Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Zeiss Contax vs. ZE?

Ryan Chapman

Ryan Chapman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
457
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Thoughts? Do the Contax lenses have any problems in the cinema world? Namely with breathing and pulling focus. Also, does anyone have any Scarlet footage with Contax lenses?
 
I used to own a set of Contax lenses... I really don't have any say in the ZE lenses... But I was very dissatisfied with the Contax's. I felt the focus ring was not smooth. I did not like the fact that the iris ring had stop in it ( I know those can be removed... I didn't have it done though ). Felt the lenses weren't that clean either. Felt it was hard to get a "good" focus off of them.

Hope this helps!
 
Ian McGrew said:
I used to own a set of Contax lenses... I really don't have any say in the ZE lenses... But I was very dissatisfied with the Contax's. I felt the focus ring was not smooth. I did not like the fact that the iris ring had stop in it ( I know those can be removed... I didn't have it done though ). Felt the lenses weren't that clean either. Felt it was hard to get a "good" focus off of them. Hope this helps!
Click to expand...

I've owned a full set of Contax primes for over a year, and never had any of the issues you mentioned. They are just like ZF/ZEs in terms of build and focus. They are similar in every way to their ZE/ZF cousins except that the designs are one generation older. They stopped going into production in 2005. So they are not that old. The coatings are the older T coating. Some say they flare easier then the new coating, but the older coating is reputed to be less contrasty, possibly less digital than the ZF/ZEs.

All my lenses focus silky smooth, they are incredibly easy to focus with, and deliver an astounding picture. All the DP's that have used my lenses have dug them.

Obviously, these are still lenses. Like any still lens, whether it be a Leica-R, Contax, ZF, ZE, Nikkor, etc, to get the best out of its manual focus/iris you should get it cinemodded (declicked, focus ring, 80mm front), otherwise it will fail compared to the cinema lenses you are used to.
 
Last edited:
I own a mixed set of Contax and ZE's (Contax: 28-85/3.3, 135/2.8, ZE: 50/1.4, 85/1.4) they are both amazing build and performance. I dont have my Scarlet yet, so I havent tested them on that, but I use them on my 5D for shooting all the time and I prefer them for video much more than any other "still" lens I have come across. I use them more than my Canon L series lenses. But obviously, if you have the cash, go cine glass.
 
Same here , I own Contax zeiss lenses , never used them on a Scarlet yet but they are great built very very smooth and long focus ring (sometimes too long) and picture wise they are ver very good .
They are full format lenses so cropped at 1,6 I would think they are close to perfect.
Some say that they are just as good as the new ZF or ZE zeiss lenses which are the same as the Cine primes. I don't think so myself, but for the price they are great.
You can also use Takumar that are very good too (well built and very smooth) and more contrasty.

I have
Contax Zeiss 28mm F2.0 Distagon (surname is "Hollywood")
Contax Zeiss 50mm F1.7 Planar
Contax Zeiss 85mm F2.8 Sonnar

Down side is that you don't get an ultra wide lenses choice, they are either very expensive or impossible to find.
Therefore on my future Scarlet I would not think that my set of contax zeiss to be complete.

here you can see a list of old Zeiss
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_db.html

I wouldn't go for older "Jenna" lens , I don't think they are as good
 
Alexandre Arch said:
Some say that they are just as good as the new ZF or ZE zeiss lenses which are the same as the Cine primes. I don't think so myself, but for the price they are great.

Down side is that you don't get an ultra wide lenses choice, they are either very expensive or impossible to find.
Therefore on my future Scarlet I would not think that my set of contax zeiss to be complete.

here you can see a list of old Zeiss
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_db.html

I wouldn't go for older "Jenna" lens , I don't think they are as good
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the ZE/ZF lenses are "better". The coatings are newer, and the designs one generation newer. The CP2's have 14 blade irises, so they are not exactly the same as ZF/ZE. Contax glass represents the best that Zeiss could do 10 years ago. Some of the improvements they've done in the ZF/ZE have come out better, others not so much. Many of the Contax primes still outresolve many other primes. They don't look exactly like ZF's either, its the older T coating. And yes, its hard to build a set, as some of the rare gems are halla expensive.

The "Jena" lenses are Zeiss lenses made in Eastern Europe, and have nothing to do with Contax. If they are labeled Jena, they are made in the Eastern German plant that Zeiss vacated as the Russians were closing in on Berlin. That plant kept pumping out prewar Zeiss designs for the next 50 years, with some modifications. Some Jena lenses are not so great, but I would dismiss them all. Some are fantastic.
 
I owned a couple contax zeiss lenses for a while. I was generally happy with the mechanics and build quality and even the performance, quite good for still lenses generally. What I couldn't get over was the buzzsaw aperture shape, it got annoying to see in my shots so I had to get rid of them since I am picky about that sort of thing. I didn't put them on a RED though, at the time I mostly used them on a 5DMK2. If you can get over aperture blades, they are definitely worth considering over ZE/ZF in my opinion, but if possible I would test for yourself if you really want to see, since still lenses may vary quite a bit in their quality, especially older used ones like contax zeiss.
 
A Zeiss thread. Cool :))) Knew Nick would be here before me opening minds and wallets :))
And I agree heartily with Nick. I recently finished putting together my seven lens contax set. Though not as impressive as Nicks, as he buys like twelve of each focal length :P :))

21 2.8
28 2.8
35 1.4
35-70 3.4 (macro 2:1)
50 1.4
60 2.8 Macro
85 1.4
100 2
180 2.8
Plus the must have Tokina 11-16.

There are some amazing lenses in there. I'm thrilled with them. Colour rendition. Contrats. Bokeh. Build. Focus throw. There's a lot to love. If you are doing narrative and want the longer focus throw and build quality, I think for value meets performance, the Contax is extremely hard to beat. I tried and failed with Leica. But with lots of research, patience and perseverance, I put a mint condition set together for $5950. I couldn't get close to that with Leica. Otherwise I think the best way to compete with Contax dollar value is a Nikkor set - RP lens is a great site for this. http://www.rplens.com/products.htm Or otherwise I'd get a battle tested 18 - 85 RPP. But I needed smaller form factor. And love having a prime set.

I also came very close to spending 8K + on the ZF/ZE route, but personally, like Nick, they were a bit too clinical for me. I find the contax are a wonderful middle place between the sharpness and contrast of the Zeiss, and that dreamy Leica character. As to flare. Pfft? The flare is beautiful, and besides the coating is still T quality, it's excellent, I have shot into full blown Aussie sun without a polariser or mattebox and still loved what I saw.

There can be some breathing. RU Martin Weiss's has quick test from a ways back here on the forum. But I have encountered nothing remotely problematic, and I am shooting my upcoming feature with zero trepidation at all.

Nothing suits everyones needs. If I was shooting doco, I'd buy Canon Zooms. Big budget narrative... Cine glass for sure. Low budget narrative... Contax is a fantastic choice.

And Nick, that 100 2 is just gorgeous btw. I could very happily shoot a whole film with this and the 50 1.4. But thanks to the prices, I don't have too.

Just a quick note to anyone putting together a set. Don't get gouged. A lot of stupid prices out there as resellers try to cash in. Be smart and you can get most lenses in excellent condition,
for a lot less than what common listing prices are. Welcome to PM me if anyone wants any further advice having just gone through it all over several months.

* Note - looking for footage - REDuser Patrick OSullivan on here has ben posting some scarlet footage recently - shot with Contax and Scarlet. There's other stuff around too if you search. I'll post some stuff in the future when i gat a chance too.
EDIT: Patrick posted while I was typing.


Best Wishes

Lliam
 
Last edited:
Note, you can avoid the infamous "ninja star" buzz saw Noah mentions if you wish too with your particular models. Though you should look at it. Quite a few don't like it.
But there are some who absolutely love it too.
 
Lliam Worthington said:
Note, you can avoid the infamous "ninja star" buzz saw Noah mentions if you wish too with your particular models. Though you should look at it. Quite a few don't like it.
But there are some who absolutely love it too.
Click to expand...

I personally love the ninja star, but it can be avoided, not just by shooting above 2.8. The ninja star as I know it is only visible on two models. The 85 1.4 and the 35 1.4. Almost all the rest of the Contax line, as far as I know, do not have this unique attribute.

However, the 85 1.4 only has the nina star in the AEG made in Germany models. The MMJ made in Japan models, which were fabricated later, were supposed to have had the ninja star removed. I know I've read confirmations from numerous still photographers to that effect.

My memory is fuzzy, but the the 35 1.4 may have a similar fate. I believe, perhaps, that MMJ versions of that lens may too have the Ninja-Star removed...but don't quote me on that...

Liam I got the 135 F2 recently...a beast.

Your set is awesome!
 
Last edited:
Nick Morrison said:
I personally love the ninja star, but it can be avoided, not just by shooting above 2.8. The ninja star as I know it is only visible on two models. The 85 1.4 and the 35 1.4. Almost all the rest of the Contax line, as far as I know, do not have this unique attribute.

However, the 85 1.4 only has the nina star in the AEG made in Germany models. The MMJ made in Japan models, which were fabricated later, were supposed to have had the ninja star removed. I know I've read confirmations from numerous still photographers to that effect.

My memory is fuzzy, but the the 35 1.4 may have a similar fate. I believe, perhaps, that MMJ versions of that lens may too have the Ninja-Star removed...but don't quote me on that...

Liam I got the 135 F2 recently...a beast.

Your set is awesome!
Click to expand...

Do you have any footage Nick?
 
Lliam Worthington said:
A Zeiss thread. Cool :))) Knew Nick would be here before me opening minds and wallets :))
And I agree heartily with Nick. I recently finished putting together my seven lens contax set. Though not as impressive as Nicks, as he buys like twelve of each focal length :P :))

21 2.8
28 2.8
35-70 3.4 (macro 2:1)
50 1.4
60 2.8 Macro
85 1.4
100 2
Plus the must have Tokina 11-16.

There are some amazing lenses in there. I'm thrilled with them. Colour rendition. Contrats. Bokeh. Build. Focus throw. There's a lot to love. If you are doing narrative and want the longer focus throw and build quality, I think for value meets performance, the Contax is extremely hard to beat. I tried and failed with Leica. But with lots of research, patience and perseverance, I put a mint condition set together for $5950. I couldn't get close to that with Leica. Otherwise I think the best way to compete with Contax dollar value is a Nikkor set - RP lens is a great site for this. http://www.rplens.com/products.htm Or otherwise I'd get a battle tested 18 - 85 RPP. But I needed smaller form factor. And love having a prime set.

I also came very close to spending 8K + on the ZF/ZE route, but personally, like Nick, they were a bit too clinical for me. I find the contax are a wonderful middle place between the sharpness and contrast of the Zeiss, and that dreamy Leica character. As to flare. Pfft? The flare is beautiful, and besides the coating is still T quality, it's excellent, I have shot into full blown Aussie sun without a polariser or mattebox and still loved what I saw.

There can be some breathing. RU Martin Weiss's has quick test from a ways back here on the forum. But I have encountered nothing remotely problematic, and I am shooting my upcoming feature with zero trepidation at all.

Nothing suits everyones needs. If I was shooting doco, I'd buy Canon Zooms. Big budget narrative... Cine glass for sure. Low budget narrative... Contax is a fantastic choice.

And Nick, that 100 2 is just gorgeous btw. I could very happily shoot a whole film with this and the 50 1.4. But thanks to the prices, I don't have too.

Just a quick note to anyone putting together a set. Don't get gouged. A lot of stupid prices out there as resellers try to cash in. Be smart and you can get most lenses in excellent condition,
for a lot less than what common listing prices are. Welcome to PM me if anyone wants any further advice having just gone through it all over several months.

* Note - looking for footage - REDuser Patrick OSullivan on here has ben posting some scarlet footage recently - shot with Contax and Scarlet. There's other stuff around too if you search. I'll post some stuff in the future when i gat a chance too.
EDIT: Patrick posted while I was typing.


Best Wishes

Lliam
Click to expand...

That is a great set. What made you go for a zoom over a 35?

To cut down on the glass I'd carry around I was looking at something like this:

17-35mm 2.8
28mm 2.0
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.4
Tokina 11-16

Assuming I sell my ZE's to get Contax, which I'm heavily leaning towards. And thanks for the heads up on pricing I'll definitely spend some time looking around.
 
I have/had at one point quite a few of them, and aside from one or two they are all excellent. The focus throw is smooth as can be (for still lenses), so I'm not sure why they weren't good on yours. I've had the 21/2.8, 28/2, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.7 (which I like quite a bit more than the 1.4 - sharper at 1.7 than the 1.4 was stopped down to that), 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/2.8, and 100/2, which is my absolute favorite lens - sold my Canon 85 1.2 because of it and haven't looked back. I've sold about half of those but I'm keeping the rest for use on my Scarlet. If you are patient you can get them for absolute steals.
 
Ryan Chapman said:
Do you have any footage Nick?
Click to expand...

I do, on 7D/5D. Will that help?

The coating is very similar to Superspeeds yes. It's the same era coating. Can be found on Hasselblad C's as well, and I believe CF. I have a C lens and it matches perfectly. Someone here on reduser once said something spectacular: that one of the reasons Zeiss changed their famous T coating is that they were running out of the rare earth element that was one of their main ingredients. Or it was becoming too expensive.

My take on the Contax coating difference is this: I think Contax lenses were designed for film. And for one specific fllm camera: Contax SLRs. I personally beleive that Zeiss modernized a select few of the most sellable Contax designs, and turned them into ZF/ZE's, and customized them for digital sensors. Im particular the coatings, I think are optomized for digital still sensors, sensors that are all over the marketplace - from Nikon, to Canon, to Sony. They needed a catch all look that could work on all digital platforms. That's why I think some of the organic magic of the Contax coating and look is lost on the ZF's.

Contax lenses are film lenses. Some of the best still lenses ever made. Are they better than ZF/ZEs? No. It would be foolish to say they are. Are they worse? Probably not. The same complaints people have for the 25 and 18s ZFs are also true for the Contax 25 and 18 (though this softness in the corners if obv not seen on a cropped sensor).

I think the ZF/ZE's are amazing lenses. I don't think you can go wrong either way. The advantge of ZE/ZF is you can get them serviced, and if you ever lose/break a lens, its easy to replace. Not so with Contax. Some of the best lenses are rare, and hard to find. I find myself cradling some of the best ones like children.

They share the same IQ, Contax and Zeiss ZF. The Zeiss ZE will even transfer metadata, etc. And their are some Contax duds. The 200 3.5 and F4's are not particularly loved. Nor is the 300mm, though I own it and think its fine. The 24-70 zoom is a dog. But a lot of them are pretty good, yes.

For me, Zeiss is Zeiss. And when you are shooting RAW, all that matters is the IQ and how sharp it is.

Hope this helps.
 
Ryan Chapman said:
That is a great set. What made you go for a zoom over a 35?

To cut down on the glass I'd carry around I was looking at something like this:

17-35mm 2.8
28mm 2.0
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.4
Tokina 11-16

Assuming I sell my ZE's to get Contax, which I'm heavily leaning towards. And thanks for the heads up on pricing I'll definitely spend some time looking around.
Click to expand...

Ryan, the 35-70 zoom is reported to be as sharp as the 35 2.8, believe it or not. Its one of the most famous still zooms ever made. Its reported to be as sharp as primes throughout its range. And the macro function is stellar as well. its one of the most incredible lenses ever made in the still world, for many.

I have the 35 2.8, and love it. I've used it more than the zoom. But the zoom is awesome.

Warning! The 17-35 is a Contax N lens. Not Contax. Contax N is a different mount, and there are no known adapters for Canon EOS or Scarlet. That zoom is amazing though. The only way to get it onto the Scarlet is to have it converted to EOS mount at Conurus in Vancouver. Which is another $600 I believe, or more.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Ryan, the 35-70 zoom is reported to be as sharp as the 35 2.8, believe it or not. Its one of the most famous still zooms ever made. Its reported to be as sharp as primes throughout its range. And the macro function is stellar as well. its one of the most incredible lenses ever made in the still world, for many.

I have the 35 2.8, and love it. I've used it more than the zoom. But the zoom is awesome.

Warning! The 17-35 is a Contax N lens. Not Contax. Contax N is a different mount, and there are no known adapters for Canon EOS or Scarlet. That zoom is amazing though. The only way to get it onto the Scarlet is to have it converted to EOS mount at Conurus in Vancouver. Which is another $600 I believe, or more.
Click to expand...

Also the Contax N coatings doesn't match the Contax coating exactly. It will be close enough, but not exact. Just an FYI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top