Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

  1. #1
    Member picman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    I was surprised to see the difference in MTF charts between the 85mm1.4 in Contax/Yashica mount and the 85mm1.4 in A-mount (see attached files). There seems to be a considerable progress since the Contax days. Makes you wonder whether it is worth it to try and convert these "old" Carl Zeiss lenses to fit the A-mount. Or am I making a mistake in my interpretation of the charts?

    Cheers, Bob.

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

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Hi Bob,

    If I understand it correctly from Zeiss' answers on this matter, Sony's MTF are measured with an 24mp A900 body while the ones from Zeiss website are measured on 400 lp/mm b&W high resolution film.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  3. #3
    Senior Member Eoin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Dublin / Ireland
    Posts
    410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Having never shot with the older C/Y lenses I'm also curious as to how these newer ZA's fair up against either the C/Y or the Contax N AF lenses.

    As far as I'm aware they (C/Y or N) can not be adapted to fit the alpha mount. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
    A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by Eoin View Post
    Having never shot with the older C/Y lenses I'm also curious as to how these newer ZA's fair up against either the C/Y or the Contax N AF lenses.

    As far as I'm aware they (C/Y or N) can not be adapted to fit the alpha mount. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
    If I recall correctly, the Contax N AF 85/1.4 was a different formula than the CY 85/1.4 ... this was apparent when I owned both lenses at the same time and shot film using an RX and N film cameras. The N 85/1.4 was the better lens.

    It is difficult to tell if the N 85/1.4 is the same as the ZA 85/1.4 since I don't have comparable capture media to do a side-by-side. I guess we could look up the lens data on both and compare those. However, in practical use, the Contax N Digital with the N 85/1.4 did not exhibit the CA issue of the ZA 85/1.4 on the A900.

  5. #5
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    The C/Y, N and ZA 85 have all different formulas. The new ZE/ZF versions have a slightly improved formula as the C/Y but basically similar. The N version is designed for portraits exclusively and shows very high center resolution that drops substantially in the corners, as you can see in Zeiss MTF. The ZA version seems the very best to date. Some associate the presence of CA to lens corner sharpness, as optical correction of CA tends to soften the performance as well. Obviously Zeiss opted to favour sharpness over other considerations for this lens.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    The C/Y, N and ZA 85 have all different formulas. The new ZE/ZF versions have a slightly improved formula as the C/Y but basically similar. The N version is designed for portraits exclusively and shows very high center resolution that drops substantially in the corners, as you can see in Zeiss MTF. The ZA version seems the very best to date. Some associate the presence of CA to lens corner sharpness, as optical correction of CA tends to soften the performance as well. Obviously Zeiss opted to favour sharpness over other considerations for this lens.
    Doesn't CA affect sharpness?

  7. #7
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Doesn't CA affect sharpness?
    I'm sure it does, but it seems correcting it optically affects it even more, (or costs a lot more) as far as I understand.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  8. #8
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Eoin, there are some mount converted C/Y lenses popping up out there for Sony mount. I know that the guy I mentioned a couple of months ago, who does really nice looking Leica R to Sony conversions, is considering offering a C/Y to Sony conversion as well.

  9. #9
    Member picman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    Hi Bob,

    If I understand it correctly from Zeiss' answers on this matter, Sony's MTF are measured with an 24mp A900 body while the ones from Zeiss website are measured on 400 lp/mm b&W high resolution film.
    Aha, yes I see, thanks for clarifying that Edward!

    Cheers, Bob.

  10. #10
    Member picman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    Eoin, there are some mount converted C/Y lenses popping up out there for Sony mount. I know that the guy I mentioned a couple of months ago, who does really nice looking Leica R to Sony conversions, is considering offering a C/Y to Sony conversion as well.
    At first, Leitax was considering it too but my latest information is they are backing out (except for two particular lenses which for technical reasons they were able to convert quite simply).

    Douglas, I contacted the person you mentioned some time ago at

    [email protected]

    but never got a reply. Hope I got the right address.

    Cheers, Bob,

  11. #11
    Member picman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Here are the data of the three types (ZA, C/Y and CZ N).

    Cheers, Bob.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    The C/Y, N and ZA 85 have all different formulas. The new ZE/ZF versions have a slightly improved formula as the C/Y but basically similar. The N version is designed for portraits exclusively and shows very high center resolution that drops substantially in the corners, as you can see in Zeiss MTF. The ZA version seems the very best to date. Some associate the presence of CA to lens corner sharpness, as optical correction of CA tends to soften the performance as well. Obviously Zeiss opted to favour sharpness over other considerations for this lens.
    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.

  13. #13
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    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.

  14. #14
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Not only the 50, I'll be willing to buy any Zeiss that Sony throws at me
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  15. #15
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    I've secretly been hoping that the supposed 24mm 1.4 ZA that has been shown in prototype form is actually a 50mm 1.2


  16. #16
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    I wonder if anyone from Sony reads this forum. They are missing on many sales opportunities

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    I've secretly been hoping that the supposed 24mm 1.4 ZA that has been shown in prototype form is actually a 50mm 1.2

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

  17. #17
    Member picman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    Not only the 50, I'll be willing to buy any Zeiss that Sony throws at me
    Same here, well .. almost

  18. #18
    Senior Member Eoin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Dublin / Ireland
    Posts
    410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Sorry to disappoint Douglas,

    Large aperture wide angle fixed and wide angle fixed by the look of things
    A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85

  19. #19
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Yeah, I've seen that, too. It is just wishful thinking.

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by picman View Post
    Here are the data of the three types (ZA, C/Y and CZ N).

    Cheers, Bob.
    Hmmm, I wonder why they didn't just redo the mount the N lens for the Sony? 10 elements in 9 groups, internal focusing, sharp across the whole range, 82mm filter, no CA that I remember.

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    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

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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
    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.

  23. #23
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by wayne_s View Post
    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.
    I got my Sony 50 expecting the worse, but it's actually not a bad lens. I was pleasantly surprised.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by wayne_s View Post
    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.

    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.

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    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.

  26. #26
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  27. #27
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    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.

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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.
    Carsten - Website

  29. #29
    New Member conurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by wayne_s View Post
    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.

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    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.

    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 by fotografz; 16th June 2009 at 11:02.

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    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.
    Carsten - Website

  32. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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.

    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.

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    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.

  34. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post

    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.

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    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

  36. #36
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    You are so right Woody, we do live in a blessed age of choices. 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!

    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.
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  37. #37
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    I'm considering doing the same with a Summilux 50, but Im trying out a SMC Takumar 50 right now.

  38. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CZ Contax versus CZ Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by dhsimmonds View Post
    You are so right Woody, we do live in a blessed age of choices. 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!

    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.

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
  •