Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Nick Morrison]

Hi Guys,

I'm getting my first set of primes together and was hoping for advice. I'm going to be using these with the Blackmagic 4K and will be shooting narrative projects as well as corporate work. I've gotten these lenses together so far:

21 2.8 MM
50 1.4 MM
135 2.8 MM

21 2.8 set me back so I'm looking to buy one maybe two more. I'd like the 35 1.4 but the price seems to be 1200-1500 these days. Any suggestions on lenses/focal lengths to fill in? I prefer primes to zoom right now.

Thanks!

Get these:

28 2.8 MM ($400)
35 2.8 MM ($350)
60 2.8 Macro ($600)
85 1.4 MM ($600)

Add a Tokina 11-16. Consider waiting till August when their "cinema" version comes out.

 

[Tom Greenberg]

Get these:

28 2.8 MM ($400)
35 2.8 MM ($350)
60 2.8 Macro ($600)
85 1.4 MM ($600)

Add a Tokina 11-16. Consider waiting till August when their "cinema" version comes out.

Totally agree with Nick...I have all of the above, in AE versions...they are all outstanding lenses! I would also consider the 85 2.8...a very underrated lens...

 

[Randy Rubin]

Thanks guys, this guide has been really helpful. How do you find the 28 2.8 and 35 2.8 perform when wide open? Also, is there only one model of the 60 2.8?

 

[Tom Greenberg]

Both the 28 and 35 2.8 are great wide open...if anything I think they are a bit sharper than their faster siblings. There are 2 versions of the 60 2.8...you don't want the 60 C (Compact)...get the regular 60 macro. It's the lens on it's side in the photo below..

 

[Randy Rubin]

Cool, thanks for the help!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Both the 28 and 35 2.8 are great wide open...if anything I think they are a bit sharper than their faster siblings. There are 2 versions of the 60 2.8...you don't want the 60 C (Compact)...get the regular 60 macro. It's the lens on it's side in the photo below..

I agree with Tom completely. The 35 2.8 and 28 2.8 may well be sharper than their faster cousins at 2.8. Both of these budget primes are tack sharp WO. Stopped down, the 35 2.8 only improves modestly...as it's already so sharp. The 28 2.8 is tack sharp in center wide open, and as you stop down it becomes one of the all around best performers in the Contax lineup. These lenses are optically excellent, and can hold their own against significantly more expensive offerings. For the price, their value is hard to beat. If you don't need the speed, these are a sound investment that will last you a lifetime.

And as Tom says, the 85 2.8 is in the same category. Because these budget primes didn't need to be fast, Zeiss was able to deliver remarkably even and solid performance across the iris. Conservative designs that delivered maximum performance. I'm a big, big fan of the Contax "budget" primes (28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.7, 85 2.8, 100 3.5, 135 2.8) They are like the "Standard" primes of the Contax lineup: slower yes; but also more even and perhaps even more punchy (my 35 2.8 and 85 2.8 are noticeably bold and contrasty).

Enjoy.

 

[Greg McDonald]

...you shouldn(t be paying a grand for this lens. If you are patient you can find it for around 600 USD. Definitely would not go for anything less than perfect at the price you are stating and that particular lens.

You must be thinking of a different lens. The 35mm 1.4 generally goes for anywhere between $1,500 to $2,000 unless you find a little old lady who's having an estate sale and has no idea what she's selling.

The sparkly dots sounds like fungus. Focalpoint in Colorado can probably fix it unless the coatings are damaged then it might be a different story. My 35mm 1.4 had fungus on the rear element and they cleaned it all up for $300 and now it's in pristine condition but he said the fungus hadn't affected the coatings yet so he was able to clean all the glass and other parts thoroughly to completely get rid of the fungus without having the potential problem of having to re-do the coatings. So it may turn out that buying the lens for $1k and then paying $300 to fix it, still might be worth it. But again, you can't tell what it is for sure by looking at it, someone needs to actually take apart the lens to see what it is so it'd probably be best to just find another one to buy.

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

You must be thinking of a different lens. The 35mm 1.4 generally goes for anywhere between $1,500 to $2,000 unless you find a little old lady who's having an estate sale and has no idea what she's selling.

The sparkly dots sounds like fungus. Focalpoint in Colorado can probably fix it unless the coatings are damaged then it might be a different story. My 35mm 1.4 had fungus on the rear element and they cleaned it all up for $300 and now it's in pristine condition but he said the fungus hadn't affected the coatings yet so he was able to clean all the glass and other parts thoroughly to completely get rid of the fungus without having the potential problem of having to re-do the coatings. So it may turn out that buying the lens for $1k and then paying $300 to fix it, still might be worth it. But again, you can't tell what it is for sure by looking at it, someone needs to actually take apart the lens to see what it is so it'd probably be best to just find another one to buy.

Yes, I must not have read that correctly. I thought he was referring to the 35-70 f3.4.

 

[Brice Ansel]

I'm sending my 100-300 to RP lens next week!

This lense make me sick.
I have a sharpness rush. ;-)
And so versatile.

Vario Tessar Focal @ 300mm

 

[Brice Ansel]

The 28 f2 is terrific, but it is soft wide open. Its pleasing, but the 28 2.8 is so strong, it's hard to pass up. The f2 is really only for those who are ok with paying extra for the luxury of having a very painterly look wide open. The 28 f2 is also stronger at the edges stopped down, but on a S35 sensor you won't be able to appreciate this design flourish.

Both the 28 and 35 2.8 are great wide open...if anything I think they are a bit sharper than their faster siblings.

I was just pushing the 28 2.8 the other day to see see how it flare.
AE version of course.

28 Distagon @ F11...Ha ha ha, I love those AE's and their funkiness atitude.

Sheers.
B.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

Just a note: that pattern of red dots is from the OLPF filter reflecting around inside the camera, not the lens. It has caused more than a few headaches when it pops up at the wrong time, and especially if you don't know what it is. More than a few people have thought "IS MY CAMERA BROKEN?!" the first time they saw it.

The rest of the flare, of course, is from the lens.

I was just pushing the 28 2.8 the other day to see see how it flare.
AE version of course.

28 Distagon @ F11...Ha ha ha, I love those AE's and their funkiness atitude.

Sheers.
B.

 

[Nick Morrison]

This lense make me sick.
I have a sharpness rush. ;-)
And so versatile.

Vario Tessar Focal @ 300mm

WOW. Looks awesome. I also wish I had that view outside my window!!

 

[Brice Ansel]

Just a note: that pattern of red dots is from the OLPF filter reflecting around inside the camera, not the lens. It has caused more than a few headaches when it pops up at the wrong time, and especially if you don't know what it is. More than a few people have thought "IS MY CAMERA BROKEN?!" the first time they saw it. The rest of the flare, of course, is from the lens.

Oops ! Nick you are absolutely right for the red dots, Sorry for the confusion I was more focusing on the diamond spectrum at the bottom.

WOW. Looks awesome. I also wish I had that view outside my window!!

Not from my window even if from our window it is as awesome as this pic.
The good thing about Tuscany and especially the Chianti is, where ever you are it is really easy to compose a nice frame.
It is like living in a gigantic postcard.



Still exploring the 100/300 Really versatile!

And the 28mm @ F8

Cheers B.

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Just popped our freshly modified PL mount Zeiss Contax 300mm F4 on our RED One and it SINGS!
So excited to go out and play.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Just popped our freshly modified PL mount Zeiss Contax 300mm F4 on our RED One and it SINGS!
So excited to go out and play.

WOW. Awesome.

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

WOW. Awesome.

thanks for your continued support Mr. Morrison!

 

[Oscar Stegland]

Yeah, I feel like that's probably the safest bet. I'm not convinced it's fungus, if anything it looks like oily haze but either way it feels like it's probably smarter to move up a notch in price and get one in great condition. Seeing as how I already have the 35-70 one stop increase in speed isn't really worth too much to me. My goal is to get a prime-lens set-up for life that will cover anything that isn't PL mount so speed is essential to me. I'm thinking I might just bite the bullet on the 21 2.8 while they're still around and then cinemod the 21, 50, and 135 when I'm in the states this summer. Eventually I'll add the 35 and 85 as well. With a Tokina 11-16, I'd be pretty much set from extreme wide angle (on S16 not so extreme perhaps) to long telephoto on any sensor-size from S16 to FF.

$600 for a 35 1.4 sounds too good to be true in my ears. The $1000 I've found it for is by far the cheapest I've seen. Probably a differen lens.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Yeah, I feel like that's probably the safest bet. I'm not convinced it's fungus, if anything it looks like oily haze but either way it feels like it's probably smarter to move up a notch in price and get one in great condition. Seeing as how I already have the 35-70 one stop increase in speed isn't really worth too much to me. My goal is to get a prime-lens set-up for life that will cover anything that isn't PL mount so speed is essential to me. I'm thinking I might just bite the bullet on the 21 2.8 while they're still around and then cinemod the 21, 50, and 135 when I'm in the states this summer. Eventually I'll add the 35 and 85 as well. With a Tokina 11-16, I'd be pretty much set from extreme wide angle (on S16 not so extreme perhaps) to long telephoto on any sensor-size from S16 to FF.

$600 for a 35 1.4 sounds too good to be true in my ears. The $1000 I've found it for is by far the cheapest I've seen. Probably a differen lens.

Sounds like a plan! If its "oily", then it sounds like "haze", which (from what I understand) is often the byproduct of leaked oil or grease.

 

[Kirk.Attard]

Hi All.

A while ago I had to post a quick overview of the 50mm contax zeiss rehoused by Gl Optics.
First of all I must say that Nan the guy behind GL is very cool to work with. He replies and delivers as promised. I did not want the ninja star and he assured me I wont get one. He even sent me a picture of the aperture.

Here are a couple of photos - The first review will follow.

To be honest I have mixed feelings about the lens. I shall comment about the built quality first. Overall it is well built. Feels very solid albeit a bit heavy but feels very sturdy. All metal. The mount fits as good as any canon lens, so that's good. No play at all. The iris ring is beautifully declicked and very smooth. The focus ring is smooth but not as good as a cp.2 .. Feels like it touches a little metal with metal in some points but doesn't hinder focusing at all. You can apply the same force to focus throughout with the followfocus. But not as smooth as I wished. Of course this lens costs less then half than a cp.2 so you have to understand that, and it is also built by hand. One other minor thing that I kinda did not like a lot are the markings. Though precise and generous throughout the whole range and on both sides of the lens, the paint seems a little weak. As if it might come off in time with some wear. Though I am sure that if you take a little care you wouldn't have any problems. The focus throw is good around 270 degrees I would say.

Concerning image quality I might have been a little disappointed. Though sharp it kinda looks a little like my Nikon prime which doesn't cost much more than a couple of hundred bucks. I'm not saying its bad and I still have to test it further in good lighting conditions but that was my first impression. Focusing was easy though as the throw is good and you hit the mark easily so no problems there.

I will post stills taken with the lens soon. I think you get what you pay for after all. I paid something in between a stills prime and a cine lens, and that was exactly what I got.
Feel free to ask me anything about the lens. I'd be more than happy to reply.

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Kirk, thanks for the review.

I was looking at the GLOptics rehousing a while back and was very interested until I heard how heavy they became after the rehousing. One of the main perks of the Contax set is that they're incredibly light weight and fast, a HUGE bonus for handheld shooters like myself. I just couldn't justify sending off photo lenses to have a crap ton of metal attached to them. The idea of a lens sleeve as proposed by Nick in another thread is a lot more practical and useful, especially if it can be taken on/off.

Your justifications for getting a lens rehoused is definitely different than mine. Glad to see these lenses in a cine style housing with proper cine modifications.