Olympus XA vs Contax T3 lens sharpness

[k__43]

I've a T2 and a XA .. both great cameras but I do not use the XA since I got the T2. I'd consider the T2 - it might be a bit bigger and not exactly 35mm but way cheaper than a T3 and much sharper than the XA at f/2.8-f/4

 

[shortstop]

The XA is sharp enough stopped down for street photography using ISO400 film. I mean it's not as sharp as bigger lenses can be: XA's lens is the size of a button... It's been commented that being such a very light camera, we must take special care about possible camera shake... Rollei 35's using the sonnar, and Contax T3, are a bit sharper, but the Rollei 35's don´t have a 35mm lens but a longer one, and the T3 is autofocus. If the final image is a great photograph, the XA is sharp enough: lots of great photographs in history have less technical image quality than the XA can give. Between Rolleis and the T3, I'd prefer the T3 because of the 35mm lens and because it has very close focus, and that gives some funny options for fast autofocus work. Cheers, Juan

I agree, AF is fast and ...works. Minimal focusing distance is 30 cm and I like this. Also the flash is useful in fill-in. To me 40 mm would be better, but dimension would be grater. Don't agree about the lens. Having had also XA, T3 sonnar is much much better than XA/Zuiko. It is simply astonishing. Small but at the same level of many M lenses.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

T3 lens is sharp. But not sharp enough to justify big price difference with XA.

 

[Monz]

The Fantastic Four by *monz*, on Flickr

Pocket Rockets by *monz*, on Flickr

Any of the above will produce sharp images in a compact form. I have a soft spot for The Contax T because of its real rangefinder. I have not owned a T3.

 

[awilder]

The 38/2.8 Sonnar on the Contax T and T2 was reportedly slightly improved over the 40/2.8 version on the Rollei 35S/SE. Owning and testing both versions, I did find the 40/2.8 soft at the edges and corners until stopped down a few stops but overall a very sharp lens (even wide open) as long as you aren't scrutinizing the edges. The 38/2.8 was a little sharper at the edges. It may also be that Kyrocera/Contax had better quality control than Rollei in Singapore. RF/AF helps the bottom line to over scale focus too. The biggest optical drawback of the Contax T is the 1m minimum focus compared to 0.7m on the T2.

 

[Rico]

... I'm looking for something that is compact, very sharp (since I'll be shooting slide film), and has the ability to focus.

Budget permitting, the T3 is reigns supreme for your purposes. While I don't have the XA, the CZ Sonnar 35 is not bested for sharpness or contrast by any of my two dozen Zeiss and Leica lenses. The T3 has LED assist, and can hit focus on a blank wall at 5m in pitch darkness.