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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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 ? ........................

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]

Originally Posted by filmfan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by froyd

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.

Originally Posted by 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...

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.