Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Uli Plank]

Well, you get more complex star patterns around point lights, that's for sure. I think I can see a tendency to double lines in OOF a bit less defined (if there are any at all) with AE too, but that might be auto-suggestion …

But I'm glad I bought most lenses without it, got all my cheaper ones in 2.8 anyway. My two fast lenses, the 50mm and the 85mm 1.4, have it. So I can always have it where it shines, but when I'd stop down, I can switch to MM. The 50mm 1.7 and the 85mm 2.8 were cheap in MM, and they are sharp as a Ninja blade without it's bokeh ;-)

Couldn't afford the 35mm 1.4 anyway, so I got that in 2.8 MM again, like the 28mm, and MM.

 

[James_Mills]

Could someone possibly write up a chart listing the best of each kind of Contax lens? I mean for each size... also, a listing of their average pricing would be great.

I've had a very hard time differentiating between which lens is which and what's a good price for one and what's not. I also don't understand what the "MM or not" debate means... it's also super confusing that when you search for them on ebay they come in all different sorts of colors so they don't really look like a set at all, i guess?

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Could someone possibly write up a chart listing the best of each kind of Contax lens? I mean for each size... also, a listing of their average pricing would be great.

I got some free time, so here we go:

From Wide to Telephoto (The lenses worth getting and their price as of this posting)

Zeiss 18mm F/4 Distagon - $600 avg
Zeiss 21mm F/2.8 Distagon - $2000 avg
Zeiss 25mm F/2.8 Distagon - $500 avg
Zeiss 28mm F/2 and F/2.8 Distagon - $1100 and $350 avg
Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 and F/2.8 Distagon - $1500 and $350 avg
Zeiss 50mm F/1.4 and F/1.7 Planar - $350 and $200 avg
Zeiss 85mm F/1.4 and F/2.8 Sonnar - $700 and $350 avg
Zeiss 100mm F/2 Sonnar - $1050 avg
Zeiss 135mm F/2 and F/2.8 Sonnar - $1700 and $250 avg
Zeiss 60mm F/2.8 Makro Planar - $600 avg
Zeiss 100mm F/2.8 Makro Planar - $1000 avg
Zeiss 35-70 F/3.4 Vario Sonnar - $500 avg

These lenses are the most worth getting IMO of the entire Contax set.

Obviously prices are dependant on condition, but the average prices above are typical for most decent condition lenses to be priced at. Give or take $100-$200 in either direction for Like New to Well Used variations of the lenses. If you want to compare lens performance in numbers, look here: http://web.archive.org/web/20071020151236/http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/TestZ.htm

 

[James_Mills]

Awesome, thanks so much, Shervin. Which are your very favorite ones? Are there any lenses of the same size that you prefer over their faster and more expensive counterpart?

nd do all these look the same? For clients that only know the term "Zeiss", I don't want them to be dismayed by a collection of multicolored lenses that look ancient and not from the same glass...

Obv this isn't the case in actuality, nor does it make much sense. But many clients aren't interested in actuality and making sense.

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Awesome, thanks so much, Shervin. Which are your very favorite ones? And do all these look the same? For clients that only know the term "Zeiss", I don't want them to be dismayed by a collection of multicolored lenses that look ancient and not from the same glass...

Obv this isn't the case in actuality, nor does it make much sense. But many clients aren't interested in actuality and making sense.

My personal favorite is the 21 2.8, 28 2, 50 1.7, 85 1.4, 100 2 and the 35-70 3.4. So much so in fact I bought them all and use them with excellent results.

They all have a very similar look and feel to them. I have an MMJ set with very similar serial numbers. As for 100% colour matching, they definitely do not. Some lenses are a bit warmer than others and some have better CA performance and wide open contrast etc... but it's nothing to REALLY be thrown off from... the differences are very minor and subtle. If you were to show the average joe or jane photos from the different lenses I doubt they can tell any difference. If you're going for a set of lenses make sure they're all either MM or AE and from the same manufacturing era (Similar serial #'s is a decent way to go). I don't think even the CP's Zeiss makes today are colour matched. It may be a big deal in post for some but for me I don't really mind.

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Nick would have a better answer for you in regards of which of the lesser counterparts are better than the expensive ones. He owns way more Contax glass than I do.

 

[James_Mills]

Thanks so much, Shervin. That was extremely helpful.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I got some free time, so here we go:

From Wide to Telephoto (The lenses worth getting and their price as of this posting)

Zeiss 18mm F/4 Distagon - $600 avg
Zeiss 21mm F/2.8 Distagon - $2000 avg
Zeiss 25mm F/2.8 Distagon - $500 avg
Zeiss 28mm F/2 and F/2.8 Distagon - $1100 and $350 avg
Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 and F/2.8 Distagon - $1500 and $350 avg
Zeiss 50mm F/1.4 and F/1.7 Planar - $350 and $200 avg
Zeiss 85mm F/1.4 and F/2.8 Sonnar - $700 and $350 avg
Zeiss 100mm F/2 Sonnar - $1050 avg
Zeiss 135mm F/2 and F/2.8 Sonnar - $1700 and $250 avg
Zeiss 60mm F/2.8 Makro Planar - $600 avg
Zeiss 100mm F/2.8 Makro Planar - $1000 avg
Zeiss 35-70 F/3.4 Vario Sonnar - $500 avg

These lenses are the most worth getting IMO of the entire Contax set.

Obviously prices are dependant on condition, but the average prices above are typical for most decent condition lenses to be priced at. Give or take $100-$200 in either direction for Like New to Well Used variations of the lenses. If you want to compare lens performance in numbers, look here: http://web.archive.org/web/20071020151236/http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/TestZ.htm

Shervin's list is pretty spot on! I agree if you are going to start a set, keep it either AE or MM. When I began I didn't know any better, and had a a MIXED SET, so over time this has made me less of a purist.

So far, in post we've been able to color match AE & MM w/out much of an issue. At the beginning...when I started collecting I got a 35mm 1.4 AEG (its serial is a 66X). It cuts pretty effortlessly with any MM I have. Over time I've ended up building an AE and MM set, but my 135 f2 is an AEG (the MM is wildly expensive). Was I not going to use it cuz it's AEG? Nah. Also my 28 f2 is AEG too (most are). I've lamented over all this a bit, but in the field it turns out no one could tell the f*cking difference! ESPECIALLY when you go back to grading the R3Ds. The thing that stands out much more than the coatings is the Ninja Star, truth be told. Which is why I started getting MM's just so I had a backup.

But...I love the flaring of some of my AE's, so I've always held on to them. When you want that look, they are the best.

Truth us, all these lenses were designed to color match, so they are all reasonably close. Having divergent serial numbers will not create a rainbow patchwork of mismatching "looks". The newer ones are bit more vibrant and contrasty and flare a bit less. That's it.

To be specific, I would say that an old AE (60X,XXX) may be bit warmer and faded than a really new MM (8XX,XXX). But again, fixable in post.

In my early days collecting Contax, I had no idea what I was doing and no one knew the coatings didn't match. Only I, after becoming fanatically obsessed, started to call it out. Not a single DP cared or brought it up.

You have to remember, even 15 years ago these were some of the best stills lenses in the world. Zeiss was never going to let them become a weird patchwork of unmatched coatings. It's just not their style.


Now in terms of lenses, Shervin's list is spot on. The only ones I would ADD are:

1) 60 2.8 Macro: if you look at the MTFs, it's technically a bit sharper then the 100 2.8. See here:

60 2.8 MACRO: 94/65@2.8 , 96/75@5.6
100 2.8 MACRO: 91/60@2.8, 94/70@5.6

The RED numbers are the MTF score at 10 lp/mm (the most common measure of "sharpness" for stills lenses; its measured out of 100 and anything over 90 is considered superb). The PURPLE numbers are the MTF score at 40 lp/mm (the most common measure of "resolution", the key to lenses ability to render very fine detail; anything over 50 is good).

As you can see, the 60 outmuscles the 100 wide open, and stopped down...both in terms of sharpness and resolution.

In fact, I've poured over ALL THE MTF charts for Contax, and can report that while almost all the lenses hit 90+ at 10 lp/mm @ 5.6...very few can hit 96.

This 60 2.8 Macro is one of those very few, which is why it gets my vote to be added to Shervins list. A 60 is also a cool focal length to have. You can also get it for $500 to $600 if you look hard enough.

PS - in terms of their macro ability, both the 60 and 100 are very similar performers. The 60 may actually be a bit better at 1:2 and 1:1, but the 100 is more edge to edge consistent.

The only knock on the 60 is that it's not designed to focus at infinity with maximum resolution. So it's not a landscape lens. Its more for macro and portraits.

The 100 on the other hand, can do it all. BUt for almost twice the price...


2) 100 3.5 Sonnar:
This incredibly overlooked GEM is one of the other few Contax lenses that can hit 96. It has a very devout small cult following in the stills forums for this very reason.

In fact, it may be the sharpest Contax telephoto prime of them all (if you don't count the extravagantly priced 200 f2 and 300 2.8 which I don't even factor for mere mortals). Take a look at the data:

100 3.5 Sonnar: 94/61@3.5, 96/69@5.6

Now it certainly has more distortion than the 100 2.8 Macro, so it's not better overall (it's also slower), but for raw SHARPNESS it does leg out the Macro. It's also 1/3 the price. (You can find it for $350 if you try).

People love this little gem because it literally is the feather-weight that can outslug the heavies. It's also physically very small, not much bigger than a 50 1.4. A rare oddity of a lens, indeed.


2) 80-200 F4 Vario-Sonnar

I don't have all the data on this in front of me, but trust me its pretty sharp for a zoom and looks great. Very, very Contax. For $250 to $300 I think it may be one of the best lens deals EVER. RUN, don't walk, to get this. The constant F4 aperture is ideal. Yes it's push pull, but for the price...this lens is a NO BRAINER.


ABOUT DATA:
If you guys like all this type of data, then you'll be happy. I've been compiling it all, slowly converting all the Contax MTF charts into easier to digest numbers. I've been intending to publish, but I realize now I should probably get a move on!

This will be in the format I deliver them in:

100 3.5 Sonnar: 94/61@3.5, 96/69@5.6

---> where RED is 10 lp/mm and PURPLE is 40 lp/mm
---> this "data line" makes sense right?

I'm also going to add each lenses distortion levels. I realize...it's important too. For example the 100 f2 isn't as sharp as the other two 100's, but it has the LEAST DISTORTION of almost any Contax lens. As a result, it has one of the most pleasing images of them all. So, sharpnes and resolution aren't everything...cuz Zeiss changed it up on the 100 f2 and clearly made a BEAUTY.

I just LOVE seeing how the NUMBERS line up with the AESTHETICS!

Anyway. Now you know how I spend my free time in edit....

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

I don't know how Nick finds the energy to post that much concentrated wisdom... my god. Cheers buddy

 

[Nick Morrison]

I don't know how Nick finds the energy to post that much concentrated wisdom... my god. Cheers buddy

I had a long slow night in edit...haha.

 

[James_Mills]

I don't know how Nick finds the energy to post that much concentrated wisdom... my god. Cheers buddy

Word, but it doesn't go unappreciated. Thanks, Nick.

 

[David W. Jones]

Here is the 60mm macro mentioned earlier. Since this lens is a macro, there is an incredible amount of focus rotation, as well as barrel extension. Just something to consider if you have not used this lens. Like the PL conversion I had been renting a few years back, I had Stuart at Focus Optics install a longer focus gear so repositioning of the follow focus is not necessary due to barrel travel..

 

[Lliam Worthington]

I just LOVE seeing how the NUMBERS line up with the AESTHETICS!

Thanks for yet another great post Nick and excellent work Shervin. Your complied charts sound fantastic Nick.

Contax lenses continually blow me away for quality to cost, but when I look at a very basic but incredible budget set you could purchase for under a grand with a... 28 2.8, 50 1.7, 80-200 F4. The quality cost ratio just blows my mind. Is there a better?

Question to all the Contax users...

If you could only have one Contax lens. Which would it be?

Myself I just can't seem to leave the house without the 35 1.4 in my kit.

 

[David W. Jones]

Question to all the Contax users...

If you could only have one Contax lens. Which would it be?

Myself I just can't seem to leave the house without the 35 1.4 in my kit.

Only one? Come on, you know very well these lenses are like crack, once you get your first taste you are scratching for more!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Only one? Come on, you know very well these lenses are like crack, once you get your first taste you are scratching for more!

Haha, agreed. But if I had to vote for one, it would probably be the 35 1.4, agreed. You can shoot an entire movie w/ just that lens.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

I don't have the 35 1.4 (I do have the 35 2.8), but I gotta say, the first lens that actually blew me away was the 35-70 3.4. I *liked* the Contaxes I had before that, but that was the first lens that made me *get it*, really.

 

[James_Mills]

Just as the 35 1.4 suggest, I notice a discrepancy in your guys' favs / descriptions and that Italian "Wayback Machine" site's ratings that Shervin kindly shared...

Would you recommend me NOT going off their charts? If so, is just going by price the best indicator to tell which lenses are best?

 

[Greg McDonald]

I'm off to picking up my cine-modded set from Duclos right now. But yeah, I'd have to say the 35mm 1.4 would be the one I would keep if I could only keep one.

But it was quite a hassle getting mine serviced - it had fungus on the back element. So I send it to TOCAD in New Jersey, the official Contax service rep in the U.S. They sent it to Japan. Japan says they don't have the new part so there's nothing they can do. Japan sends it back to New Jersey. TOCAD sends it back to me. That whole process took about 2 months.

I called a few places in LA but they only service cine-lenses. Then I found Focal Point in Colorado, that specializes in hard to do lens repairs on still glass and they clean it and I get it back all within about 2.5 weeks for cheap, $300. Much cheaper than having a cine lens serviced anyway. Highly recommend them if your Contax needs to be repaired.

The problem with actually having it sent to Contax in Japan as I learned, is that they're not going to repair anything. All they want to do is replace the part that is causing the problem with a new part. In my case it was the glass element. And if the new part isn't available and they can't swap it out, they won't do anything.

But now my 35mm 1.4 is in mint condition and can't wait to pick it up from Duclos and give it a whirl.

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Just as the 35 1.4 suggest, I notice a discrepancy in your guys' favs / descriptions and that Italian "Wayback Machine" site's ratings that Shervin kindly shared...

Would you recommend me NOT going off their charts? If so, is just going by price the best indicator to tell which lenses are best?

The chart only shares sharpness, vignetting and distortion values. Lenses that perform poorly still may be considered amazing because of their IQ or the look that they provide. My 28 F2.8 actually outperforms the 28 F2 however, the wide open look that the 28 F2 gives you is incredibly cinematic and the reason why they nickname it the "Hollywood". I have the 35mm 1.4 and wide open it gives you an almost oil painting effect that's hard to describe. It's not the sharpest lens in the world but it's character puts it ontop. There's also the "3D Zeiss effect" which some lenses exude quite easily and others do not. Take that into consideration as well.

Only look at charts and numbers if you want to compare stats between lenses and see which ones are best bang for buck. Real world tests with different lenses may be the final factor in determining which lenses are your particular favorite, and not just the ones that are the best on paper.

 

[James_Mills]

Only look at charts and numbers if you want to compare stats between lenses and see which ones are best bang for buck. Real world tests with different lenses may be the final factor in determining which lenses are your particular favorite, and not just the ones that are the best on paper.

I mean yes, optimally, of course. However in the real world these lenses aren't that easy to just run into on set (whereas a RED Prime set or CP2 set is ubiquitous these days), so I'm worried about making these purchases for lenses that I may not even like. Especially when they're so hard to c ome by and the process of obtaining them isn't as easy as just walking to the local camera shop and picking them up...