Could Contax 35-70 f3.4 'replace' my trusty 50s 1.4 ?

[SiRCRX]

I'm seriously thinking to buy Contax manual zoom 35-70 3.4 lens based on my readings & pics I saw + the convenience of zoom.
I'd like to get opinions, whether this Contax could deliver the image (at~50mm) that I like as those delivered by my trusty 50s 1.4 ? ( SMC Tak, Super Tak & EBC Fujinon )
Would be great if anyone who has/had these to share their thought.

Thankss

[mikkokan]

Yes it can be easier to use but zoom lenses can never replace fixed focal lenght lenses. F1.4 vs 3.4 for low light or shallow depth of field. Usually colors, sharpness and overall image quality is better in fixed focal lenses.

But if you mostly take photos of landscapes etc then the Contax is fine.

[SiRCRX]

Yup. Noted that.
I'll definitely lose the shallow DOF.
But the other stuffs (sharpness, color, contrast) , I'm not so sure .... since I read that Contax 35-70 is as sharp as great primes + the famous Zeis micro contrast could even be better than the Taks, EBC Fujinon 50s

[mikkokan]

So is the 3.4 enough conserning DOF and low light shooting? Only you know the answer
Also remember that 50mm primes are very sharp when stopped down to same level 3.4-4.

[SiRCRX]

I will use 3.4 for situations that suits it.
I know I will lose DOF , so I know which kind of shots I will use it for.
Low light .... well , it will be more for outdoor + I live in the tropic
Like mentioned , I'm not so sure on the comparison for sharpness, color & contrast since I read excellent feedback on these for the 35-70 Contax

[memetph]

[Pontus]

It is a brilliant zoom indeed.

[Tedat]

+1


if f3.4 is fast enough for you.. yes it can replace your trusty 50s. This Vario-Sonnar has the same sharpness, color & contrast as the Contax primes.

[rudolfkremers]

Also, you gain something new, which is an extremely useful Macro mode!

[Billou]

I owned a Vario-Sonnar 35-70 a few months ago, I used it for one day on a A7 body. I didn't like the camera because of bad ergonomics, I sold it after a few days and got an X-T1. I sold the 35-70 a few weeks after that, because its focal range was not so useful on a APS-C camera.

Despite the problems I had with the A7, I remember that day as one of my best in photography. I still look at the pictures I took this day, and continue to think that the 35-70 was really the best lens I ever used, period. The 3D feeling, the colors... The Fuji is a great camera and the lenses are amazing, we all know that... But the 35-70 gave me more. The pictures have more soul, more depth.

I bought another 35-70 recently, almost brand new. I tried it on the Fuji, and well, it's as sharp as the XF Aspherical 18-55mm, which is not a crappy kit lens, it's really something. It says a lot. I can make some comparaison shots with a few lenses later today if you are interested.

My recommandation: if you find a good one at a reasonnable price, take it. It might not replace a 50/1.4 for portraits, but it will surely replace everything else. The lens has its downsides however, it's a very complicated mechanical design (find a perfect one that had been looked after and not abused, otherwise infinity stop or zoom action can be off) it's a dust trap and it's a bit heavy.

[rbelyell]

yes its reputed to be as good as the primes. however, while you get multiple fl convenience, you lose compactness and ergonomics. this is a large heavy lens. for me that effects 'convenience' to the point where its useless because i won't carry it around. of course others views can rightly vary as this is totally subjective. were i to consider an slr zoom in this category it would probably be the leica r 35-70/4. yes its a half stop slower, but its much more compact and equally outstanding IQ. just a thought.

[Pontus]

Or why not take a look at the Zuiko OM 35-80/2.8 (it is quite expensive).

Fast enough for most portraits and IQ second to none.

[Lightshow]

[Pontus]

I have the Zeiss, the OM and the Angenieux. They are all very good.

But to be fair, the price/performance is best for the Zeiss. Unless you are a videographer, then you would prefer the Angenieux.

Some samples from the Zuiko in this thread: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/752043/0?keyword=zuiko,35-80

[kenetik]

One thing to look out for with the Zeiss Contax 35-70 is that they sometimes do not focus to infinity properly (maybe it is just on certain adapters), which obv is not desirable.

Someone on mflenses posted a diy thread on a screw that needs to be adjusted to get infinity working. Can anyone confirm if this is an issue with certain samples of the lens?

[shapencolour]

kenetik : Yes - by means of IQ.No - by being slow and pretty large.Buy it ,you won't be disappointed,but don't sell your trusty 50s on behalf of this purchase.

[Billou]

I can confirm the infinity problems. I had two copies of the lens and on both, infinity was off. You can adjust it pretty easily on the lens. This is a great feature.
I also used to own the 80-200 and the 100-300, and both had the focus going a bit above infinity. Maybe it is a feature on this lenses.

[luisalegria]

Very personal business this.
People define sharpness, contrast, etc. differently in practice and it does not have that much to do with test shots or lpmm sharpness.
If it works for you its the best for you.
If I need to take a picture for a serious purpose generally I use my Pentax 24mm.
But the lens I like these days for fun is - a Sun 38-90 zoom, early 1970s vintage.
Which should be considered garbage these days, objectively. But I like it, I don't know why. Next week maybe something else will seem more fun.

[ManualFocus-G]

The VS 35-70/3.4 is one of the best lenses I have ever used. Sharp across the frame and pop at larger apertures. Perfect on FF.

[frenched]

As Luis said, it is a personal choice.

I've owned the Contax 35-70 for some time and as a result got rid of all my "normals". It's the only zoom I own and the one lens I have that cover these focal lengths. Sharpness, color depth, contrast -- it's all there. It blows away most primes I've seen, to my eyes, in typical Zeiss fashion. I invested in a Leitax adapter for it to work on my Canon crop and full-frame bodies and it performs predictably and exceptionally well. Can't speak to infinity as I rarely go there. If you can score a nice one for under $450 USD you've done good.

[SiRCRX]

Thanks guys ....
The hunt for a good copy is now ON
Anyway, I was just a bit surprised if this lens is just as sharp as XF18-55 (Billou's comment & I think I trust his experience) , bcoz I read in many places that it is as sharp as Contax primes.
I do not have the XF18-55, I know it is not an ordinary kit lens, but I'd never thought it could be sharper than Contax primes.

My trusty 50s 1.4 will stay ..... S-M-C Tak, Super Tak 8 element , EBC Fujinon , they are my very first lens

[SiRCRX]

also .... Zuiko 35-80 2.8 was also in my radar , but it's too expensive. I'd rather get Contax 100/2

[Pontus]

[Billou]

Some quick test pictures, comparing the Fujinon XF 18-55 and the 35-70 Contax... Straight from camera, no sharpening, ISO 800. (yep it's cloudy here!)



50mm, f/5.6, first the Fujinon, next the Vario-Sonnar.





The Vario-Sonnar is slightly sharper.

At 35mm f/3.6, the Fujinon is just a bit sharper. Not by much. It has more contrast though.



Fujinon:



Vario-Sonnar:

[Billou]

Some pictures from the day I had a 35-70 on a Sony A7 body. Historic race at Hockenheim.







100% crop:







The 3D of zeiss lenses is here !