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!

sal1635cz vs Contax 17-35

docmaas

Member
I've not seen any comparisons of these two lenses but the mtfs are amazingly similar.

The 16:35 is here:

http://www.sony.jp/dslr/products/SAL1635Z/feature_1.html#L1_30

and the 17-35 can be downloaded as a pdf here:

http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/digital/nlenses/variosonnar1735.asp

I have the 16-35 but I think I'd be happier with a 21 distagon. May switch at some point.

I wonder in view of the 24-85 Contax N lens why Zeiss and Sony decided on the narrower range of the 24-70. From what I've read and from looking at the mtfs of the 24-85 it does look like a nice lens. I suppose the reason may have been that f2.8 constant aperture was more important than the wider range.


Mike
 

edwardkaraa

New member
My thoughts exactly. But as far as I'm concerned, the zooms are mostly intended for reportage/weddings not for landscapes/architecture kind of work. They are filling the gap until we get some nice quality primes, starting with the ZA 24/2 sometime in May (hopefully).

This said, I think the zooms are excellent performers. They both have some problems in the extreme corners, but which WA or UWA prime doesn't? On 90% of the frame they are really excellent and do not leave anything to be desired.
 

docmaas

Member
My thoughts exactly. But as far as I'm concerned, the zooms are mostly intended for reportage/weddings not for landscapes/architecture kind of work. They are filling the gap until we get some nice quality primes, starting with the ZA 24/2 sometime in May (hopefully).

This said, I think the zooms are excellent performers. They both have some problems in the extreme corners, but which WA or UWA prime doesn't? On 90% of the frame they are really excellent and do not leave anything to be desired.
Yes, I think you're right about the intended use of the zooms. However I just shot a landscape experiment at 16mm then cropped it to 21 mm FOV and it looks pretty good. Good enough that that's how I'll use it for wa landscapes for the time being.

Mike
 

edwardkaraa

New member
The thing is all landscape samples I have seen of the N 17-35 did not particularly impress me in the corners. If anything, the 16-35 seems to be an improvement.
 
Top