FranZ
Established
I used to have the Contax G2 with all their primes with the exception of the 16mm Hologon and I liked this setup very much. These Zeiss lenses are awesome, especially the 21mm and the 45mm.
But alas, no digital G3 in the pipeline, so I sold this setup years ago, rebuilding this capability now with the X-Pro1 and all current fujinon primes with the exception of the 27mm pancake which is superfluous, sitting smack between the 2 beasts: the 23 and 35mm.
While I really love this setup, IQ wise, I am really bothered by the size of the lenses, especially the 23mm.
While the X-Pro1 is almost exactly the same size as the G2, the lenses are enormous. (even without their shades
) The Zeiss lenses also are autofocus so that can't be the difference. Admittedly the Fujinon X-lenses are at least a stop faster than the Zeiss lenses but still I would have liked them quite a bit smaller and lighter.
The 35mm Zeiss is even smaller and lighter than the 45mm, and look at our 23mm monster!!!
Does anybody has a clue why these lenses age so huge? and why this beautiful 23mm 1.4 should be so much bigger than its 35mm counterpart?
But alas, no digital G3 in the pipeline, so I sold this setup years ago, rebuilding this capability now with the X-Pro1 and all current fujinon primes with the exception of the 27mm pancake which is superfluous, sitting smack between the 2 beasts: the 23 and 35mm.
While I really love this setup, IQ wise, I am really bothered by the size of the lenses, especially the 23mm.
While the X-Pro1 is almost exactly the same size as the G2, the lenses are enormous. (even without their shades
) The Zeiss lenses also are autofocus so that can't be the difference. Admittedly the Fujinon X-lenses are at least a stop faster than the Zeiss lenses but still I would have liked them quite a bit smaller and lighter.The 35mm Zeiss is even smaller and lighter than the 45mm, and look at our 23mm monster!!!
Does anybody has a clue why these lenses age so huge? and why this beautiful 23mm 1.4 should be so much bigger than its 35mm counterpart?
gavinlg
Veteran
Digital sensors need more telecentric lens designs as they cannot accept light efficiently at an angle like film can. Telecentric design equals size.
Im not gonna lie, the contax G lenses are very good, but the fuji 14mm, 23mm, and 35mm are all significantly better lenses than the contax G equivalents, and thats without taking into account the fact that the 23mm and 35mm are f1.4 compared to f2 in the contax lenses.
If you want to cut down on size, don't use the lens hoods. Especially with the 23mm.
Im not gonna lie, the contax G lenses are very good, but the fuji 14mm, 23mm, and 35mm are all significantly better lenses than the contax G equivalents, and thats without taking into account the fact that the 23mm and 35mm are f1.4 compared to f2 in the contax lenses.
If you want to cut down on size, don't use the lens hoods. Especially with the 23mm.
rbelyell
Well-known
i think youre setting this up for a debate on which group of lenses are 'better', certainly 'significantly' so. much better to present that as opinion, because many many opinions will differ. the G 21, 28 and 45 are generally considered some of the best ever lenses at their FL.
i agree with OP from my own personal perspective, the lenses are simply too large for me to view the system as a compact alternative to dslr, esp when, for me, id have to put an external grip on the xp to make it conform ergonomically to my feel.
yes the interchangeable 23 is a stop faster, but compare it not to G lenses, but to fujis own 23 in the x100!
i agree with OP from my own personal perspective, the lenses are simply too large for me to view the system as a compact alternative to dslr, esp when, for me, id have to put an external grip on the xp to make it conform ergonomically to my feel.
yes the interchangeable 23 is a stop faster, but compare it not to G lenses, but to fujis own 23 in the x100!
dct
perpetual amateur
I concur. Years ago when we still had a dreams about a full frame (135 film size) digital replacement for our beloved film RF, we expected only benefits, no downsides.
Nowadays it is well know that the adaptation of native RF wides to a digital sensor is a tricky job. And even worse: The smaller APS-C sized sensors show off this problem too. As much more there is corner problems on a FF sensor.
My dream of small sized native lenses for the actual mirrorless camera offerings is gone. :bang:
tonyc
Established
Hello
Isn't it because the Fuji lenses have the auto-
focus motor inside the lens body, whereas the Contax
lenses share a motor built into the camera body ?
-TC
nongfuspring
Well-known
I also wish fuji lenses came a lot smaller :/
The 27 is pretty small (though weirdly pudgy). Still to me in general it seems like there isn't a huge difference in size between digital FF and apsc lenses - can't you just scale down everything proportionally for a smaller sensor?
The 27 is pretty small (though weirdly pudgy). Still to me in general it seems like there isn't a huge difference in size between digital FF and apsc lenses - can't you just scale down everything proportionally for a smaller sensor?
redisburning
Well-known
well I cant speak to all of them but I can look at Fuji's MTF graphs and tell that that isnt true with the 45 G-planar and the Fuji 35. The Fuji 35 has some field curvature and astigmatism, the g-planar has this bench measured MTF:
if Fuji made a full frame sensor of the same density and you scaled outputs to the same size, the g-planar would easily win outside the center. it might even win in the center depending on how optimistic Fuji's calculations are. this is born out readily if you look at say, photozone's measurements, where the fuji, even at f8, is not very strong outside the center, frankly.
Im not trying to say the fuji lenses are bad, but theyre not really in the same league as the better Zeiss primes if you are actually comparing apples to apples (aka equal print sizes with each lens on it's native image circle and equal pixel density).
gavinlg
Veteran
The 23mm lens in the x100 is actually about double the size that it looks. Reason being it extends all the way into the body (including the lens elements) right u against the sensor. Because its a fixed lens, they could tune it specifically for the sensor.
I myself am a 35mm equiv guy - I do 98% of my shooting with a 35mm equiv. I can say that the contax G 35mm f2 is the worst 35mm lens I have ever used. I shoot f2-f4 a lot. The 35mm in the XA is better IMO.
Conversely the fuji 23mm f1.4 is one of the better 35mm equivs I have used.
To compare size and weight:
23mm f1.4 - 62mm filter, 300g, 72mm x 63mm
canon 35mm f1.4L - 72mm filter, 580g, 78.7mm x 86.4mm
35mm summilux f1.4 asph - 46mm filter, 320g, 46mm x 56mm
So the fuji is the lightest of the bunch, half the weight and about 25-30% smaller than the (mostly plastic) canon, and the leica, whilst the smallest, is still heavier than the fuji.
I don't know, I don't really see how you guys think they are too big, but each to their own.
gavinlg
Veteran
well I cant speak to all of them but I can look at Fuji's MTF graphs and tell that that isnt true with the 45 G-planar and the Fuji 35. The Fuji 35 has some field curvature and astigmatism, the g-planar has this bench measured MTF:
if Fuji made a full frame sensor of the same density and you scaled outputs to the same size, the g-planar would easily win outside the center. it might even win in the center depending on how optimistic Fuji's calculations are. this is born out readily if you look at say, photozone's measurements, where the fuji, even at f8, is not very strong outside the center, frankly.
Im not trying to say the fuji lenses are bad, but theyre not really in the same league as the better Zeiss primes if you are actually comparing apples to apples (aka equal print sizes with each lens on it's native image circle and equal pixel density).
The 45mm might well be better than the fuji 35mm on charts. The fuji is still an f1.4 though, so that weighs out. After using both, I am 95% sure the fuji is better in the corners at any comparable aperture.
redisburning
Well-known
what, on aps-c?
shooting adapted lenses is a study in compromises. simply having an adapter itself causes significant degradation in performance outside of the center if it isn't machined basically perfectly (reference the lens rentals article on that if you want to see a mathematical demonstration).
then, again, you have lenses designed for a smaller image circle. it's trivial to make them sharper at 100%; afterall even the hasselblad 250 APO Sonnar can't match a 500 dollar 1970s 50/1.4 for resolution at a line pairs/mm level (zeiss published data).
look at things at equal output size and the lens covering the larger format size nearly always wins. from Fuji's own CALCULATED mtfs the contax will slaughter it outside the center under those conditions. again because of astigmatism and sharpness falloff the g-planar simply does not exhibit.
sure the fuji is faster, but it's also large and covers a smaller image circle. and should fuji release a full frame sensor, also less useful. so it's a strange world to me where the fuji is "significantly" better.
the g-planar has not been seriously bettered by any lens in the focal length and that includes smaller sensor equivalents. excepting a few edge cases like the 50AA and 55/1.4 distagon.
shooting adapted lenses is a study in compromises. simply having an adapter itself causes significant degradation in performance outside of the center if it isn't machined basically perfectly (reference the lens rentals article on that if you want to see a mathematical demonstration).
then, again, you have lenses designed for a smaller image circle. it's trivial to make them sharper at 100%; afterall even the hasselblad 250 APO Sonnar can't match a 500 dollar 1970s 50/1.4 for resolution at a line pairs/mm level (zeiss published data).
look at things at equal output size and the lens covering the larger format size nearly always wins. from Fuji's own CALCULATED mtfs the contax will slaughter it outside the center under those conditions. again because of astigmatism and sharpness falloff the g-planar simply does not exhibit.
sure the fuji is faster, but it's also large and covers a smaller image circle. and should fuji release a full frame sensor, also less useful. so it's a strange world to me where the fuji is "significantly" better.
the g-planar has not been seriously bettered by any lens in the focal length and that includes smaller sensor equivalents. excepting a few edge cases like the 50AA and 55/1.4 distagon.
kshapero
South Florida Man
To me huge lenses on these mirrorless cameras defeats the purpose of owning them. At present I prefer my M Mount legacy lenses on my X-E2. Gives me a Leica CL size digital camera.
gavinlg
Veteran
I don't adapt lenses - they usually perform far worse on smaller sensors.
Im talking xpro1 vs contax film scanned. So you are talking graphs and measurements, Im talking pure subjective opinion. IMO i would put the fuji 35mm up against the planar 45mm anyday at f2 - don't really care what the chart says tbh. Either way, that is the best contax lens. When you talk 35mms, the contax 35mm is a slob (and i tried really hard to like it)
kshapero
South Florida Man
Many disagree also on a subjective basis. Each to their own. I am amazed at the results I get from my lowly CV 40/1.4 on the X-E2. Maybe I am just old and blind.
gavinlg
Veteran
Many disagree also on a subjective basis. Each to their own. I am amazed at the results I get from my lowly CV 40/1.4 on the X-E2. Maybe I am just old and blind.
The 40s and 50s work well - the wider ones like 21s/24s don't (in my experience. 40 on an aps-c sensor is too long for me)
goamules
Well-known
It's off topic, not about Contax lenses, But if you want to try a sharp, small legacy lens, look at adapted Pen-F ones, like the 25/4.0. I'm like the above poster; I don't read charts, I just know what I like when I take a shot. The little Pen-F 38mm and 25mm are great on the X-E1.
willie_901
Veteran
I agree that lens length is a disadvantage for cameras with APS-C sensors when the goal is overall performance similar (angle of view and perspective) to cameras with 24 X 36 mm sensors.
The weights and lens widths don't seem (to me anyway) to be out of balance. The length of the Fujinon 23/1.4 (without the petal hood) is the maximum I can bear for an everyday carry. I'd rather have the 1.4 aperture than a 2.0The new 56/1.2 (69.7mm long, 405 g) will be as manageable as 85 mm lenses I used with analog rangefinder cameras. For instance the APO-Summacron 90/2 is 77.3 mm long, the Summicron 90/2 is 77mm in length and the Voigtlander 75/1.8 is 73.8 mm long.
As pointed out by other the need for telecentric lens design for compatibility with the sensor's color filter array is one reason the lenses are large.
The other reason is the lens surface area must be as large to cancel the disadvantage of the smaller APS-C sensor surface area. When perspective is held constant, the analog signal amplitude (light intensity) from the wider apertures provides approximately equivalent signal levels to a slower (smaller) lens with a 24 X 36 mm sensor. Fast lenses with the larger sensor will deliver more signal than a lens with the same maximum aperture used on a smaller sensor.
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/
The weights and lens widths don't seem (to me anyway) to be out of balance. The length of the Fujinon 23/1.4 (without the petal hood) is the maximum I can bear for an everyday carry. I'd rather have the 1.4 aperture than a 2.0The new 56/1.2 (69.7mm long, 405 g) will be as manageable as 85 mm lenses I used with analog rangefinder cameras. For instance the APO-Summacron 90/2 is 77.3 mm long, the Summicron 90/2 is 77mm in length and the Voigtlander 75/1.8 is 73.8 mm long.
As pointed out by other the need for telecentric lens design for compatibility with the sensor's color filter array is one reason the lenses are large.
The other reason is the lens surface area must be as large to cancel the disadvantage of the smaller APS-C sensor surface area. When perspective is held constant, the analog signal amplitude (light intensity) from the wider apertures provides approximately equivalent signal levels to a slower (smaller) lens with a 24 X 36 mm sensor. Fast lenses with the larger sensor will deliver more signal than a lens with the same maximum aperture used on a smaller sensor.
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
It would be really cool if Fuji would come out with a line of manual focus lenses for the X bodies. Since they wouldn't need the built-in focusing motor, the size of the lens could be reduced.
redisburning
Well-known
fair enough regarding the 35.
the 16 is really spectacular though and the 90 only very barely behind the 45. I have seen the 45 on sony a7r in raw form I wouldnt be money on any lens beating it in a race other than 55/1.4 distagon or 50AA. even 50MP I wouldnt be that confident.
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
I kept my OM/Pen 25/2.8 and 40/1.4 because they fit the XE1 so nicely in more ways than one.
furcafe
Veteran
Well, everything is small if you compare it to a modern AF SLR lens! But if you're coming from a film RF/"mirror-less" camera, rather than SLR, background, I think it's easier to be surprised at how big modern lenses, especially fast wides, can be.
I recently picked up the 23/1.4 & while I don't have a problem using it w/a stubby generic "wide" 62mm screw-in hood, it does seem a little oversized on the X-Pro1 body, kind of like a Noctilux on a Leica M, without the weight, of course.
As far as the old 35/2 Planar for the Contax G, I've never considered it a really bad lens, just not as good as the rest of the lineup, more like a 1980s 35/2 from any major make.
But if you're coming from a film RF/"mirror-less" camera, rather than SLR, background, I think it's easier to be surprised at how big modern lenses, especially fast wides, can be.I recently picked up the 23/1.4 & while I don't have a problem using it w/a stubby generic "wide" 62mm screw-in hood, it does seem a little oversized on the X-Pro1 body, kind of like a Noctilux on a Leica M, without the weight, of course.
As far as the old 35/2 Planar for the Contax G, I've never considered it a really bad lens, just not as good as the rest of the lineup, more like a 1980s 35/2 from any major make.