zeiss macro lens for the A900, I am seriously considering modifying a Leica R100 F2.8 macro (which is a stellar lens BTW) using the Leitax Leica to Sony adaptor kit.
Despite how good the Zeiss ZF 100 Makro lens is, IMHO that the Leica 100 APO is better and with the ElPro 1:2:1:1 converter (which screws onto the front of the lens) you can get 1:1 which the Zeiss ZF can not(1:2) and the Leica of course has no CA and great color.
The detail this lens resolves on a 20+ MP sensor is just amazing. Love it on my 1ds3 but look forward to seeing how it performs on the A900 with its great color.:thumbs:
 
Top