Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,913   Posts: 1,556,260   Online: 867
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Above the Hills, south of Rome(Italia)
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    181
    Images
    13
    Street photography with Contax 167, 85 1.4, 100 iso film.
    The picture was taken with the diaphragm at 1.4.
    Forget this look (lights on the background, reduced depth of field) not ot mention the possibility to shot without tripod at night with a 100 iso film
    [IMG][/IMG]

  2. #22
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    I have both the 85mm f/1.4 and f/2.8.

    While the f/1.4 can give a unique signature to some shots, I end up using the f/2.8 about 99% of the time.
    The f/2.8 could even be preferable for some uses because of its "high acutance" signature...
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  3. #23
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,408
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    433
    I'm not speaking solely of sharpness or resolution when I talk about image quality. I'm talking about the whole package - the "quality" of the image, which to me includes bokeh and 3-D effect. I never said the 2.8 was a bad, poor-quality lens.

  4. #24
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,068
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut View Post
    I have both the 85mm f/1.4 and f/2.8.

    While the f/1.4 can give a unique signature to some shots, I end up using the f/2.8 about 99% of the time.
    The f/2.8 could even be preferable for some uses because of its "high acutance" signature...
    If I owned both that would be the case with me too. So that's why I only have the 1.4. ;-)
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    Before I would consider buying Contax/Yashica equipment I would think it wise do some research into the availability of service facilities and spare parts .

    Sage advice. I have two buddies that had the ARIA model, and they were always in the repair shop, due to electronical malfunctions. They eventually ditched them and went with Nikon. They are quite happy not owning the Contax rigs anymore. Love the Nikons.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aalen, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    592
    OK, It feels (you never know for sure) like I have decided - I guess I will go with Aria and a few lenses.

    Now - for the lenses. I do not really plan to get those fast, heavy and expensive lenses like 21/2.8, 35/1.4 or 85/1.4.

    Lenses I would potentially be interested include: 18/4, 25/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.7 (or 1.4), 85/2.8, 100/3.5, 135/2.8. Of course NOT all of them. From the above list I could imagine following setups:

    A) 18/25/35/85 (+ 50 for low light)
    or
    B) 18/28/50/100

    It is a bit complicated, as (A) contains my favorite focal length - the 35, but the 50 would be the 5th lens in the setup. On the other hand (B) covers large range with fewer lenses.

    Concerning the wide ens I would definitely like to get a lens wider than 28. 28 is too close to 35 for my taste. I would have to try the 18 (I have never used lens wider than 20, but I enjoyed that experience) to be sure about it.

    So what I would like now is to ask you about your opinions and in particular experience about the following lenses:

    18/4, 25/2.8, 35/2.8, 85/2.8, 100/3.5.

    How is the performance (with film)?, How does the 85 compares to 100? And what about 25 vs 28? I browsed a lot, but most comments were using these lenses with Canon DSLRs what is not that relevant to me ...

  7. #27
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,068
    Images
    1
    Take it from somone who has traveled to 27 countries and live and traveled all over China for 5 years: Take 3 lenses tops, including one fast one. If it was me it would be the 35/50/100. But 50 and short tele- are my favorite lengths, I'm not so keen on wides past 35. If you must have a wide then 25/50/100.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  8. #28
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    A vs. B is basically about whether you consider the 35 or the 50mm to be your normal lens.

    I'd go for solution "A", but drop the 25mm.

    As mentioned before, that's what I use and I don't really find such a terrible hole between 18mm and 35mm.

    The real advantage/usefulness of a 50mm for low light can also be debated.

    I have the 25mm (a good one, as mentioned in previous posts) and the 50mm 1.4 & 1.8 (both also very good - 1.8 is Rollei land, possibly identical to 1.7 in C/Y), but almost never use any of them.

    The modified "A" (sans 25) really covers 90% of my needs, with a next addition being a 180/200mm.

    The only thing to add to my previous posts is that the 18mm probably isn't the most technically advanced lens of its type anymore (I have a Leica 19mm II which outperforms it in corner sharpness, distortion and has a great lens shade to boot), but it has a great 3-d look to it (a signature of the better Zeisses) and delivers very satisfying images, to the point that I often prefer it to its more technically sophisticated rivals.
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  9. #29
    ContaxRTSFundus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Crickhowell, Wales
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    143
    One good thing about the N-series is that they can use the Contax 645 lenses via the Contax adapter but unless you already have a 645, they're probably not worth serious consideration. If you go with the Aria, then you might want to consider an alternative to the Zeiss 25mm f2.8 T* MM wide-angle and opt for the Yashica 24mm f2.8 ML which, unusually, offers superior performance to the Zeiss and can be had for about half the price. Sadly, the word got out about the lens 18 months ago and the price keeps rushing North - as with the Yashica 15mm and 21mm lenses. I still use my old Contax 139Q for street photography and use the tiny Zeiss 45 f2.8 pancake lens, pre-focused and set to f8 and just keep pressing the shutter button - it's that simple. So for me, with something as small as the Aria, it would be the Yashica 24mm ML, Zeiss 45mm (because it offers versatility and takes no space so could be a fourth lens), Zeiss 50 1.7 Planar and the 85 f2.8 (super-sharp and thankfully undervalued). Of course, if weight and portability were not considerations, I'd go for the Zeiss 28 f2 (unbelievably sharp and fabulous close-focusing), 50 1.4 Planar and 85 1.4 or 100 f2 - and still take the little 45mm f2.8 Tessar for its point-and-shoot capability.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aalen, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    592
    - rich815 -
    Point taken. Actually my experience is similar - when traveling with Mamiya 6 with 50, 75 and 150 lenses I did not wish for more (just if the 50 were 45 instead).

    - Rol_Lei Nut -
    Dropping the 25 could be an option, but I think that 18 could be often too wide. Maybe a combination of 18 and 28 could be a good match, but then the 35 gets too close. I will think about it.

    - ContaxRTSFundus -
    Thanks for pointing me to Yashica ML lenses. I searched quickly and it seems that there are many happy users of 21/3.5 and 24/2.8 ML. Both lenses are not too plentiful, so I will search for one. The 21 could fit the bill just fine and the 35 would for me be a next logical step.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin