Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: sal1635cz vs Contax 17-35

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    218
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    sal1635cz vs Contax 17-35

    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/SAL...e_1.html#L1_30

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

    http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/digit...sonnar1735.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

  2. #2
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: sal1635cz vs Contax 17-35

    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    218
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: sal1635cz vs Contax 17-35

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: sal1635cz vs Contax 17-35

    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    218
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: sal1635cz vs Contax 17-35

    I'm not surprised. I think the mtf's even suggest that to be the case.

    Mike

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    123
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: sal1635cz vs Contax 17-35

    You may be interested in this review of the CZ N 17-35 (v Nikon AFS 17-35).

    http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/cz17_...735/index.html

    Graham

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •