Notes about lenses

Comments about my current lenses (and old ones)

I decided to concentrate some of my opinions about lenses I know about to this page. If in any future time something will change, it will be surely mirrored on this page :-) So far, regard this as my final opinions.

I comment only the lenses I think I know well. Usually I take hundreds of snaps with particular lens before making some conclusion, and each one of them has some individuality behind which has to be recognized. Just don't rely only on MTF curves and focal lenghts/max aperture.

Also remember that images posted on web, or anywhere at all, are hard to judge. I can say this, since I scanned nearly 900 films and difference between the print and scan is pretty obvious. So try to compare actual prints - scans tend to fool you. On my pages, I'm trying to do my best to keep color accuracy and contrast etc. - but if you have different monitor, different video card, different setup of gamma, color temperature, color depth, contrast and brightness, it's unlikely to reproduce the same impression. Moreover, prints are mostly much, much better (this is one of the point I resist digital :-)

If judging quality of the lens, wait until you take about 10-20 films with the lens. Sometimes you have to adjust to the way the lens is created/designed, sometimes there are only special circumstances when the lens shines in its best performance. If you like it, it's fine, if not, sell it. Remember, shooting test charts only tells you how the lens is good in shooting test charts - and this is not the subject you are going to shoot the whole bloody day, ok?
Also I should add one note, possibly important for someone seeking advice as of lenses, be it Contax or another brand. I've got the idea when browsing through Ken Rockwell pages, mostly funny from my point of view (which doesn't mean bad). Almost all the time I stick to normal focal length - currently Tessar 45 or - if situation allows - Planar 50 (45). Sometimes, when I grab a Domke, I add 18 (21), 135 or 28. Only in special circumstances I take macro or portrait 85. I only take one system, i.e. Contax SLR or Contax G - both *only* on wedding shooting for my friends, not normally.
So please remember - my personal key to success is to use only a few (one!) fixed focal lenses and know them well! Second important fact is, that Zeiss glass, ~~when used in proper conditions,~~ never ever let me down - all I need to do is concentrate on picture taking, rest I can safely put in hands of lens and cameramakers! If you are satisfied with your lens(es), just forget issues concerning MTF and go out shooting :-)

Some old, i. e. sold or forgotten ones

Prakticar 50/1.8

In the old times it was not possible to buy any professional camera from the west, selection was limited only to Russian and so-so west production (East Germany Carl Zeiss Jena). Although golden times of German precision were far away, Praktica cameras were among the favorites - so I wanted one very badly also. I spent my first few salaries on Practica B100 with Practicar 50/1.8. At that time I was thinking what a great camera with great lens!

Truth is, the lens is not as great as you might expect by todays standard. Particulary bokeh is very bad, color is shifted little bit to warm tone. Neverthless, I still possess some nice pictures from that time... I would rate it as a "poor man's standard lens".

Camera is rather nice, but viewfinder is very murky. For some time it was in posession of my brother, now he returned since he is shooting digital - and I'm learnign Adam how to take pictures (it's quite funny, I must admit)

Canon EF 50/1.8II

So, after a years spent on university, I made my first "big money" and aimed to buy a new, better camera. My final vote was for EOS 50E (Elan II) and of course, some lens - I like the normal focal length since the old days, so I bought the cheapest of all Canon lenses - EF 50/1.8 II. This is not-so-exciting piece of plastic lacking anything you might need, like scale or DOF meter, with slow and noisy AF etc. but other than that, optically very good. It's not great on full aperture, but slightly closed, it is really very good. Contrast and color saturation is high enough, also sharpness. Bokeh is not so nice, though, also flares are sometimes distracting. Maybe here is a place where 50/1.4 would be better. If you need good cheap lens for a Canon EOS system, there is no better option. I have some great snaps taken by this lens.

Sigma 105EX macro

So, I had good normal lens. Next in mind was a macro - and I wanted macro badly. I decided to invest in new Sigma 105EX. I was probably one of the first owners in Czech Republic, waiting for this lens about 3 months. It was worth this waiting. This is the lens I liked most in my Canon system (non Canon, strangely). Contrast great, distortion none, flares none, sharpness great, bokeh nice. Great for macro and portraits. With Zeiss Softar even better. Mechanically very good, only AF is unusable. But who cares, it's really nice lens and I don't regret any "penny" invested. I sold it along with my EOS system.

Canon EF 28-135IS USM

So, I had normal lens and macro. What elso to do to expand the system? Maybe some wide would be nice, maybe some basic zoom for hiking and travel? I've got a chance to buy this lens in U.S.A. (in Czech Rep. it's about 1/3 more expensive) and I thought "this would be the lens for everyday use". After first good impressions, I became more and more conviced that this is not the lens for me. I don't mean construction quality which is very good, but optically it was lacking something found in beforementioned ones. Maybe distortion was too distracting, maybe flares, maybe less contrast, maybe... you name it. After some months of trying to get excellent picture like I've got from 50/1.8II (not mentioning Sigma, but it's another story) I finally gave up and sold it.

Current ones

After some years with Canon, I was thinking about a smaller camera to carry on travel. Also I wanted better normal lens, and EF 50/1.4 was too pricey for me. I was playing short time with the idea of Bessa R, I even bought Canon 17 GIII QL to try out rangefinder world, but Leitz glass was way out of my financial reach and Voigtlaender brand was not up to my expectations (I must admit, their line in LTM might be THE exception). In that time, I've been noticed about a price drop in Contax G system. It was almost unknown brand to me at that time (don't laugh, please), but after some short research I gave in and bought G1 plus Planar 45/2.

	G Planar 45/2 Well, this was finally the lens I was looking for. Color saturation stunning, sharpness, contrast as good as you might think of, bokeh mostly nice. Mechanically great, as all of G system lenses/bodies. There is almost nothing to write about this lens except that for it's price it is a fantastic bargain. After about 100 films I still regard this one as a jewel in camera lenses. If you ever need to capture some nice colors, this is the lens for you.
	G Sonnar 90/2.8 Of course, only normal lens doesn't suit all of my needs. I ordered short tele to supplement it for portraits, and it is as good as one might expect. Not for portraits, though. It's just too sharp and also G AF camera is not so suitable for portraiture. It's in fact much sharper and more contrasty than my old macro Sigma... for landscapes it is a great option. Just great short tele, sharp and contrasty etc. Bokeh is nice. I guess there is a difference to G Planar 45, visible but only slight.
	G Biogon 28/2.8 Well, to complete the holy trinity, I spent some money also on the third one - i. e. wide angle lens. Since 21mm is about two times more expensive than 28mm, I decided to buy 28. It's not a bad lens, although doesn't match Planar or Sonnar, but slightly closed (about f4) its sharpness is very good, also the contrast. Color reproduction/saturation is mostly on par with two above mentioned lenses. In exceptional situations, Planar 45/2 is better (and who cares about ORDINARY situation?) Other than corner in full aperture, the lens is really nice.
	G Biogon 21/2.8 This lens I rarely use, since it is in possesion of Radka :-) But -- if I have an option to use it, it is always impressive! No distortion, No flares (really NO FLARES!), excellent sharpness, excellent contrast... what to say more? Nothing. Just it is worth all the money it costs, believe it or not.

So, what to do next? After experience with G system and comparing the pictures with Canon, I decided to enter Contax area and sell my EOS equipment. I bought two RTS II bodies, one 159MM, lastly RTS III and, more importantly, some SLR lenses.

	AE Distagon 18/4 I'm not quite sure why I wanted to buy this lens. Probably to complement RTS system to match focal lengths of Contax G... 21mm is very expesive, 25mm is too close to 28, and rest of the bunch (15mm and 16mm) are of astronomical prices. However, it is no match to Biogon 21, surely not close. Maybe newer MM version is different, but my AE is not suitable to landscapes and all options where no distortion and high sharpness/contrast is required. On the plus side, and I can say very plus side, it's suprisingly good in "enviromental portraits" in low light. There is something in lens contrast and the way it creates shades... I've go some very nice pictures of friends around. Every year I find some nice pictures alhought I almost never use this lens. Surely it takes some time to learn the way it works. If you are short of money and can afford only one system, I would recommend Contax G and Biogon 21.
	MM Distagon 28/2.8 Wide angle, classic lens. There is some distortion, some flares, but overall it's very nice. For the price, do not hesitate to buy this to complement normal and [short] tele.
	MM Planar 50/1.4 What else to buy first as not the cheapest and mostly very good normal lens? So it was my first buy. The lens is slightly different from it's cousing, G Planar 45, but otherwise it's very good. It is as good as you might expect from Zeiss 50mm glass. But I still do like G Planar 45 more. It is suprisingly good using extension tubes! In compare to EF 50/1.8II this lens excells in color reproduction. You just have to be blind to mismatch pictures from those two. As for sharpness, closed down both can be exchanged. In contrast Zeiss has the top again.
	AE Tessar 45/2.8 Now this is some really small normal lens. I like the 45mm perspective from G-Planar and this was the last lens I haven't in my portfolio. Occasion came when I decided to sell one of Yashica T-Zoom (after struggling to produce something similar what my other lenses do) and replace it with different travel combo. Since I have 159MM and RTS II, this would complement one of those. Funny, I thought the box was empty upon arrival. It is not only small, but also very light. Well, back to business - the picture quality is very good, almost as good as 50/1.4, but there is a visible difference. Microcontrast in particular is worse. On the other hand don't hope 2.8 would save you from focusing errors! My 159MM again proved as a failed body in this, so I use RTS II instead. Constrast is mostly on par with other lenses and it is lost as focus is wrong. Color is nice also, as I'm used to in Zeiss lenses. Bokeh is quite different, sometimes pleasant, sometimes distracting. I can live with that, I guess. After all, I buy it for some other purpose than to replace my 50/1.4, right?
	MM Planar 85/1.4 I was still missing some great portrait lens. After experience with Sonnar 90/2.8 I gave up the idea of eventually buying macro 100/2.8 and using this as a portrait lens (the sharpness is even more rude in the case of macro). I decided to order this dedicated portrait lens to supplement my need of short tele. Well, I wasn't dissapointed. I just have to remember, that sharpness of aperture 2.8 and higher is a class above that Sigma macro I was using before... this is really one big impressive piece of glass. Focusing scale is dedicated to a slow and precise work with subject in the front. This translates to impossible work with faster moving subjects, like children! As a final note, this lens is not so suitable for landscapes... as G Sonnar is, this isn't. Also it is not suitable for any macro work using extension tubes. Remember what I wrote at the start? Each lens has it's own unique character!
	AE Sonnar 135/2.8 Just for travelling, when no heavy kit is needed, I added 135/2.8. It is not very popular, both on the focal length and picture quality, but small, light and has built-in lens hood. I got it for bargain price in bargain condition. I was also underestimating this lens, but it is suprisingly good - not always,but one can take pictures without hesitation :-) Recently I learned that funny aperture image in light sources, which looked like a mechanical problem to me, was in fact Zeiss famous mark - I guess here marketing done their best job since I don't know about anyone willing to use such a thing. Fortunately it's not so distracting and on newer MM versions this "feature" was apparently abandoned.
	AE Macro Planar 100/2.8 Hell of a lens. If you want to use something ultimate, sell your house, car, clothes, leave your wife and buy this one. I've never seen pictures like from this lens except Planar 45/2. Colors stunning, like in Planar 45/2, fantastic sharpness, no distortion, no flares. You will hold your breath even looking into RTS III viewfinder, you might even forget to take a picture. When you have the day, people will just gasp "ought" on a view of your snap. I can look at pictures from this one for hours and hours and you can be sure I rarely waste my time!