David, congratulations on your new lens and adapter. It is difficult to for me to discern any difference between the images at the web resolutions posted other than possibly one show a tad more contrast than the other. What are your thoughts based on the full size images. The Contax looks really good to me. I suspect that any difference between the Contax and Leica would be minor for the landscape photography I do where I am stopped down to f8.0 to f11 most of the time.
I have seriously considered getting the S/Contax adapter and the Contax 350mm to satisfy my occasional urge to shoot wildlife. Unfortunately, I don’t get the bright light like you do in Florida so the usable ISO range of the S2 is a limiting factor keeping from making that jump. Back in my Canon days, I often found myself having to shoot high ISOs with a 500mm f4 due to low light in the woods and shadows of the mountains I frequent. However, the S/Contax adapter may make more sense when considering the other Contax possibilities. I will be curious to hear your thoughts on the zoom after you have had a chance to use it a bit and develop an opinion.
Mark, after processing I don’t see much of a difference in the files at full resolution. I sent the original two images to our mutual friend Andre and he picked the Leica image correctly. When I asked him what he was looking at he pointed to the portion of the image which I’ve attached below. Keep in mind he only had web sized images to work with. It’s quite possible he sees something that I don’t…but to me they are close enough to be indistinguishable from an IQ perspective. I’ll keep you posted as I use this lens more.
I’m not sure I’m the best person to answer your question on whether the adapter and a long lens would be a good choice. I’ve shot with all the super telephotos from both Nikon and Canon and think they are superb. And the AF on both those systems is light years better than a Contax lens on the S2 would be. Add in the limiting ISO on the S2 system…well, you get my point. Over the years I’ve seen several photographers try to move to MF for wildlife and none of them succeeded. But with a sturdy tripod, good technique and a non-moving subject…you might pull it off.
David,
I can’t tell much difference between the crop sections you posted other than the bottom one seems to have a little bit more contrast. The red stripes on the cross arms are darker and slightly more pronounced. Typically, I think of Zeiss as being more contrasty the Leica, but honestly I have no clue which is which in this case.
Mark
David K;5769 wrote: Mark, after processing I don’t see much of a difference in the files at full resolution. I sent the original two images to our mutual friend Andre and he picked the Leica image correctly. When I asked him what he was looking at he pointed to the portion of the image which I’ve attached below. Keep in mind he only had web sized images to work with. It’s quite possible he sees something that I don’t…but to me they are close enough to be indistinguishable from an IQ perspective. I’ll keep you posted as I use this lens more.
I’m not sure I’m the best person to answer your question on whether the adapter and a long lens would be a good choice. I’ve shot with all the super telephotos from both Nikon and Canon and think they are superb. And the AF on both those systems is light years better than a Contax lens on the S2 would be. Add in the limiting ISO on the S2 system…well, you get my point. Over the years I’ve seen several photographers try to move to MF for wildlife and none of them succeeded. But with a sturdy tripod, good technique and a non-moving subject…you might pull it off.
Bottom image has more resolution and contrast… of the first two images posted I would say the same thing.. although really you would need the raws to make a comparison ..
In both posts the bottom image was taken with the Leica lens. RVB…the RAWs look dramatically different and I did my best to make them match. Maybe with a profile and lens correction in LR it could be done better. Keep in mind this is a zoom vs prime comparison as much as it is a Contax/Zeiss vs Leica comparison. A fairer comparison might be zoom to zoom. But for my purposes this zoom does the trick…for about 15% of the cost of the Leica zoom (not counting the adapter).
David K;5777 wrote: In both posts the bottom image was taken with the Leica lens. RVB…the RAWs look dramatically different and I did my best to make them match. Maybe with a profile and lens correction in LR it could be done better. Keep in mind this is a zoom vs prime comparison as much as it is a Contax/Zeiss vs Leica comparison. A fairer comparison might be zoom to zoom. But for my purposes this zoom does the trick…for about 15% of the cost of the Leica zoom (not counting the adapter).
Contax glass is very good,Erik Almas uses Contax(and IQ160 back) and his images are beautiful,I have the S zoom on order but I believe the Zoom is as sharp as the prime’s,just slower and without C.S (maybe a little less sharp in the corners…) but keep in mind that S glass is probably the best glass on the market, newer design than Contax,considerably more expensive too (as you pointed out)..
How you process the files can narrow the difference in appearance..
On balance Contax is good value for money..
The second image is sharper, just compare the yellow road sign above the bridge in both samples. You can also see this difference if you look at the green vegetation on the top of the building on the left.
Just as a “for what it’s worth” note, I recently had occasion to shoot with the Contax 350 APO Tessar on my S2 P and found the image quality to easily be the equal of more modern lenses but the auto focus was a bit slow. In truth, I ended up using it as a manual focus system and was quite pleased with the results. Until Leica comes forth with their 350, if in fact they ever do, this is an excellent alternative.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.