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 :)

CONTAX ZEISS: HUGE DEMAND?! SELLING OUT?!

David W. Jones said:
The Zeiss T* coating has changed over the years, but it was my understanding that the same era Zeiss Super Speed & Contax lenses used the same T* coatings.
Click to expand...

David is exactly right. The understanding is that during the 70's and 80's Zeiss was probably using the same T* coating on all their lens lines....whether it was Contax 35mm, Hasselblad medium format, or in cinema...with Super Speeds and Standards.

Clearly, someone should do a real test to make sure...but everything I've seen def seems to confirm this. I own a mix of Zeiss glass from that era and it all intercuts perfectly.
 
Ivan Kovax said:
would the zeiss planar lenses qualify as this series, or is that a different model?

EDIT:

Also, how do you mount them to your Epics/Scarlets? Must they be remounted to EF or PL?
Click to expand...

Ivan I'm going to answer you here as well, and just add to what David's already said.


1) MOUNTING TO EPIC/SCARLET.

Just so we are clear, when you are shopping for Contax lenses, you ONLY want to buy them in C/Y mount. DO NOT look for Contax N, Contax G, or Contax 645 lenses. These are different lines. Just stick to Contax C/Y. If you want a deeper explanation as to why, I can get into that later. But for putting these on EPIC/SCARLET...only get C/Y mount lenses.

The C/Y bayonet easily adapts to Canon with an adapter. Many companies make them. The Fotodiox adapter is the cheapest and most convenient. The LEITAX adapter is a permanent (but easily reversible) mount change to Canon that is superb, and highly recommened if you are sticking with Canon.

The other best way to mount them is probably the ALL-STAR MOUNT. If you plan to intermix them with PL glass, this is a great way to go.


2) LENS DESIGNS.

As David says, "Planar" is just Zeiss nomenclature for a type of design. Here's how their design nomenclature breaks down, and this goes for most Zeiss lenses in general.


A) WIDE-ANGLES

Generally speaking, Zeiss refers to a wide-angle design as a "DISTAGON". In Contax, that corresponds to all lenses 35mm and wider (down to 15mm).


B) NORMALS & TELES

Generally speaking, these fall into 3 lens types, categorized by how fast and complex they are. These terms refer to all lenses 45mm and up (to 500mm).

PLANAR: These have the most elements (7+?), and are generally the fastest, most modern designs. Most of them are F2, 1.4, and 1.2. But with the extra glass comes a greater possibility for imperfection/aberration. Wide open not all them deliver as strongly as stopped down, for example.

SONNAR: These have less elements (6?). Are usually 2.8. Sonnar originally meant "Sunny", because historically these used to be the bright, fast designs when they first came out. With less glass comes more consistency. Wide open these are more likely to deliver a strong image that is consistent up and down the aperture. I've noticed these designs are more likely to create punchy, contrasty images, too.

TESSAR: These have even less elements (5?). Are usually 3.5 and F4. Are often more traditional designs. Are not only the slowest, but frequently the most classic. The bokeh behaves differently than with Sonnars and Planars and I find these can give the image an interesting look. For example, the 200 3.5 Tessar was "updated" with a Sonnar 180 2.8. I own them both. The 180 is cleaner, sharper and technically better. But I now have the 200 and I have to admit, the bokeh is very pleasing and captivating, and I prefer it.

Hope this helps.
 
Nick Morrison said:
DO NOT look for Contax N, Contax G, or Contax 645 lenses. These are different lines. Just stick to Contax C/Y. If you want a deeper explanation as to why, I can get into that later.
Click to expand...

Actually this is quite interesting because that was exactly what I was going to suggest! Apart from the fact that you can't get anything shorter than 25mm from medium format lenses (Pentax makes a 25mm for the 645D), I can't see much reason not to prefer them, seeing as the rear element is further away from the sensor. Because of that, there would be less light fall-off in the corners of the frame in addition to probably less CA. Am I right? MF zooms would be quite good I imagine, despite the narrower f/4.0 aperture.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Ivan I'm going to answer you here as well, and just add to what David's already said.


1) MOUNTING TO EPIC/SCARLET.

Just so we are clear, when you are shopping for Contax lenses, you ONLY want to buy them in C/Y mount. DO NOT look for Contax N, Contax G, or Contax 645 lenses. These are different lines. Just stick to Contax C/Y. If you want a deeper explanation as to why, I can get into that later. But for putting these on EPIC/SCARLET...only get C/Y mount lenses.

The C/Y bayonet easily adapts to Canon with an adapter. Many companies make them. The Fotodiox adapter is the cheapest and most convenient. The LEITAX adapter is a permanent (but easily reversible) mount change to Canon that is superb, and highly recommened if you are sticking with Canon.

The other best way to mount them is probably the ALL-STAR MOUNT. If you plan to intermix them with PL glass, this is a great way to go.


2) LENS DESIGNS.

As David says, "Planar" is just Zeiss nomenclature for a type of design. Here's how their design nomenclature breaks down, and this goes for most Zeiss lenses in general.


A) WIDE-ANGLES

Generally speaking, Zeiss refers to a wide-angle design as a "DISTAGON". In Contax, that corresponds to all lenses 35mm and wider (down to 15mm).


B) NORMALS & TELES

Generally speaking, these fall into 3 lens types, categorized by how fast and complex they are. These terms refer to all lenses 45mm and up (to 500mm).

PLANAR: These have the most elements (7+?), and are generally the fastest, most modern designs. Most of them are F2, 1.4, and 1.2. But with the extra glass comes a greater possibility for imperfection/aberration. Wide open not all them deliver as strongly as stopped down, for example.

SONNAR: These have less elements (6?). Are usually 2.8. Sonnar originally meant "Sunny", because historically these used to be the bright, fast designs when they first came out. With less glass comes more consistency. Wide open these are more likely to deliver a strong image that is consistent up and down the aperture. I've noticed these designs are more likely to create punchy, contrasty images, too.

TESSAR: These have even less elements (5?). Are usually 3.5 and F4. Are often more traditional designs. Are not only the slowest, but frequently the most classic. The bokeh behaves differently than with Sonnars and Planars and I find these can give the image an interesting look. For example, the 200 3.5 Tessar was "updated" with a Sonnar 180 2.8. I own them both. The 180 is cleaner, sharper and technically better. But I now have the 200 and I have to admit, the bokeh is very pleasing and captivating, and I prefer it.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

This helps greatly!!!
 
@Nick Morrison Sorry, totally unrelated to this thread. Your PM message folder is full... I tried to send you a message and I can't because there's no more space in your inbox.... (hope you see this)
 
David W. Jones said:
The Zeiss T* coating has changed over the years, but it was my understanding that the same era Zeiss Super Speed & Contax lenses used the same T* coatings.
Click to expand...

David..I participated in a very informal and unscientific test today....and can tell you w/out a doubt that the Contax T* coating does indeed look just like Super Speeds, Standard Speeds, and Hasselblad.
 
Well...hard to believe...but there are only TWO Contax C/Y lenses for sale right now at KEH.

WOW.

Leica R's? There are 19.

I saw a Contax 85 1.4 pop up on KEH on Tuesday, and by that night...in less than 12hrs...GONE. Like magic.

Sounds like people are catching on...
 
I did a test the other day between Contax 35/50/85 f1.4's, the CP.2's and the Zeiss ZF's of the same focal length.
Exactly the same wide open and closed down.
All of that marketing poppycock about choosing only the best glass, modernizing the coatings, etc....complete baloney.

They all looked good and there was no discernible difference in sharpness, except one.

For some reason the ZF and CP.2 versions of the 50/1.4 looked worse than the Contax Prime. Go figure.
 
Clayton Burkhart said:
I did a test the other day between Contax 35/50/85 f1.4's, the CP.2's and the Zeiss ZF's of the same focal length.
Exactly the same wide open and closed down.
All of that marketing poppycock about choosing only the best glass, modernizing the coatings, etc....complete baloney.

They all looked good and there was no discernible difference in sharpness, except one.

For some reason the ZF and CP.2 versions of the 50/1.4 looked worse than the Contax Prime. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Awesome feedack Clayton, thanks! Yeah...a lot of us have know this for a while, people refuse to believe...

Question though: how about the color temp? Did you notice what a lot of us have, that there's a cleaner, more satured, contrasty (and less flaring) coating? The color TEMP should be similar, but the TEXTURE and LEVELS should be different than with Contax. It's not the same. Curious if that popped for you. The Contax's flare beautifully, wheres CP2/ZF/ZE's resist much more so (which can be good also, if you want that). There's also a glow to the Contax highlights that I love. The new glass doesn't have it. Again, it's cleaner, more real. Contax glass is also noticeably LOW-CON.

Interesting about the 50. Was it a Contax 50 1.4 or 1.7? The 1.7 is actually SHARPER than the 1.4 wide open, so I wonder if you were testing on that. It's a well known Contax "thing", how oddly crazy sharp that 1.7 is WO. The bokeh on the 1.4 is gorgeous though, so it's no slam dunk for the 1.7. Curious what you tested with.

Thanks for the feedback!
 
After finding this thread, I've snagged a 50mm 1.4 and a 35mm 2.8 off KEH in the past 2 weeks. I'll be trying to find an 85mm next, and then filling in the gaps over time.

I've only been able to briefly test them so far, and have an actual shoot this weekend which should use primarily the 35mm. I'm holding off judgement until I get them under proper lighting.

I also snagged some Fotodiox extension tubes as I was getting the C/Y to EF adapters and some back caps. With bad lighting, hand held, wide open, at 3K and 180 degree shutter, it's kind of absurd the kind of sharpness I have on a few stills with 42mm of extension tube.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Awesome feedack Clayton, thanks! Yeah...a lot of us have know this for a while, people refuse to believe...

Question though: how about the color temp? Did you notice what a lot of us have, that there's a cleaner, more satured, contrasty (and less flaring) coating? The color TEMP should be similar, but the TEXTURE and LEVELS should be different than with Contax. It's not the same. Curious if that popped for you. The Contax's flare beautifully, wheres CP2/ZF/ZE's resist much more so (which can be good also, if you want that). There's also a glow to the Contax highlights that I love. The new glass doesn't have it. Again, it's cleaner, more real. Contax glass is also noticeably LOW-CON.

Interesting about the 50. Was it a Contax 50 1.4 or 1.7? The 1.7 is actually SHARPER than the 1.4 wide open, so I wonder if you were testing on that. It's a well known Contax "thing", how oddly crazy sharp that 1.7 is WO. The bokeh on the 1.4 is gorgeous though, so it's no slam dunk for the 1.7. Curious what you tested with.

Thanks for the feedback!
Click to expand...


My Contax 50 was a 1.4. Never used the 1.7
I didn't really notice the color temp thing. They all felt pretty close, however I tend to turn down saturation across the board so that I can pump it up later in post without going off the scales.
One thing I have noticed over time though, is that I have much more luminousity from the same shot using my contax vs canon lenses. I sometimes get a full stop and a half more luminousity. Which means that f4 is not always f4 from one lens to the next.
The other thing I find ironic is that right now I can pick up a set of Cine -Xenars which are better quality in terms of bokeh, resolution and highlight rolloff than Zeiss CP.2's for $10,000 less, and I will probably still end up buying the CP.2's. Why? Because they are small and light, cover FF DSLR's as well as Cine cams, and because they have Zeiss written on the side, and thus that is what EVERYONE is renting right now. So in terms of making money back on my investment they represent a much better opportunity.
 
Clayton Burkhart said:
My Contax 50 was a 1.4. Never used the 1.7
I didn't really notice the color temp thing. They all felt pretty close, however I tend to turn down saturation across the board so that I can pump it up later in post without going off the scales.
One thing I have noticed over time though, is that I have much more luminousity from the same shot using my contax vs canon lenses. I sometimes get a full stop and a half more luminousity. Which means that f4 is not always f4 from one lens to the next.
Click to expand...

Yeah my friend Joe DP'd for us this summer and used both his Duclosed Leica R's, and our Duclosed Contaxes...and he noticed the same thing. His waveform jumped, and expanded an extra stop and a half. He thought his Epic broke. Then he realized it was the Contax coating. It's much more low contrast than he expected. Which is interesting. Because Contax glass and Leica R's were rivals and contemporaries, and made at the same time. However our Contax set are all older AE's from the mid 70's to early 80's. His R's look newer, maybe early/mid 90's. So they there may still be a period difference.

But truth is I have found that ALL my Contaxes do this, even my MM's, so I think it's also a philosophical choice. The Contax line is more low-con, there is a lot of latitude. The Leica's on the other hand were more saturated, immediately prettier. I expect the Canon's are more like this, hence the extra "luminosity" you are seeing when you take em off, and throw on the Contax.

For whatever it's worth, we shot with Hasselblads this week (the serials match out Contax), and the luminosity (good word to describe the effect, I'm gunna use it!) was the same.
 
Clayton Burkhart said:
I did a test the other day between Contax 35/50/85 f1.4's, the CP.2's and the Zeiss ZF's of the same focal length.
Exactly the same wide open and closed down.
All of that marketing poppycock about choosing only the best glass, modernizing the coatings, etc....complete baloney.

They all looked good and there was no discernible difference in sharpness, except one.

For some reason the ZF and CP.2 versions of the 50/1.4 looked worse than the Contax Prime. Go figure.
Click to expand...


What about CA? Barrel distortion? Vignetting? Breathing? Colors in general?

I think we tend to overvalue sharpness sometimes and forget about the other (imo equally important, if not moreso) elements that make a good lens. I'm not implying that the Contax are worse in any regard, just speaking hypothetically.

My only experiences with Contax lenses were with my friend's 28 2.8, 35 2.8, and 50 1.4. Granted these aren't their finest lenses and it was on a GH2 and a 5D II (not to mention the fact that y'all know a lot more about how to pinpoint a good lens than I'm do, I sure), but I wasn't particularly impressed with them and opted to stick with my canon lenses after the second day.
 
Last edited:
Man I can't seem to be able to find any on KEH after a week of looking every day! :frown5:
 
James_Mills said:
My only experiences with Contax lenses were with my friend's 28 2.8, 35 2.8, and 50 1.4. Granted these aren't their finest lenses and it was on a GH2 and a 5D II (not to mention the fact that y'all know a lot more about how to pinpoint a good lens than I'm do, I sure), but I wasn't particularly impressed with them and opted to stick with my canon lenses after the second day.
Click to expand...

To be fair, those are their more budget lenses - the 35 2.8 and 28 2.8 (vs the 35 1.4 and 28 f2). I think both of those 2.8's are great (both are very sharp), but the faster lenses certainly have more character.

But not everyone has to like these. Again, it's about preference and choices. If you prefer Canon glass, then awesome.
 
Very helpful Nick, thanks. You are quickly becoming my lens guru :)

Nick Morrison said:
Ivan I'm going to answer you here as well, and just add to what David's already said.


1) MOUNTING TO EPIC/SCARLET.

Just so we are clear, when you are shopping for Contax lenses, you ONLY want to buy them in C/Y mount. DO NOT look for Contax N, Contax G, or Contax 645 lenses. These are different lines. Just stick to Contax C/Y. If you want a deeper explanation as to why, I can get into that later. But for putting these on EPIC/SCARLET...only get C/Y mount lenses.

The C/Y bayonet easily adapts to Canon with an adapter. Many companies make them. The Fotodiox adapter is the cheapest and most convenient. The LEITAX adapter is a permanent (but easily reversible) mount change to Canon that is superb, and highly recommened if you are sticking with Canon.

The other best way to mount them is probably the ALL-STAR MOUNT. If you plan to intermix them with PL glass, this is a great way to go.


2) LENS DESIGNS.

As David says, "Planar" is just Zeiss nomenclature for a type of design. Here's how their design nomenclature breaks down, and this goes for most Zeiss lenses in general.


A) WIDE-ANGLES

Generally speaking, Zeiss refers to a wide-angle design as a "DISTAGON". In Contax, that corresponds to all lenses 35mm and wider (down to 15mm).


B) NORMALS & TELES

Generally speaking, these fall into 3 lens types, categorized by how fast and complex they are. These terms refer to all lenses 45mm and up (to 500mm).

PLANAR: These have the most elements (7+?), and are generally the fastest, most modern designs. Most of them are F2, 1.4, and 1.2. But with the extra glass comes a greater possibility for imperfection/aberration. Wide open not all them deliver as strongly as stopped down, for example.

SONNAR: These have less elements (6?). Are usually 2.8. Sonnar originally meant "Sunny", because historically these used to be the bright, fast designs when they first came out. With less glass comes more consistency. Wide open these are more likely to deliver a strong image that is consistent up and down the aperture. I've noticed these designs are more likely to create punchy, contrasty images, too.

TESSAR: These have even less elements (5?). Are usually 3.5 and F4. Are often more traditional designs. Are not only the slowest, but frequently the most classic. The bokeh behaves differently than with Sonnars and Planars and I find these can give the image an interesting look. For example, the 200 3.5 Tessar was "updated" with a Sonnar 180 2.8. I own them both. The 180 is cleaner, sharper and technically better. But I now have the 200 and I have to admit, the bokeh is very pleasing and captivating, and I prefer it.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
 
I shot a whole feature on my set of Contax zeiss. The official trailer will be coming out soon, ill post it here. Only other lenses used were the tokina 11-16 and l series 70-200 2.8 canon. I had the 28 2.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 100 2.8 macro. the people that have seen the cut thought they were shot on superspeeds or some other epic lens. When i tell them it was shot on vintage contax lenses, they almost poop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top