Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Do what many of us did, purchase a cheap member of the Contax set... like a 50mm 1.7 or a 135mm 2.8... and then make judgement as to whether or not you like the image and want to pursue purchasing the entire set. If you don't like the lenses, you could always sell the tester lens you purchased.

 

[Nick Morrison]

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.

Perfectly said.

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

You are so cool.

Thank you, Nick.

 

[Nick Morrison]

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...

James I'm going to agree with others. Before you jump into the deep end, start with a simple purchase. Start with a 50 1.4 ($350), or even a 50 1.7 ($250). A 35 2.8 ($350) is great too. Or splurge a bit and get the 35-70 3.4 ($500), which is a phenomenal lens.

Start with one. See if you like it. You'll know right away if you dig the look/vibe.

If you do, but still want to take it easy, you can continue with a simple set like this: (28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.7, 85 2.8, 135 2.8).

No need to invest a lot at the beginning if you don't have to. The budget lenses are still great. Most of them are actually razor sharp wide open.

 

[Samir Patel]

why do many people prefer the 28 2.8 over the 25 2.8? In the many image examples I have found online I see many more people shooting with a 28 2.8 over the 25 2.8, Is it simply because it is less costly or other reason? Note: not discussing the 28 f2 "hollywood"

 

[Nick Morrison]

why do many people prefer the 28 2.8 over the 25 2.8? In the many image examples I have found online I see many more people shooting with a 28 2.8 over the 25 2.8, Is it simply because it is less costly or other reason? Note: not discussing the 28 f2 "hollywood"

Hmmmm. Good question.

Truth is, empirically the 28mm is a slightly newer, more refined design. It has better edge performance than the 25mm (which is an older, more classic design). So that wins it lots of fans who shoot landscape on 5D, and plus its much cheaper than the 25mm (the 28 can be had for $350, whereas the 25 goes for $500 and up).

So for a budget landscape shooter, there'e almost no better deal than the Contax 28mm 2.8. It's a SUPERB lens.

But here's the kicker....I'm not convinced you'll really notice the edge loss on the 25mm on a cropped sensor. I have an AEG and I love it.

I'm also a big fan of the 25mm focal length, and prefer it to the 28 (on S35mm).

But here's the deal...not everyone loves the 25. I've noticed in particular that MMJ owners are more likely to complain about it's performance. However, most AEG owners seem very happy. I had a DP friend who's owned both and noticed the same: his MM wasn't sharp, but his AEG was great.

My guess is that maybe there's something in the construction of the MMJ's that's led to elements getting loose...not sure.

Either way...this rare inconsistency of performance does seem to have tarnished the 25's reputation.

However again...mine is terrific. And stopped down...it SCREAMS.

My suggestion is to play it safe and get an AEG. Or at least make sure you can test your MMJ before you buy (or have a solid return policy).

I hate casting a cloud on any Contax lens, especially on one of my favorite lenses, but I think this needs to at least be brought up.

 

[James_Mills]

Hmmmm. Good question.

Truth is, empirically the 28mm is a slightly newer, more refined design. It has better edge performance than the 25mm (which is an older, more classic design). So that wins it lots of fans who shoot landscape on 5D, and plus its much cheaper than the 25mm (the 28 can be had for $350, whereas the 25 goes for $500 and up).

So for a budget landscape shooter, there'e almost no better deal than the Contax 28mm 2.8. It's a SUPERB lens.

But here's the kicker....I'm not convinced you'll really notice the edge loss on the 25mm on a cropped sensor. I have an AEG and I love it.

I'm also a big fan of the 25mm focal length, and prefer it to the 28 (on S35mm).

But here's the deal...not everyone loves the 25. I've noticed in particular that MMJ owners are more likely to complain about it's performance. However, most AEG owners seem very happy. I had a DP friend who's owned both and noticed the same: his MM wasn't sharp, but his AEG was great.

My guess is that maybe there's something in the construction of the MMJ's that's led to elements getting loose...not sure.

Either way...this rare inconsistency of performance does seem to have tarnished the 25's reputation.

However again...mine is terrific. And stopped down...it SCREAMS.

My suggestion is to play it safe and get an AEG. Or at least make sure you can test your MMJ before you buy (or have a solid return policy).

I hate casting a cloud on any Contax lens, especially on one of my favorite lenses, but I think this needs to at least be brought up.

lol now I'm really confused... I thought you guys said the MMs were better than the AEGs? And is an MM the same as an MMJ? How can I tell which is which?

Also, do you guys prefer the 50 1.4 or the 50 1.7? Thanks for helping, totally cool of y'all...

 

[Nick Morrison]

lol now I'm really confused... I thought you guys said the MMs were better than the AEGs? And is an MM the same as an MMJ? How can I tell which is which?

Also, do you guys prefer the 50 1.4 or the 50 1.7? Thanks for helping, totally cool of y'all...

I don't think it's fair to categorically say the MM's are better than AE's.

For excruciating detail on the differences, I'd suggest looking at the Contax Guide again. It's all there.

But in a nutshell, the MM's are newer (1984 to 2005). The AE's older (1975 to 1984). A few of the designs were said to have been improved (25 2.8, 28 2.8 and 135 2.8). But truth is, they are all pretty similar. In real life shooting situations, AE's and MM's all cut together pretty seamlessly.

The MOVE to "MM" happened because Zeiss wanted to be able to enable aperture control on the lenses via the camera. Otherwise the shift to MM was meant to be seamless.

However one can't discount TIME and AGE. A lens made in 1975 will have an older version of the T* coating than the same model made in 2005. In 30 years, it's fair to assume that coating improvements would have happened. I've def noticed that.

In my experience newer MM lenses have a tad more contrast and saturation, and control flare much better.

The AE's are a bit less contrasy and saturated (easily adjusted in the grade)...but they can flare MUCH MORE (something you can't "add in post"). I personally LOVE the way AE's flare. It's very organic. And can look very beautiful. Which is why I hesitate to say MM's are "better". They are often a shade more modern and clean, but the AE's rendering has a lot of personality.

Which bring us to the ninja star. The AE's almost ALL have the ninja-star, the MM's DO NOT. (Its a buzz-saw shaped aperture that appears at the 2nd and 3rd aperture positions).

SO: TO SUMMARIZE

AE = older, more organic, flaring, ninja star (and more likely to be "Made in West Germany")
MM = newer, cleaner, less flare, no ninja star (hence why they are becoming more popular, they are the "safer bet").

Hope this helps.

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Also to add to Nick's post is that MM lenses are denoted with a green aperture number (Typically the aperture value that's the smallest ie.. 16 or 22..). AE lenses have all white markings.

 

[Tom Greenberg]

My entire set of primes are AE (I do have a couple of MM zooms), and personally I love the understated look the AE's deliver. I think the ninja star aperture adds tons of character and as Nick says, they flare beautifully. I think it is a matter of personal preference...not that one is better than the other...to me, AE's and MM's are like siblings, closely related in many ways, but with individual personalities.

 

[James_Mills]

Hope this helps.

It certainly does, thank you all.

But about this "ninja star", is this the actual clinical term for it or is it just a lens geek idiom we've made up? And does it have to dow ith the flare being shaped like a ninja star or something? What does this particular apature do that others do not? That doesn't make much logical sense to me that one apature would be dramatically different than the others...

Also, when you guys talk about flare from the AEs being more dramatic, do you mean lens flare or just flare (ie the halo effect around highlights that give the dreaded foggy look; at least I dread it)?

 

[James_Mills]

Also, if you're not completely sick and tired of my pestering yet, may I ask if there's a way you can tell the lens' year and model and everything just by asking for the serial number? Is there a quick way to tell just by reading the serial number, ie the higher the newer?

edit: oh and what about the 50 1.4 and 50 1.7, which is the general preference around here? might be my first purchase...

 

[Nick Morrison]

My entire set of primes are AE (I do have a couple of MM zooms), and personally I love the understated look the AE's deliver. I think the ninja star aperture adds tons of character and as Nick says, they flare beautifully. I think it is a matter of personal preference...not that one is better than the other...to me, AE's and MM's are like siblings, closely related in many ways, but with individual personalities.

Nicely put.

To get a sense of what AE's look like, you can even check out these Hasselblad 150 2.8 tilt/shifted pics. This Hassy has serial numbers in the AE range (late 5's), and gives a pretty good preview of the T* coating from that era. Apologies for not having anything better - it's all I got right now!

 

[Lliam Worthington]

@ David, hah! Lens crack indeed. Technically picking 1 "should" be harder. But I actually don't think it is. I seriously considered asking what eeryone's 3 favourites were, tried to decide on mine, and went shit that's waaaaay to hard. But was still keen to see where everybody really aligns or doesn't.

@ Nick and Shervin, damn it's great reading you guys on here. Cheers. "could shoot a whole movie with this lense" Exactly. Wide, CU, low light, can do it all. Funny watching a DOP work with my set a few weeks back, and how by the end of the shoot it organically became his go to lens.

@ James re 50 1.4 or 1.7. Just to make matters worse for you. I prefer the build quality and the half stop of the 50 1.4 and the cost and pop/micro contrast of the 1.7 )

Thery're all great to fantastic lenses really, and you can test/buy in cheaply and have no fears about resale and losing money. In fact you may make money As Nick and others have said, I've never had an issue cutting AE's or MM's together, and I have heard/read people argue both ways as one being better than the other. As Tom just said, aside from the ninja star (which we are only really talking about wide open) I think it's largely just about a bit of extra flare and maybe a little less contrast, which is better viewed as a personal or project based aesthetic choice, as opposed to being a which is "better".

Samir, AGAIN as Nick referred too, I'd read some bad reports about the 25mm ( though I have heard some good ones to) whereas the 28 was a known stellar performer with two high quality options one to suit each budget. For mine as I had the 21, I opted for a 7mm increment. Though I'll buy the 25 too eventually But I also know a lot of DOP's besides Nick really like the 25mm focal length. There's a thread on here somewhere where quite a few people list it as their favourite focal length in fact.

Best

Lliam

 

[Nick Morrison]

It certainly does, thank you all.

But about this "ninja star", is this the actual clinical term for it or is it just a lens geek idiom we've made up? And does it have to dow ith the flare being shaped like a ninja star or something? What does this particular apature do that others do not? That doesn't make much logical sense to me that one apature would be dramatically different than the others...

I don't know. It's been called a "ninja-star" for as long as I've been looking into Contax. It's certainly not a term that was made up on these forums. The name's been around for a while. The stills guys use it all the time. I doubt it a "technical" term.

No one knows what "it does". It baffles all of us.

Believe it. It comes. And it goes. It's usually only "engaged" for TWO f-stops on any lens. It's usually pretty subtle. You notice it much more on telephotos. Not so much on wides. It shows up in the bokeh, yes. In particular at night, when you see the aperture shape in lights, it becomes very noticeable. Again read the guide. It's kinda like a buzz-saw shaped version of the Cooke 8-blade "star" you see at the back of countless shows/movies (True Blood, Dowton Abby, Zero Dark, etc).

But again, it's not a big deal. If you don't want it, just get MM's.

Also, when you guys talk about flare from the AEs being more dramatic, do you mean lens flare or just flare (ie the halo effect around highlights that give the dreaded foggy look; at least I dread it)?

We mean, if you try and flare it, it has a great flare. Not the halo effect, no (that I'm aware of).

 

[Nick Morrison]

Also, if you're not completely sick and tired of my pestering yet, may I ask if there's a way you can tell the lens' year and model and everything just by asking for the serial number? Is there a quick way to tell just by reading the serial number, ie the higher the newer?

Unfortunately, I don't know a way to tie a serial to a year/date, no.

Generally speaking, the higher the serial, the newer the lens. AE's tend to go form high 5's (so for ex, 596342) to about 66's and 67's (so for example (665978). These were made btw 1975 and 1984.

MM's go from 67's to as high as the millions (so 1,009,646). Most MM's are in the 7's and 8's though. These were made from 1984 to 2005.

I'm assuming people who are trying to serial match their MM's are probably targeting lenses either in the 7's or 8's, as those are the easiest to find. 7's are the easiest actually, by far.

edit: oh and what about the 50 1.4 and 50 1.7, which is the general preference around here? might be my first purchase...

Get the 1.4. It has much better build quality. Not as sharp wide open, but sharper stopped down, and looks more "classic". If you ARE going to get a 1.7, I'd suggest an AE. The build qualities were actually better on the old ones. As the years rolled on, the started introducing more and more plastic into the 1.7's, and the later ones (though very sharp and clean), feel the most budget of any Contax lens. It's kind of a shame. But...the were​ the budget lens after all...

 

[Nick Morrison]

Samir, AGAIN as Nick referred too, I'd read some bad reports about the 25mm ( though I have heard some good ones to) whereas the 28 was a known stellar performer with two high quality options one to suit each budget. For mine as I had the 21, I opted for a 7mm increment. Though I'll buy the 25 too eventually But I also know a lot of DOP's besides Nick really like the 25mm focal length. There's a thread on here somewhere where quite a few people list it as their favourite focal length in fact.

Best

Lliam

PS agreed about the 25mm. A very, very interesting focal length that cannot be ignored. It's on many people's lists, yes. That's why for me it was a no brainer to get it. When I don't need the crazy look of the 28 f2, I actually prefer the FOV of the 25. I'm very glad I have a good one. Feel kinda lucky actually...

 

[Samir Patel]

Hmmmm. Good question.

Truth is, empirically the 28mm is a slightly newer, more refined design. It has better edge performance than the 25mm (which is an older, more classic design). So that wins it lots of fans who shoot landscape on 5D, and plus its much cheaper than the 25mm (the 28 can be had for $350, whereas the 25 goes for $500 and up).

So for a budget landscape shooter, there'e almost no better deal than the Contax 28mm 2.8. It's a SUPERB lens.

But here's the kicker....I'm not convinced you'll really notice the edge loss on the 25mm on a cropped sensor. I have an AEG and I love it.

I'm also a big fan of the 25mm focal length, and prefer it to the 28 (on S35mm).

But here's the deal...not everyone loves the 25. I've noticed in particular that MMJ owners are more likely to complain about it's performance. However, most AEG owners seem very happy. I had a DP friend who's owned both and noticed the same: his MM wasn't sharp, but his AEG was great.

My guess is that maybe there's something in the construction of the MMJ's that's led to elements getting loose...not sure.

Either way...this rare inconsistency of performance does seem to have tarnished the 25's reputation.

However again...mine is terrific. And stopped down...it SCREAMS.

My suggestion is to play it safe and get an AEG. Or at least make sure you can test your MMJ before you buy (or have a solid return policy).

I hate casting a cloud on any Contax lens, especially on one of my favorite lenses, but I think this needs to at least be brought up.

Thanks Nick. Unfortunately I can't try before I buy. I bought a MMJ version a week back and received it on Monday. Took a few shots with my 5D and all looked fine at least to my eyes. I guess since I am shooting scarlet the far corners won't be a problem considering the crop.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks Nick. Unfortunately I can't try before I buy. I bought a MMJ version a week back and received it on Monday. Took a few shots with my 5D and all looked fine at least to my eyes. I guess since I am shooting scarlet the far corners won't be a problem considering the crop.

If you have a good one, then GREAT!!!

I'm not saying ALL MMJ's are bad. Not at all!!! I've just observed that the complaints seemed to trend much more MM.

But hey, tip of the hat to ya! If you've got a good one, then awesome.

Again...it SHOULD BE a good to great lens...especially on a cropped sensor, yes.

 

[Samir Patel]

PS agreed about the 25mm. A very, very interesting focal length that cannot be ignored. It's on many people's lists, yes. That's why for me it was a no brainer to get it. When I don't need the crazy look of the 28 f2, I actually prefer the FOV of the 25. I'm very glad I have a good one. Feel kinda lucky actually...

Now when you say you prefer the FOV of the 25 are you meaning on a Full frame camera? on 5K? or 4K crop on the scarlet? Essentially 25 x 1.62 = 40.5mm?