Cindy Flood
Super Moderator
An HDR (3) with the Contax 90 f/2.8 at F8. I adjusted the curve a little.
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!
Yes, you sure did ! Thanks.
Cindy Flood
Super Moderator
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).
simonclivehughes
Active member
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,
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.
Cindy Flood
Super Moderator
No, I don't have the 28 f/2 version.
I would love to see if we can get a Cornerfix profile for this lens. It is a nice size on the NEX, too.
simonclivehughes
Active member
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,
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.
From earlier in the thread: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=233941&postcount=15
Cindy Flood
Super Moderator
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.
simonclivehughes
Active member
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,
Cindy Flood
Super Moderator
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:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=234088&postcount=19
douglasf13
New member
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.
Very good. One advantage of the Contax G 35 Planar is closer focusing.
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.)
that's partially where i'm coming from, voyeuristically at least, as i've been shooting with the R-D1 since my M8 got kind of lost on its way to service... anyways, it's been interesting seeing them on the 1.5 crop again and i've found a new love for my older lenses... i think that may have to do with the sensor, more than the crop, which is why i'd really like to see these on the NEX.
i can assure you Jono won't do any traditional brick wall testing either -- he and i were joking. kind of. there is an awful lot of brick where i'm living now
i will pull out my old 21 Elmarit as well, the lens i got with my R-D1 that typically gets neglected since i tend to favour the look of the Super Angulon on the M8 or my M2... on the NEX, it only gives you a 31mm view, but it might be of interest...
and, truly, that old Canon 25/3.5 is kind of a gem that can be got for very little. it's a teeny lens and can give a kind of old world look to pics whilst it sharpens up quite nicely with a little PP and you can always add contrast. the biggest mark against it would probably be flare.
the wider lenses i have are probably what Jono would be more interested in playing with anyways... sorry i don't have more.
jonoslack
Active member
Well, I'm actually a defender of brick walls.
I know it's terribly infra dig these days, and it's got nothing to do with how a lens draws, but IMVHO it's the only sensible way to find out:
1. how sharp it is in the centre corners and edges
2. whether there's any curvature of plane of focus
3. what the distortion is like
Of course, this is absolutely not the be-all and end-all, but knowledge is power and it's good to understand what's going on, and avoiding the pitfalls.
So There
:ROTFL:
I know it's terribly infra dig these days, and it's got nothing to do with how a lens draws, but IMVHO it's the only sensible way to find out:
1. how sharp it is in the centre corners and edges
2. whether there's any curvature of plane of focus
3. what the distortion is like
Of course, this is absolutely not the be-all and end-all, but knowledge is power and it's good to understand what's going on, and avoiding the pitfalls.
So There
:ROTFL:
douglasf13
New member
Agreed, Jono. The whole corner smearing thing makes it a particularly useful test.
simonclivehughes
Active member
Those tests have a purpose I suppose, but the true test is how you like the lens and its results in real world shooting. For example, I very often use a vignette... the lens can do that for me? Far out! Likewise, if I'm shooting mostly B&W, a very slight magenta cast in some places is unlikely to have a significant effect.
Knowing the root cause of these things is all well and good, but I think too many people agonize over things that are invisible to 95% of the people who view our work. The advances that digital has allowed us have, in a sense, dulled our minds to the subject and its portrayal by having us dwell on technical minutia. We did great work with quite featureless and primative cameras years ago... a good image is a good image!
Look at those shooting with Holgas and Dianas etc. There's a whole genre that embraces the deficits of the equipment they use and its widely considered to be art.
Sorry, just Sunday morning early ramblings! :lecture:
Ciao,
Knowing the root cause of these things is all well and good, but I think too many people agonize over things that are invisible to 95% of the people who view our work. The advances that digital has allowed us have, in a sense, dulled our minds to the subject and its portrayal by having us dwell on technical minutia. We did great work with quite featureless and primative cameras years ago... a good image is a good image!
Look at those shooting with Holgas and Dianas etc. There's a whole genre that embraces the deficits of the equipment they use and its widely considered to be art.
Sorry, just Sunday morning early ramblings! :lecture:
Ciao,