Image quality Contax G vs ZM lenses ?

[James6714]

I have stumbled onto Contax G system from a friend of mine, and was WOW by the G lenese image quality. Personally, I have a m8 with zm Planar, has anyone done some comparison between the two system ?

My GAS is slowly working into Contax. Appreciate any feedback.

Regards,
JM

 

[filmfan]

They're both good enough for use. Some of the best.

 

[raid]

I have enough lenses, so in order to get some modern Zeiss glass without speding too much money, I bought into two Contax G1 bodies and got the 28mm-45mm-90mm set with one of the cameras. They work beautifully, and the lenses are superb.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I have stumbled onto Contax G system from a friend of mine, and was WOW by the G lenese image quality. Personally, I have a m8 with zm Planar, has anyone done some comparison between the two system ? ........................

I photographed for about 8 years with a ContaxG using the 28mm, 35mm and 45mm lenses. I have since used a ZI body with 28mm Biogon, 35mm f2.0 Biogon and 50mm Planar ZM lenses. I cannot see a difference.

One should note that I am just a serious photographer, not one of those uber lens aficionados like some here. .

 

[sepiareverb]

They're both good enough for use.

Well said. I'd not hesitate to choose either.

In my use of both I find both the G 21 and 28 better than their ZM counterparts (the 21/2.8, never shot the 4.5) in what I shoot. Not sure what the charts say, but I found the ZM 21/2.8 a bit less crisp, and found the ZM 28 a lot more prone to flare. Others have not found this with the G28, so it could be what I happened to shoot with it.

I will say the ZM 21/2.8 with hood is a bear in use if one does any close work with it- the hood blocks a good bit of the VF. Not a complaint I hear voiced, but something that really bugged me.

 

[jazzwave]

From japanexposure site

ContaxG/Hexanon/ZM :

http://www.japanexposures.com/lenscomparison/

 

[BobYIL]

I have the G28 and G90 and the ZM25, ZM 35/2.8 and ZM Sonnar 50.. All are excellent lenses (also using them all on my Nex-5N), all are recommendable as much as Leica lenses.. each one having a distinct character which I value and love. I wish I could be using the G-lenses also on my M-bodies (they are that good..)

 

[Joe Vitessa]

I only have a 50mm Planar for my ZM, but my 45mm G might have a slight edge... Tough call...

 

[froyd]

I think all agree both lens systems are at-least very good and the rest of the differences that would make one better than the other are marginal and a matter of personal preference.

What really interest me is whether the signature/character of the Gs can be replicated with the ZM50 planar, 28 Biogon, and 85 Tessar (vs Sonnar for the 90G)

 

[sepiareverb]

The 28 lenses (the only focal length overlap you list) are clearly different designs. The ZM is a 8 element/6 group while the G is a 7 element/5 group version of the Biogon. Not really sure what this means for signature to your ends, tho I know the G has some pincushion distortion and the Z some barrel distortion. Neither terribly so.

 

[froyd]

The 28 lenses (the only focal length overlap you list) are clearly different designs. The ZM is a 8 element/6 group while the G is a 7 element/5 group version of the Biogon. Not really sure what this means for signature to your ends, tho I know the G has some pincushion distortion and the Z some barrel distortion. Neither terribly so.

I'll define character by the saturated colors, crisp rendering of outlines, high contrast, and sharpness. This is not a very sophisticated way to describe a lens. Many modern lenses from Cosina and Leica share the same characteristics, but the Zeiss G lenses have an "oomph" that's as noticeable to me as the difference between slides and color negatives.

 

[arseniii]

In my opinion G45mm is the best standard lens ever produced in this universe. It has this very Zeiss image with 3d depth and natural colors. Z50mm gives too much contrast which I don't really like on my b/w negatives. Z35 produces way better images than G35 the way I see it. I cannot see difference between Z25 and G21 both are masterpieces. Overall I'd say there is a difference but you cannot say one is better than the other. My heart lies towards G-glass anyday...

 

[sepiareverb]

I'll define character by the saturated colors, crisp rendering of outlines, high contrast, and sharpness. This is not a very sophisticated way to describe a lens. Many modern lenses from Cosina and Leica share the same characteristics, but the Zeiss G lenses have an "oomph" that's as noticeable to me as the difference between slides and color negatives.

That oomph was the G line-up no doubt. Coatings are likely the same, yet the G lenses do indeed have something special when it comes to rendering color.

In my opinion G45mm is the best standard lens ever produced in this universe. It has this very Zeiss image with 3d depth and natural colors. Z50mm gives too much contrast which I don't really like on my b/w negatives. Z35 produces way better images than G35 the way I see it. I cannot see difference between Z25 and G21 both are masterpieces. Overall I'd say there is a difference but you cannot say one is better than the other. My heart lies towards G-glass anyday...

Hadn't thought of the Z25 & G21 as being so much the same but you are 100% right- they draw in a very similar way. The G45 is a real gem as well- much like the latest Elmar-M 50 with that exceptional 3-D rendition, yet crisper overall. The G35 was the dog of the line-up (at least my example was), but better than plenty of 35mm lenses one might use.

 

[froyd]

Just had a chance to take the same image with a G45 and a ZM Planar, both shot at the same exposure and on the same film. In my eyes, the G was superior. Nohing earth shattering, but enough to make we want to hang on to my Contax system a little longer....or at least seriously consider a an M-mount mod.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think the edge has to go to the G series, if for no other reason than both the bodies and the lenses are far less expensive than the ZM lenses, and are at least the optical equal of the ZM series if not superior. Although I can believe that the ZM 35mm is better - the G 35mm is not a bad lens by any stretch, but it is the least of the G series lenses. If it didn't exist in the shadow of the 45, 28 and 21, it would be an excellent lens. But by comparison, it's weak.

 

[Archlich]

It is known, that the difference won't justify the cost of conversion.

 

[Peter_S]

I used the G2 and ZM lenses (incl. Planar and Sonnar) for quite a while.

I have to say that the G-Planar 45mm is somewhat unique - it is so sharp and smooth at the same time. The ZM Planar seems "harsher" (possibly due to higher contrast?). I was reminded of the G 45mm rendering recently when moving to medium format. The "busy" character of the Sonnar is gone, but the images are as vivid and lively nevertheless.

The other star is the 21mm, but I do not know how it compares to the ZM 21mm offerings. Certainly not any weaker than the ZM 25mm...
I am finding myself thinking about going back to the G-system occassionally - for these two lenses.
Worth the money for the conversion to use the lenses on the M-system? Hardly. Worth getting a G2? Possibly. The G2 is the perfect platform for the 21mm too - no hassle going back between RF-window to focus and external finder to compose.

 

[johank]

When they messured lenses, G-Planar 45 came out top. Sofare no visual complains on G-lenses, have 28, 45 and 90 I'm very pleased with them.

 

[jazzwave]

For me , G21 and G45 better than ZM 21, 50

I'm not impressed with G28 result , I never tried the G90

 

[semilog]

The G21 might be the best 21 ever computed — the much more recent Leica Super-Elmar included.

In M-mount, I've owned both of the ZM 21's and greatly prefer the 21/4.5 Biogon-C over the f/2.8 ZM lens. The G lens is almost as small, distorts almost as little, is slightly sharper, and is 1.3 stops faster. The G21 has a great reputation for good reasons.


21Distortion by Semilog, on Flickr


Rangefinder 21mm lenses: the State of the Art by Semilog, on Flickr