Who the hell uses these? Well, I've had a couple and I think they're excellent.
I'm only reviewing three lenses here but I'll make the comments more comprehensive than for the major brands because there's less web information on the Voigts.
21mm 4.0 screw mount for Leica M or Bessa conversion.
For the money, it's really good. Not quite Leica quality but you can pay for a multi-day shooting trip with the money you'll save. Pretty sharp wide-open, with minimal distortion. It's the color and contrast that are not up there with Leica standards, but I gotta say, it's not THAT far off. If you shoot a ton with the 21 and make big prints, you might want to save up for the Leica, but if it's something you'll only use occasionally, as I did, I'd give it serious consideration. It's also super compact.
40mm 2.0 II SLR
Available for both Canon and Nikon this lens most striking characteristic is its size. It's a touch smaller than than Voigtlander 20mm for slr's and the Nikon 20mm 3.5....small, a pancake lens. Did I say it was small? Like the 58mm, it's a manual focus only and has very solid and smooth ergonomics.
Optically it's excellent. Maybe not quite as sharp as the best Zeiss or Leica lens
58mm 1.4 II SLR
What's up with this lens? 58mm? Is it different from a 50? Actually, yeah, it is. Shooting it against my Zeiss ZF 50mm 2.0 it's noticeably tighter, not by a lot, but just enough to correct a bit of the distortion created by photographing a person full-length. It's a nice focal length and 'spcially at 1.4, it helps to isolate a subject from the background. So then, optically, is it any good? In short, yes it is. It's VERY good. I did some side-by-sides with my Zeiss 50mm 2.0 which is on my "Best of.." list and the Voigt hangs tough. It's maybe not QUITE as sharp closeup, but it's competitive and was actually sharper at infinity than the Zeiss. The color is excellent, perhaps a TOUCH cooler than the Zeiss, but not enough to notice.
At 1.4 it's sharp, don't let anyone tell you it's not. It has a TOUCH of the haziness found in 50mm 1.4's when they're wide open, but this is really only noticeable in the highlights. It feels lighter and less-substantial than the Zeiss lenses, which are real tanks, but it focuses quickly and has a nice rubber ring. If you use Nikon it has the chip which will sych focal length and f-stop data for the camera's matrix metering and meta data. It's a keeper and I'll use it primarly for portraits and shooting wide-open.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Zeiss Lenses for Contax SLR
I used the Contax SLR system for several years and the lenses were the primary reason. The focus and aperture go in the same direction as Leica M, which I was also using so it was very comfortable. There are probably only about 20 people out there still shooting film on Contax SLR, and I'm not one of them, but more power to you, brother.
21mm 2.8 The best super-wide I've ever used. (See entry "Best of the Best")
28mm 2.0 A-hard-to-find and expensive lens but a real scorcher, worth its value. Great contrast and sharpness even wide-open, bulky and heavy for its focal length but well balanced and easy to focus.
28mm 2.8 Super compact, easy to focus, excellent optics and cheap to buy on the used market. I shot practically an entire travel guide for a major publisher with this lens. I miss it.
35mm 2.8 Not quite as good as the 28. Better than the equivalent in Nikon or Canon but maybe just short of "great".
50mm 1.4 Excellent lens. Perhaps a bit less contrasty at 1.4 (as is normal) but very sharp throughout the range. The long focus throw makes it a bit slow to focus as the images don't quite "pop" on the screen. A tremendous value for the money. Basically as good of a 50 as you're going to get.
85mm 1.4 Again, an excellent lens. Sharp and contrasty wide-open, compact and easy to foucs. No complaints.
85mm 1.2 Rare and expensive. Never owned it but tried it out once. It was really good.
100 2.0 First-rate lens optically. Solid, compact and heavy. The ZF version is supposed to be even better. Some versions have a bit of stiff focus ring.
135. 2.0 This is comparable to the 100mm. Terrific color, very sharp. Difficult to find and pricey but if you've been craving it, you won't be disappointed.
180 2.8 Dated optics. OK but the Nikon 180mm 2.8 ED is way better is so are the modern 2.8 Canon and Nikon zooms.
200 3.5 This might be better than the 180mm. Not brilliant but pretty solid performer.
70-210 3.5 Optically very good, better than the above two lenses but totally sucky ergonomics.
21mm 2.8 The best super-wide I've ever used. (See entry "Best of the Best")
28mm 2.0 A-hard-to-find and expensive lens but a real scorcher, worth its value. Great contrast and sharpness even wide-open, bulky and heavy for its focal length but well balanced and easy to focus.
28mm 2.8 Super compact, easy to focus, excellent optics and cheap to buy on the used market. I shot practically an entire travel guide for a major publisher with this lens. I miss it.
35mm 2.8 Not quite as good as the 28. Better than the equivalent in Nikon or Canon but maybe just short of "great".
50mm 1.4 Excellent lens. Perhaps a bit less contrasty at 1.4 (as is normal) but very sharp throughout the range. The long focus throw makes it a bit slow to focus as the images don't quite "pop" on the screen. A tremendous value for the money. Basically as good of a 50 as you're going to get.
85mm 1.4 Again, an excellent lens. Sharp and contrasty wide-open, compact and easy to foucs. No complaints.
85mm 1.2 Rare and expensive. Never owned it but tried it out once. It was really good.
100 2.0 First-rate lens optically. Solid, compact and heavy. The ZF version is supposed to be even better. Some versions have a bit of stiff focus ring.
135. 2.0 This is comparable to the 100mm. Terrific color, very sharp. Difficult to find and pricey but if you've been craving it, you won't be disappointed.
180 2.8 Dated optics. OK but the Nikon 180mm 2.8 ED is way better is so are the modern 2.8 Canon and Nikon zooms.
200 3.5 This might be better than the 180mm. Not brilliant but pretty solid performer.
70-210 3.5 Optically very good, better than the above two lenses but totally sucky ergonomics.
Canon Lenses
Never having used the FD system, I'll concern myself only with EOS
16-35mm 2.8 L first version Fair lens at best. Sort of sharp in the middle of the frame at 2.8, pretty fuzzy on the corners until 4.5 or so. An unpleasant warpy sort of distortion when it's at 16-20mm or so. Noticeable distortion even at 28mm. Also, a bitch to focus manually. Can you tell I never liked it?
17-35mm 2.8 L About the same, maybe a little better.
20-35mm 2.8 L Non USM so worthless to focus manually but pretty sharp. Was the standard lens for many people for years and a lot of photogs think it's one of the best in this range.
24-70mm 2.8 L A real pro lens, good throughout the range but bulky as hell.
28mm 1.8 Not spectacular, but solid in the whole range. Stopped down it's basically indistinguishable for all the best 28's, except for maybe the Leica M's.
35mm 2.0 An underrated tool. Gives you a stop over a 2.8 zoom, is probably about the same sharpness-wise at the 2.8 L and will also allow you create a shallower depth of field. Feels like plastic junk, but it's inexpensive and light. Makes for a great all-purpose set up with a 5D or similar body.
35mm 1.4 L High marks. (See my blog entry "Best of the Best").
50mm 1.2 L Same here...(see my blog entry "Best of the Best").
50mm 1.8 Like the 35 2.0 a totally under-appreciated lens. If you can get your hands on the long-discontinued first version which has a metal mount instead of the cheap-ass plastic one of the last several years, buy it. Not super sharp at 1.8 but sharp enough and in the rest of the range, really good considering how compact and cheezy it feels.
85mm 1.8 Will not blow you away, until you consider the cost relative to more expensive options. Focuses fairly quickly, even in MF. If you need an 85 and $1,500 is a too much to spend, use with confidence. Pretty sharp even at 1.8, with decent contrast.
85mm 1.2 L Never owned it but everyone who does loves it.
100 2.0 About the same deal as the 85 1.8...not sexy but totally gets the job done.
135mm 2.0 Really good. Nice and compact, focuses manually easily. If you like this under-appreciated focal length it's a faster and way-more compact and lighter alternative to the 70-200mm 2.8 club.
70-200mm 2.8 L It's the standard lens in this focal length, optically solid, but freaking heavy for what you're getting out of it. With the hood attached it starts to get in RPG-looking territory. Focuses easily in manual.
70-200mm 4.0 L IS The versions with or without the IS are optically excellent, basically indistinguishable from the 2.8 but a much cheaper and small and lighter alternative. Consider with digital these days if you REALLY need that 2.8, cuz this little dude is much more pleasant to carry around and shoot with. You'll get shots you'd miss with the 2.8 because it's quicker to use....Not quite as sharp at 4.0 as stopped down a click or two but still perfectly fine and publishable, particularly if you've blurred the background. Having recently switched back to Nikon, this is the lens I miss the most. Would be nice if it came with a tripod collar.
16-35mm 2.8 L first version Fair lens at best. Sort of sharp in the middle of the frame at 2.8, pretty fuzzy on the corners until 4.5 or so. An unpleasant warpy sort of distortion when it's at 16-20mm or so. Noticeable distortion even at 28mm. Also, a bitch to focus manually. Can you tell I never liked it?
17-35mm 2.8 L About the same, maybe a little better.
20-35mm 2.8 L Non USM so worthless to focus manually but pretty sharp. Was the standard lens for many people for years and a lot of photogs think it's one of the best in this range.
24-70mm 2.8 L A real pro lens, good throughout the range but bulky as hell.
28mm 1.8 Not spectacular, but solid in the whole range. Stopped down it's basically indistinguishable for all the best 28's, except for maybe the Leica M's.
35mm 2.0 An underrated tool. Gives you a stop over a 2.8 zoom, is probably about the same sharpness-wise at the 2.8 L and will also allow you create a shallower depth of field. Feels like plastic junk, but it's inexpensive and light. Makes for a great all-purpose set up with a 5D or similar body.
35mm 1.4 L High marks. (See my blog entry "Best of the Best").
50mm 1.2 L Same here...(see my blog entry "Best of the Best").
50mm 1.8 Like the 35 2.0 a totally under-appreciated lens. If you can get your hands on the long-discontinued first version which has a metal mount instead of the cheap-ass plastic one of the last several years, buy it. Not super sharp at 1.8 but sharp enough and in the rest of the range, really good considering how compact and cheezy it feels.
85mm 1.8 Will not blow you away, until you consider the cost relative to more expensive options. Focuses fairly quickly, even in MF. If you need an 85 and $1,500 is a too much to spend, use with confidence. Pretty sharp even at 1.8, with decent contrast.
85mm 1.2 L Never owned it but everyone who does loves it.
100 2.0 About the same deal as the 85 1.8...not sexy but totally gets the job done.
135mm 2.0 Really good. Nice and compact, focuses manually easily. If you like this under-appreciated focal length it's a faster and way-more compact and lighter alternative to the 70-200mm 2.8 club.
70-200mm 2.8 L It's the standard lens in this focal length, optically solid, but freaking heavy for what you're getting out of it. With the hood attached it starts to get in RPG-looking territory. Focuses easily in manual.
70-200mm 4.0 L IS The versions with or without the IS are optically excellent, basically indistinguishable from the 2.8 but a much cheaper and small and lighter alternative. Consider with digital these days if you REALLY need that 2.8, cuz this little dude is much more pleasant to carry around and shoot with. You'll get shots you'd miss with the 2.8 because it's quicker to use....Not quite as sharp at 4.0 as stopped down a click or two but still perfectly fine and publishable, particularly if you've blurred the background. Having recently switched back to Nikon, this is the lens I miss the most. Would be nice if it came with a tripod collar.
So who the hell am I? And am I qualified to do this?
I've worked full-time as a professional photographer since the early 1980's. I've worked primarily as a magazine photojournalist but have done portraits, travel photography and commercial photography working on assignment on five of the seven continents. My pictures have appeared in Time, Life, Newsweek, National Geographic and in many major magazines and books around the world. I've won many awards...yadda yadda. I'm not a scientist and these tests are not scientific. I've done some side-by-side comparisons but most of my remarks are observational.
The Best of the Best
So what are the absolute killer lenses I've used? These selections are heavily wide-angle, normal-oriented, because that's what I use 95% of the time. Here's the short list:
LEICA 35mm 1.4 ASPHERICAL FIRST VERSION
This is the all-time daddy. Fantastic sharpness, contrast and color, even wide-open. Some vignetting but it looks pretty cool. Basically zero flare. It's so good, I wanted to take all my pictures with this lens and for several years almost all the pictures in my portfolio and I showed in exhibits were shot with this tiny bad boy. The second version is probably about the same in terms of performance (although considerably cheaper), a couple of my friends had it and it seemed comparable although I never owned it.
LEICA 28mm 2.0 ASPHERICAL
Very sharp and contrasty lens even wide open. Sharper at f/2 than most lenses at 5.6
The best 28 I've ever used. Period.
ZEISS 28mm 2.0 for CONTAX SLR
Not quite as good as the Leica M 28, but great "Zeiss" look with terrific color, that sort of 3D Zeiss effect in terms of the sharp vs. blurry areas. Hard to find but the best SLR 28mm I ever had.
ZEISS 35mm 2.0 ZF
I'm using this now on my D700 and it's excellent. Not quite up there with the Leica M, but rangefinder optics have a physical advantage anyway. It's very sharp, excellent shooting into the light, holding contrast, great color, focuses easily, with just the right amount of throw.
CANON 35mm 1.4 L EF
For a non-Leica/Zeiss SLR wide-angle, this is about as good as it gets. All the big-time photojournalists are using this lens. Sharp at 1.4, it vingnettes quite a bit but this can look pretty good sometimes. Even on the AF bodies, it's easy to manually focus if you prefer.
CANON 50mm 1.2
Super-shallow depth of field, which can be great for effect, but can also cause focus problems in both MF and AF because of calibration issues with particular bodies, but really sharp when it's in.
ZEISS 21mm 2.8 for CONTAX
Annoyingly bulky, but great optics. Very little distortion for a 21, great color,
sharpness etc.
ZEISS 50mm 2.0 ZF
A macro, which I basically never use, but optically terrific in every way, even at 2.0.
The focus throw in the normal focus range is fairly compact, making it easier to focus, in my view, than the Zeiss 50 1.4, which perhaps because it's a 1.4 has less snap into focus because of an annoyingly long throw.
LEICA 35mm 1.4 ASPHERICAL FIRST VERSION
This is the all-time daddy. Fantastic sharpness, contrast and color, even wide-open. Some vignetting but it looks pretty cool. Basically zero flare. It's so good, I wanted to take all my pictures with this lens and for several years almost all the pictures in my portfolio and I showed in exhibits were shot with this tiny bad boy. The second version is probably about the same in terms of performance (although considerably cheaper), a couple of my friends had it and it seemed comparable although I never owned it.
LEICA 28mm 2.0 ASPHERICAL
Very sharp and contrasty lens even wide open. Sharper at f/2 than most lenses at 5.6
The best 28 I've ever used. Period.
ZEISS 28mm 2.0 for CONTAX SLR
Not quite as good as the Leica M 28, but great "Zeiss" look with terrific color, that sort of 3D Zeiss effect in terms of the sharp vs. blurry areas. Hard to find but the best SLR 28mm I ever had.
ZEISS 35mm 2.0 ZF
I'm using this now on my D700 and it's excellent. Not quite up there with the Leica M, but rangefinder optics have a physical advantage anyway. It's very sharp, excellent shooting into the light, holding contrast, great color, focuses easily, with just the right amount of throw.
CANON 35mm 1.4 L EF
For a non-Leica/Zeiss SLR wide-angle, this is about as good as it gets. All the big-time photojournalists are using this lens. Sharp at 1.4, it vingnettes quite a bit but this can look pretty good sometimes. Even on the AF bodies, it's easy to manually focus if you prefer.
CANON 50mm 1.2
Super-shallow depth of field, which can be great for effect, but can also cause focus problems in both MF and AF because of calibration issues with particular bodies, but really sharp when it's in.
ZEISS 21mm 2.8 for CONTAX
Annoyingly bulky, but great optics. Very little distortion for a 21, great color,
sharpness etc.
ZEISS 50mm 2.0 ZF
A macro, which I basically never use, but optically terrific in every way, even at 2.0.
The focus throw in the normal focus range is fairly compact, making it easier to focus, in my view, than the Zeiss 50 1.4, which perhaps because it's a 1.4 has less snap into focus because of an annoyingly long throw.
Camera Lenses Considered
If you're a serious 35mm or digital photographer, odds are you own or at least have considered the basic 2.8 zooms offered by the two major camera companies. The wide zooms, 16 or 17-35mm, the 24-70, and the 70-200. If these are the focal lengths you need, and you want the most current AF technology, there are not that many options. You just get the latest of what Canon or Nikon has to offer and off you go.
But if you're interested in fixed focal length lenses, older lenses, or Zeiss and Voigtlander there are countless more options, particularly with Nikon because all their old manual focus lenses can be used on the most current cameras. I'll take into account not just the optical quality but the lens' size and ergonomics, because if you can't work with a lens quickly you'll either miss shots or miss the foucs and then it doesn't matter how sharp it is.
Over the years I've tried so many different camera lenses, it's hard to keep track of every one I have owned. But the better ones I've either kept or are vivid in my memory. I've been a pro photographer for nearly three decades and I've used the best lenses by Leica, Contax, Voigtlander, Nikon and Canon. I'm offering my options about many of the lenses I've used and will concern myself with those at the top end of the spectrum, the ones considered by pros or photogs willing to search for the best.
I'm considering these lenses only on how they perform on FULL-FRAME digital or film camera.
But if you're interested in fixed focal length lenses, older lenses, or Zeiss and Voigtlander there are countless more options, particularly with Nikon because all their old manual focus lenses can be used on the most current cameras. I'll take into account not just the optical quality but the lens' size and ergonomics, because if you can't work with a lens quickly you'll either miss shots or miss the foucs and then it doesn't matter how sharp it is.
Over the years I've tried so many different camera lenses, it's hard to keep track of every one I have owned. But the better ones I've either kept or are vivid in my memory. I've been a pro photographer for nearly three decades and I've used the best lenses by Leica, Contax, Voigtlander, Nikon and Canon. I'm offering my options about many of the lenses I've used and will concern myself with those at the top end of the spectrum, the ones considered by pros or photogs willing to search for the best.
I'm considering these lenses only on how they perform on FULL-FRAME digital or film camera.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)