Contax 85/1.4 or 100/2?
Lee Wing Keung
100mm/f2 ?
How do they be compared with each other for portrait, lanscape or
general use?
bbb
I wish that I could help you more, but I have been researching the same
subject and haven't found a clear answer.
The literature that I have read and the sites that I have visited all seem
to suffer from "this one is the best" syndrome. Here is a summary of what I
have found:
According to recent (1998) tests in Chasseur d'images, The 100/2.0 has amost
the same performance as the (re-released) 85/2.8 at the same aperture. The
100 goes to f:2.0, of course, and that aperture is slightly less
sharp/contrasty than 2.8, but from 2.8 to 8.0, they are the same. Both have
f:5.6 as their best aperture.
Older Chasseur d'images tests show the (1980's) 85/2.8 being slightly less
sharp than the 85/1.4 from 2.8 to 8.0. Tests at http://www.photodo.com bear
out this result.
This would seem to settle it (if A is better than B and B is the same as C,
then A is better than C, right?), but I have also read that the 100/2.0 is
sharper than the 85/1.4.
These tests only rate one sample of the lenses, and when two lenses are very
close (as in these tests), they don't really help much.
It would seem that the 100 is better corrected for distortion (bending of
straight lines at the edge of your photographs), but for portraits and
landscapes, this would not matter much, as they are both very well
corrected.
The 100 is supposed to be a newer design, which should make it slightly
better. The 85/1.4, however, is a design that dates back to the 1950's (at
least), and I presume that it has been updated many times since then. I know
that many sources clain that the lens was changed noticeably around the time
that production was moved from Germany to Japan. Knowing Zeiss, it has
probably quietly been changed since then. If you read Italian, go to
http://www.intermed.it/nadir/xcatalogo.html for some more on this.
Conclusion:
I think this comes down to personnal choice. For me, the 85/1.4 is
significantly less expensive (in Canada, at least) and offers a wider
f-stop, which makes it slightly more flexible. I have a Sonnar 85/2.8 in
Rollei sl35 mount, and I can tell you that if the 85/1.4 is sharper than
that lens, it is sharp enough for almost anything (with good detail and
contrast showing up at the grain level with T-Max 100).
The 100/2.0 may have a slight edge in sharpness (or not, who knows?), and
probably has a small edge in correction that you might notice if you are
doing copy work but certainly not for general photography.
All in all, I think that the two lenses are probably more similar than they
are different. You should not find much of a difference in two new samples
(used lenses may be a different story, depending on their age and
condition). They also have similar optical formulas (Planar) and the same
minimum focus distance (1 m.), and almost the same size and weight.
The fact that they are so similar also means that I have not been able to
find anything written by someone who uses both.
Good luck, I hope that I haven't added to the confusion.
Bernard
Mcgchrs
bbb
>Are the Contax lenses supposed to have gotten better with the move to
Japan?
Well, it's not the fact that they are produced in Japan that makes them
better, but rather the fact that the Japanese models are generally newer and
may have gone through the regular improvements.
When Contax started being produced by Yashica (later bought by Kyocera),
only a few simpler lenses were made in Japan by Zeiss, such as the 35/2.8,
50/1.7, etc. The more high-end lenses (including the 85/1.4) were made by
Zeiss in Germany. BTW, if you look at any Contax Zeiss lens, you will notice
that they don't actually say Yashica or Kyocera (or Contax) anywhere on them
other than the lens cap.
As the years progressed, the Zeiss production facilities in Japan took over
production of more and more lenses, and today only and handful of low-volume
lenses are made in Germany.
A similar situation exists with MM vs. AE lenses. The MM lenses are newer,
so they may have benefited from design and manufacturing improvements. Zeiss
is usually very tight-lipped about any changes that they make to the lenses
though, so it's hard to say which lenses were improved when. It could be
that each new batch of a specific lens is slightly improved over the last.
As for whether newer is the same as better, that's an other issue
altogether. Having shot with Zeiss lenses from the 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's
and 90's, I can tell you that some of the improvements are
counter-productive in some applications such as portraiture. If you want to
make a classic 1950's-type portrait, start with a 1950's lens and 1950's
film (Kodachrome or non T-grain B&W), and print it on old-style paper (such
as AGFA Portriga, although it was totally changed in the late 80's).
Hope this helps,
Bernard
Mcgchrs
got the 85/1.4 (first Contax lense-YAY!) and it's W. German made. Although I
know without doubt it's super, when I read your comments I had to wonder if a
new one would be perceptively better, other than being MM.
I shouldn't be worrying about that sort of thing at all, and just be happy to
get such a great deal on it...