Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Vance Colvig]

My 100 Makro-Planar (7524168) is AEG made in Japan with Ninja star iris. Very nice lens. $400 sounds like a bargain with Canon mount.

 

[William Long]

Does anyone know if the Contax Zeiss 100 Makro-Planar f/2.8 T* with Serial #7833568 is any good? Is MMJ/AEJ or German AEG or MMG?

It's listed for about $400 and seems to be in excellent condition with an EF adapter. I could use an honest opinion right now.

Thanks in advance.

Hi Takor,

They are really good lenses and your price seems very good if it is clean.
The 100 & 60mm macro don't exist as MM, only AE.


PS - Yes, I noticed too that Nick's original links aren't working.

 

[Takor Arrey]

Thanks a million Vance, William. This one one doesn't have the ninja star iris.

 

[Giles Harvey]

I'm selling a 7 lens set of Zeiss Contax if anyone is interested give me a DM

Carl Zeiss Contax Distagon T* 18mm F4.0 MMJ
Carl Zeiss Contax Distagon T* 25mm F2.8 AEG
Carl Zeiss Contax Distagon T* 28mm F2.8 AEJ
Carl Zeiss Contax Distagon T* 35mm F1.4 AEG
Carl Zeiss Contax Distagon T* 50mm F1.4 AEJ
Carl Zeiss Contax Planar T* 85mm F1.4 AEG
Carl Zeiss Contax Sonar T* 135mm F1.4 AEJ


https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1EnECYKLSjcEyDtAcUn1RmIgrrjQK-l8J?usp=sharing

Decent set. How much you looking to get?

 

[chris ware]

Hello,

Does anyone have a 21mm f/2.8 for sale?

thanks

chris....

 

[Takor Arrey]

Hi Chris what state are you in?

 

[Kamil Keenan]

I can't find THE CONTAX LENS GUIDE anymore.... Do you have a working link?

 

[Nick Morrison]

I can't find THE CONTAX LENS GUIDE anymore.... Do you have a working link?

Not sure I understand the question. You're on the thread. To read the guide, go to the beginning of this thread:

https://www.reduser.net/forum/shooting-red/lens-tests/94346-contax-zeiss-survival-guide

 

[William Long]

Nick has fixed those two important links now in post #3 at the beginning. We're back in business! )

 

[Eric Thirteen LEGAL NAME]

I've been looking for the 50mm f/1.4. Was a MMG of this ever made? After months I've never seen one, only the Japan version.

 

[Barry Reid]

The 50/1.7 MM or AE were only made in Japan. There are no 50/1.4 MMGs there may be a few AEGs out there but I’ve not seen one in person. My own AEJ has a very early serial and it’s Japanese.

Regardless, there’s no quality difference by country of manufacture. However, if you are must have a German Planar they are available in Rollei QBM, where the the coating is called HFT bit is just a rebrand of T*

 

[Nick Morrison]

I've been looking for the 50mm f/1.4. Was a MMG of this ever made? After months I've never seen one, only the Japan version.

Sorry for delay on this. Answer is not that I know of. I believer the 50's were all made in Japan, like the 21mm.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The 50/1.7 MM or AE were only made in Japan. There are no 50/1.4 MMGs there may be a few AEGs out there but I’ve not seen one in person. My own AEJ has a very early serial and it’s Japanese.

Regardless, there’s no quality difference by country of manufacture. However, if you are must have a German Planar they are available in Rollei QBM, where the the coating is called HFT bit is just a rebrand of T*

Haha - what Barry said.

 

[Ignacio_gonzo]

Hello people,
I found a strange Contax lens, and I would love to find information about it :
It seems to be a 28 f2 Hollywood in all senses ..but it has Rollei HFT coating.
someone suggested that maybe it could be a prototype,
do you know a bit of those prototypes?
I attach some pics of the lens,
Thanks a lot!

 

[Nick Morrison]

If I had to take a guess it's the same Contax 28 f2 Hollywood, just rebadged for Rollei.

My understanding is Rollei was a more budget mass produced line (think of how VW has deluxe cars like PORSCHE and AUDI, but also budget cars like SEAT and SKODA).

They repurposed some Contax lens designs for Rollei. Looks like they did that for the 28 f2 as well.

 

[Domingo Lamarre]

Hello people,
I found a strange Contax lens, and I would love to find information about it :
It seems to be a 28 f2 Hollywood in all senses ..but it has Rollei HFT coating.
someone suggested that maybe it could be a prototype,
do you know a bit of those prototypes?
I attach some pics of the lens,
Thanks a lot!

Are you planning to keep it or sell it? :calm:

 

[Zak Ray]

I'm adding some of the basic Contax lenses to my app LensKit (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lenskit-tools-for-filmmakers/id1523521746).

I know they cover full frame, which makes coverage charts a bit less important for most people, but if anyone has any image circles (or a medium format camera to test with), let me know! Happy to provide a free copy of the app in exchange.

 

[Dante Villa]

Hello everyone,

Long time lurker. Currently at page 216 out of 320. I feel so happy to have stumbled on this thread, it really pushed my video production to another level and fueled a whole new passion/addiction! So Id like to thank Nick Morrison for having started such an incredible thread and everyone else for all your inputs!

My kit currently consist of a 80-200 4, 85 2.8, 50 1.4 and a 28 2.8. All found at great prices on Italian marketplaces. Id like to also get a 35 2.8/1.4 and something on the wider end, hence my post... I recently stumbled upon a shop selling a 15 3.5 at 1.400 euro. I got in touch with them to get more details and they sent me these low res pictures, saying it has a couple of tiny scratches on the front glass, which Im not sure I can spot. The price is good and Im sure I could get it to even lower, but Im not sure if it's worth spending so much for a lens with a scratched glass. The sellers says it wont impact the performance of the lens, but Im not sure I would risk it for commercial projects. What do you think?

 

[Zack Birlew]

For Christmas I finally gave in and got myself a Zeiss 35-135 MMJ zoom and an 80-200 MMJ zoom to cover my slowly in progress Zeiss lens set!

The 80-200 was an "as-is" find as it was supposed to be in good condition but it had a stuck variable ND filter on there. Thankfully, as some of you know, I take apart and repair lenses as a hobby so I had a few tools and tactics to get that filter off and, man, it was a real sucker! I don't know how the filter got stuck but after taking it apart and working it with a rubber strap wrench and rubber lens cups, I finally got it off and the lens was left in great shape with some internal dust I'll probably have to clean later. Seeing how the lens performed on my A7S showed that the 80-200 is a real winner of a push-pull zoom! I've had push-pull experience with other brands and there are some real winners and poor losers out there but the Zeiss 80-200 felt great and handy and just delivered really fantastic results to where I wondered about even needing an 85mm 1.4, 135mm 2.8, or even the 180mm 2.8 primes. My only concern is maintenance really as it is dusty inside and I don't know exactly how complicated a push-pull zoom will be to take apart and clean until I do it, so how often is that going to happen? Hmmm, we'll have to see.

Now, the 35-135mm was a mint copy, not taking a chance on that one! I was very impressed by how good it was as a push-pull zoom, not many that can do that, even the more noteworthy models people talk about. The image quality was similar to the 80-200 zoom in that it was far and above in the top tier of push-pull zooms but the one difference is that I felt that I actually wouldn't mind having another prime or two in the mix despite the coverage. It all comes down to that leap from F3.3 to F5.6, the lens really comes along at 5.6 but I might have appreciated it having a hard stop at F4 to get rid of the slightest bit of glow at F3.3 but keeping the image at least brighter than 5.6. Don't get me wrong though, if I had to use only the 35-135 to film a movie, I would be perfectly fine and happy the whole way through, the 35-135mm is just that good! However, I wouldn't be honest if I didn't admit that the wide open performance was just a touch less than I had hoped for compared to my primes at their worst. The one killer feature though is the macro mode, wide macro though it may be at 35mm, it's remarkably sharp and one of the best wide macro lenses I've seen as, even though I know it's a Zeiss lens, it just has a remarkably similar sparkle that I love from my Nikon lenses! Aside from the aperture drop from 3.3 to 5.6, a very mild downside, the only one I suspect may be why these lenses come up fairly often on the marketplace is that this is quite a heavy lens! The only other super heavy zoom lens that comes to mind without becoming a massive telephoto lens is my Konica 35-100 2.8, another fantastic zoom, and I can say that because after toying around with the Zeiss 35-135 for only a few minutes, my hand felt sore from holding it up and using it. Now, as a filmmaker, I would have the lens mounted on the camera on top of a tripod or with a shoulder rig or gimbal and not worry about it but for photography use, I'm not so sure it would be my first pick for an all-in-one photo zoom to carry around strapped to my neck or shoulder all day. Overall, I feel like I could sit pretty with the 35-135 and other than maybe adding a wider prime or two, as I love experimenting with wide angle lenses, I could stop my Zeiss lens set right where I'm at, especially with the 80-200 backing me up.

So, after finally adding these two zooms to my collection, do I feel I need the 28-85 and 35-70? Honestly, not really! If I did add them it would only be to have the 28mm coverage and locked 85mm focal length of the 28-85mm or opting for the smaller size of the 35-70 when the 35-135 gets too heavy but at the prices the zooms are going for and the amount of fungus-filled or mechanically faulty ones that are popping up more and more often, I might as well put a little more into some of the wider primes and stick with what I've got. The only other zoom I wanted to nab as well was the 100-300mm but, for anyone who doesn't know, those are plagued with bad cement in their, if I remember correctly, rear element group that fogs the lens up and even after post contrast adjustment would make it look like a heavier Promist shot than intended. I know this because I happened upon an older Sigma AF 70-210 2.8 APO that is plagued with this problem as well and despite being an otherwise fantastic 70-210, I know I would only use it for beauty shots or flashbacks because of this problem.

Believe me, for the 100-300 and the other Contax Zooms, particularly the 35-70 from what I've seen, there is definitely a market case for someone to either repair the lens cement issues of the 100-300 or to even make whole replacement repair elements with modern cement and to also provide replacement bushings for not only the increasing number of 35-70 zooms but also the whole range of Contax Zeiss zoom mechanisms in these lenses. These lenses are too good to leave on the shelf due to what should have been major fixes early on by Zeiss after they were introduced. As for the 35-135 and 80-200, I've only ever seen them being solid mechanically and that also factored into why I bought them so hopefully I can continue to count on them as reliable zoom lenses for as long as I have them.

 

[William Long]

Zack I haven't encountered any of the problems you refer to and I use every Contax lens you mention there. Congratulations on your 80-200mm it produces an unbelievably beautiful image that you just wouldn't expect from that sort of zoom. Same for the 100-300mm and of course the 35-70mm.