Contax C/Y 28mm F2.8 noticeably less detail compare to 50mm 1.4? Should i keep?

[Qiuhong]

Hi, Has anybody compared the C/Y 28mm 2.8 to 50mm 1.4 and found the 28mm to be softer?

I've attached comparison photos first 2 are from 28mm, same stock same scanning process thought not side by side tests

I bought a AEJ 28mm 2,8, optically normal from flash light test, though I noticed it had less details, sharpness, more contrast and honestly look like a point and shoot (not bc of the bare flash but day light images too)
did a digital side by side test and 28mm is a tad bit softer but it might not say much from a sony sensor.

They're the same amount of money and it's the same size so i don't know if it's worth it to keep it, with 28mm losing IQ and DOF just for a wider focal length.. and I doubt that i have a bad copy? or should I save up and buy the 28mm f2 in the future...


Thank you

 

[xkaes]

The Contax 28mm Distagon T is one of the finest 28mm lenses ever made. Amazing sharpness throughout the range with excellent micro contrast.

Maybe you got a dud.

 

[reddesert]

There isn't really enough zoom in the images to make distinctions about optical quality. You could try cutting out a section of the center of the images and displaying it at a greater zoom to indicate what you are looking for.

To me, the 28mm image of the driver leaning on the car looks like it might be focused sharply on the near line of the car roof (near the A pillar) rather than the man's face. Also, this image is in shade (not just any shade, Manhattan or tall-building shade can be rather dark) and the 50mm images are in sun or flash, so probably a faster shutter speed and maybe smaller aperture.

Here's what I advise even if it sounds a little harsh:
- Stop obsessing over equipment and get control of your process.
- Pay careful attention to focusing and use the groundglass as well as the focus aid. This was also an issue in the medium format thread, right?
- Don't feel compelled to shoot everything wide open. Blurring the background is useful sometimes, but not all the time, and it has less effect with wide angles. Stopping down a few stops helps with both depth of field (focus errors) and with image quality.

Shooting at say f/5.6, nearly all fixed focal length lenses (that haven't been dropped or abused) will be pretty optically good in the center, no need for a high-class brand name. If pictures at f/5.6-8 don't come out the way you like, it's likely your process and not the lens.

 

[Qiuhong]

There isn't really enough zoom in the images to make distinctions about optical quality. You could try cutting out a section of the center of the images and displaying it at a greater zoom to indicate what you are looking for.

To me, the 28mm image of the driver leaning on the car looks like it might be focused sharply on the near line of the car roof (near the A pillar) rather than the man's face. Also, this image is in shade (not just any shade, Manhattan or tall-building shade can be rather dark) and the 50mm images are in sun or flash, so probably a faster shutter speed and maybe smaller aperture.

Here's what I advise even if it sounds a little harsh:
- Stop obsessing over equipment and get control of your process.
- Pay careful attention to focusing and use the groundglass as well as the focus aid. This was also an issue in the medium format thread, right?
- Don't feel compelled to shoot everything wide open. Blurring the background is useful sometimes, but not all the time, and it has less effect with wide angles. Stopping down a few stops helps with both depth of field (focus errors) and with image quality.

Shooting at say f/5.6, nearly all fixed focal length lenses (that haven't been dropped or abused) will be pretty optically good in the center, no need for a high-class brand name. If pictures at f/5.6-8 don't come out the way you like, it's likely your process and not the lens.

Ah I'm not sure if the link takes you to the imgur page to see it in better quality, I'm usually looking at the sharpest point, usually the hair where you can see the most detail and how sharp it is, with 50 1.4 I can always see sharp details in the hair where I can't on the 28mm, I can zoom in to 50mm photos and see more detail but 28mm it's less.

Not harsh at all! Thanks for the honesty, I am guilty of all you mentioned except for the focus, I'm 90% pretty sure I focused correctly in the 2 sample images, those are the sharpest ones I shot with the 28mm lens, despite my other post, it very well could be that they're mostly shot wide open so they're softer.

And thnaks for the wide angle tip, I'll try shooting it stopped down, and see how it performs, and maybe do a side by side test when I have time.

Mainly with this post I just wanted to see how other people who owns this lens feel. If the 28mm is just inherently softer or is it my method or my copy. I was very spoiled with the 50mm's performance for a couple years and wish to see it on the 28mm...

 

[MattKing]

You are comparing apples and oranges, and you are likely to end up merely frustrating yourself.
With a substantially different angle of view, and a substantially different construction, it is almost impossible to establish a common frame of reference for the purpose of doing an objective evaluation of the differences between the lenses.
And even if you were to try, you would need a common subject, a common location, and identical lighting.
It would serve you better to instead work toward determining where the two lenses work best for you, and then use each of them to their maximum benefit.

 

[Qiuhong]

You are comparing apples and oranges, and you are likely to end up merely frustrating yourself.
With a substantially different angle of view, and a substantially different construction, it is almost impossible to establish a common frame of reference for the purpose of doing an objective evaluation of the differences between the lenses.
And even if you were to try, you would need a common subject, a common location, and identical lighting.
It would serve you better to instead work toward determining where the two lenses work best for you, and then use each of them to their maximum benefit.

Thank you for bringing up the point that they have different construction,

at the moment the only thing the 28mm is good at doing is being wider and idk if that justify for the price, size and the lost of light... so I wanted a second opinion from someone that owned the lens.

I might do a more side by side test

 

[xkaes]

One way to do it is use the same target subject -- it can be anything, like a newspaper taped to a wall -- then fill the viewfinder with the 28mm view of the image at f8, and take a picture, hopefully on a tripod or table.

Then take the same picture with the 50mm at f8 -- but move the camera BACKWARD so that the same image fills the viewfinder.

Then compare the results. I bet you won't be able to tell the difference.

 

[bimmey]

I own both lenses, and they may render a little different but both are superb lenses. xkaes offers a great test that should put your concern to rest.

 

[grain elevator]

One way to do it is use the same target subject -- it can be anything, like a newspaper taped to a wall -- then fill the viewfinder with the 28mm view of the image at f8, and take a picture, hopefully on a tripod or table.

Then take the same picture with the 50mm at f8 -- but move the camera BACKWARD so that the same image fills the viewfinder.

Then compare the results. I bet you won't be able to tell the difference.

Yes, I think this may be the issue, even though I can't tell from your low resolution photos (maybe that's just the mobil website): Are you evaluating subjects at the same magnication or at the same distance? If the latter, of course they'll be lower in resolution when they're smaller on the film. Also do stop down if light permits, you'll cannot get significant blur that looks intentional unless at very close distances with a 28.

 

[Qiuhong]

I own both lenses, and they may render a little different but both are superb lenses. xkaes offers a great test that should put your concern to rest.

Could you elaborate brifely on the difference? Thank you!

 

[Qiuhong]

One way to do it is use the same target subject -- it can be anything, like a newspaper taped to a wall -- then fill the viewfinder with the 28mm view of the image at f8, and take a picture, hopefully on a tripod or table.

Then take the same picture with the 50mm at f8 -- but move the camera BACKWARD so that the same image fills the viewfinder.

Then compare the results. I bet you won't be able to tell the difference.

Could i compare them at f2.8 or f4 since I shoot more on the wide side?

 

[xkaes]

Compare them at any f-stop you want. They just need to be the same on both cameras. And since they are the same subject under the same light, the shutter speed should be the same too.

 

[bimmey]

The way they render differently is the 50mm 1.4 is a little sharper and more contrasty then the 28mm 2.8. The same is true with my Zuiko lenses.

 

[Qiuhong]

The way they render differently is the 50mm 1.4 is a little sharper and more contrasty then the 28mm 2.8. The same is true with my Zuiko lenses.

Hi, Is this confirmed? Anyways good to know that my eyes weren't bugging

 

[xkaes]

That's only someone's opinion -- until some evidence is provided. That's certainly not the case with my Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm f1.4 vs my Minolta Rokkor-X 28mm f2.8.

 

[bimmey]

I like both lenses. Not enough difference for me to be concerned about. I use both with equal frequency.