Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Robert Keegan]

That would be awesome!

If I can get the chance I will post examples from the 20/2.8 Flek, 18/4 Zeiss, and Tokina 11-16/2.8. I have just been swamped with business lately so it may be a little while.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks for your words and expertise Nick !
Deal conclude, Vario-Sonar in the mail for a new home.
I have to tell, some members on this board are really dangerous, because of their eloquency when talking about lenses.
My first set bought 5 years ago was all Nikon.
One of the main responsable for this expense was Evin Grant, then a Leica R set, thanks Sanjin Jukic, and now Carl Zeiss Contax the fault to Nick Morrison. ;-)
Edit And I forgot to mention David Battistella who's the responsable for the acquisition of a fantastic cheap Angenieux zoom.
Ha ha this board can be really tempting sometime.
Cheers to all
B.

Haha, happy to help feed your drug.

 

[Brice Ansel]

Some Ninja effect...
I like the funkiness of it.
Good news is if you don't like it, snap your diaf up or down

100 Planar@F2.8 for the beauty of Ninja stars. NO SHARPNESS

Cheers
B.

 

[Tom Greenberg]

Some Ninja effect...
I like the funkiness of it.
Good news is if you don't like it, snap your diaf up or down

100 Planar@F2.8 for the beauty of Ninja stars. NO SHARPNESS

Cheers
B.

Looks great, Brice...I just love the ninja star...it's got such a unique look...funky is a good way to describe it. To me, characteristics like that are one of the charms of using a more "vintage" lens, love the unconventional look and feel you get from them...that's why my whole set is AE...

 

[Nick Morrison]

Some Ninja effect...
I like the funkiness of it.
Good news is if you don't like it, snap your diaf up or down

100 Planar@F2.8 for the beauty of Ninja stars. NO SHARPNESS

Cheers
B.

Yeah, when it works, the Ninja Star is AWESOME!!! I love the older AE glass.

 

[Brice Ansel]

I'm not doing justice to this phenomenal lens underexposing the footage, but here is another frame a little bit less busy and messy.
A part the funkiness of it, I think it can be an elegant graphical effect as well.

NinjaBokeh (right click for a bigger picture) 100 Planar@F2.8 for the beauty of Ninja stars. NO SHARPNESS

Best.
B.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Love the graphical idea. Yeah I have a 25, 28, 35, 50, 60, 85, 100, 135 and 200 with Ninja Stars.

I like where you are going with the graphical idea. You could create a whole piece exploiting it, feeding it....For a spot or a music video, could be an amazing in-camera device that actually drives the whole piece editorially.

DAMN. Can't believe I never thought of this myself.

Brice 1, Nick 0.

I'm not doing justice to this phenomenal lens underexposing the footage, but here is another frame a little bit less busy and messy.
A part the funkiness of it, I think it can be an elegant graphical effect as well.

NinjaBokeh (right click for a bigger picture) 100 Planar@F2.8 for the beauty of Ninja stars. NO SHARPNESS

Best.
B.

 

[Brice Ansel]

Absolutely fuck yes. Your eyes will explode when you see it. You will actually do a double take when you put it on.

I have to admit, I did a double take twice.
I was aspecting a much heavier lense.
Glad it is so compact and light.
And yes it is in pristine condition at 500 € Vat included.
Me think I did a good deal on that one.

VARIO-TESSAR 100/300

 

[Nick Morrison]

I have to admit, I did a double take twice.
I was aspecting a much heavier lense.
Glad it is so compact and light.
And yes it is in pristine condition at 500 € Vat included.
Me think I did a good deal on that one.

VARIO-TESSAR 100/300

Nice, yeah that lens is tits.

 

[Brice Ansel]

A little sample from the beast.

Vario Tessar@ F4.5 and 300mm No sharpening aply

Same pic 100% crop No sharpening aply

Best
B.

 

[Brice Ansel]

I have another question for you Dr Morrison.
Wich Carl Zeiss Mutar extender shall I use with the 100/300?
It seems their is at least two versions of it.
And is it even possible?
I read at certain focal the zoom could touch the extender and do some damage.
Any clue?
Best
B.

 

[David W. Jones]

Here are the Mutar spec sheets.

http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/contax_yashica/mutari-ii_2x_e.pdf


http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/contax_yashica/mutariii_1-4x_e.pdf

 

[Nick Morrison]

I have another question for you Dr Morrison.
Wich Carl Zeiss Mutar extender shall I use with the 100/300?
It seems their is at least two versions of it.
And is it even possible?
I read at certain focal the zoom could touch the extender and do some damage.
Any clue?
Best
B.

There are three Mutars in the Contax Line:

MUTAR I (2x) (use btw 45mm to 135mm, approx)
MUTAR II (2x) (use btw 135mm to 500mm, approx)
MUTAR III (1.5)

I've read of people having success with BOTH Mutar 2x on the 100-300.

The thing to be careful of is the rear element on the zoom, which will HIT the Mutar if you zoom down to 100. My assumption would be to keep the zoom between 200 and 300 to be safe.

Also, here's full list the specific lenses that work best with each Mutar 2x (think David shared the same pdf!):
http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam...nloadcenter/contax_yashica/mutari-ii_2x_e.pdf

 

[Brice Ansel]

Thanks David and Nick.
I knew already those spec sheet and was hoping some lenses were just missing to the list.
Tempting to give a try to the Mutar and the sharp 100/300, but scary aswell.
Best
B.

 

[Oscar Stegland]

Nick,

I cannot thank you enough for this killer thread. All other forums on the web should take note, this is what it's all about: sharing and spreading the knowledge. I got into cinematography and stills photography about 10 months ago and it feels like I've finally found my calling which is immensely gratifying.

Either way, I was quick to pick up a used 5DMKII but I couldn't afford a lense at the time so I waited a while and researched a little more, while awaiting money. Looking for a walk-around zoom with good performance and decent price, I finally settled on an MMJ 35-70/3.4 (got it in basically mint for about $500) and I could not be happier. I recently borrowed my friend's much wider Canon 24-105L and I could immediately tell that it wasn't Zeiss. There's really something special about the "pop", "3d", or whatever one wants to call it. Either way, I was planning on picking up the Samyang Cine series when I go to the states this summer but after having read this thread, the Contax collection has started growing. I'm building a 5-6 lense prime set for cine-modding eventually.

The other week I picked up the 50/1.4 and the 135/2.8 together for slightly less than $500, both complete with metal hoods, carrying bags, and 7-8 screw-on filters. These have been used for a grand total of about 10 rolls of film and are in pristine condition, both of them being AEJ. Gotta say, I really kind of enjoy the Ninja-Star, it's a very useful effect to have and if I don't want it on certain shots I just stop down or open up.

I'm looking to eventually get either two of the wide-angles or just all three of the killer ones: 35/1.4, 28/2.0, 21/2.8. The thing is I've found a guy who sells an MMG 35/1.4 for about $1000 close to where I live. It's in almost perfect condition but on one of the bottom lens elements there are these sparkly dots. I assumed it was oily haze, but I'm not sure. The owner had taken the lens to one of the leading optics experts in Stockholm. He said he wasn't sure what it was, that he couldn't fix it, and also that it didn't impact the pictures one bit.

I noticed I have similar sparkly dots in my 35-70/3.4 (also an MM). I figured if anyone in the world has seen this it would probably be Mr. Nick "Contax" Morrison himself. Any idea what this is? Is it possible to remove? From what I've understood, haze only worsens as time goes by which is what kind of upsets me. Am I paying a grand for a lens that's just started a downward spiral? Should I be worried, or should i just buy the 35 at that ridiculous price? One more thing is that the aperture ring has been declicked but not dampened which doesn't bother me much but it's kind of a bummer that it moves with the slightest touch.

The help is much appreciated.

Best Regards,
Oscar Stegland

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Nick,

I cannot thank you enough for this killer thread. All other forums on the web should take note, this is what it's all about: sharing and spreading the knowledge. I got into cinematography and stills photography about 10 months ago and it feels like I've finally found my calling which is immensely gratifying.

Either way, I was quick to pick up a used 5DMKII but I couldn't afford a lense at the time so I waited a while and researched a little more, while awaiting money. Looking for a walk-around zoom with good performance and decent price, I finally settled on an MMJ 35-70/3.4 (got it in basically mint for about $500) and I could not be happier. I recently borrowed my friend's much wider Canon 24-105L and I could immediately tell that it wasn't Zeiss. There's really something special about the "pop", "3d", or whatever one wants to call it. Either way, I was planning on picking up the Samyang Cine series when I go to the states this summer but after having read this thread, the Contax collection has started growing. I'm building a 5-6 lense prime set for cine-modding eventually.

The other week I picked up the 50/1.4 and the 135/2.8 together for slightly less than $500, both complete with metal hoods, carrying bags, and 7-8 screw-on filters. These have been used for a grand total of about 10 rolls of film and are in pristine condition, both of them being AEJ. Gotta say, I really kind of enjoy the Ninja-Star, it's a very useful effect to have and if I don't want it on certain shots I just stop down or open up.

I'm looking to eventually get either two of the wide-angles or just all three of the killer ones: 35/1.4, 28/2.0, 21/2.8. The thing is I've found a guy who sells an MMG 35/1.4 for about $1000 close to where I live. It's in almost perfect condition but on one of the bottom lens elements there are these sparkly dots. I assumed it was oily haze, but I'm not sure. The owner had taken the lens to one of the leading optics experts in Stockholm. He said he wasn't sure what it was, that he couldn't fix it, and also that it didn't impact the pictures one bit.

I noticed I have similar sparkly dots in my 35-70/3.4 (also an MM). I figured if anyone in the world has seen this it would probably be Mr. Nick "Contax" Morrison himself. Any idea what this is? Is it possible to remove? From what I've understood, haze only worsens as time goes by which is what kind of upsets me. Am I paying a grand for a lens that's just started a downward spiral? Should I be worried, or should i just buy the 35 at that ridiculous price? One more thing is that the aperture ring has been declicked but not dampened which doesn't bother me much but it's kind of a bummer that it moves with the slightest touch.

The help is much appreciated.

Best Regards,
Oscar Stegland

Sounds like dust to me. If not there could be some coating issues. However, a word to the wise, 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.

 

[Uli Plank]

Sure? I've tried very hard to find a good 35/1.4 lately and they all went beyond 1K !

But the 1:2.8 is still cheap and a very good lens.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks David and Nick.
I knew already those spec sheet and was hoping some lenses were just missing to the list.
Tempting to give a try to the Mutar and the sharp 100/300, but scary aswell.
Best
B.

I would do it, no fear. Just DON't zoom back below 200. Keep it safe. That zoom is so sharp that even with a teleconverter, doubled to 600mm it's still probably going to perform above expectations.

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

 

[Nick Morrison]

Nick,

I cannot thank you enough for this killer thread. All other forums on the web should take note, this is what it's all about: sharing and spreading the knowledge. I got into cinematography and stills photography about 10 months ago and it feels like I've finally found my calling which is immensely gratifying.

Either way, I was quick to pick up a used 5DMKII but I couldn't afford a lense at the time so I waited a while and researched a little more, while awaiting money. Looking for a walk-around zoom with good performance and decent price, I finally settled on an MMJ 35-70/3.4 (got it in basically mint for about $500) and I could not be happier. I recently borrowed my friend's much wider Canon 24-105L and I could immediately tell that it wasn't Zeiss. There's really something special about the "pop", "3d", or whatever one wants to call it. Either way, I was planning on picking up the Samyang Cine series when I go to the states this summer but after having read this thread, the Contax collection has started growing. I'm building a 5-6 lense prime set for cine-modding eventually.

The other week I picked up the 50/1.4 and the 135/2.8 together for slightly less than $500, both complete with metal hoods, carrying bags, and 7-8 screw-on filters. These have been used for a grand total of about 10 rolls of film and are in pristine condition, both of them being AEJ. Gotta say, I really kind of enjoy the Ninja-Star, it's a very useful effect to have and if I don't want it on certain shots I just stop down or open up.

I'm looking to eventually get either two of the wide-angles or just all three of the killer ones: 35/1.4, 28/2.0, 21/2.8. The thing is I've found a guy who sells an MMG 35/1.4 for about $1000 close to where I live. It's in almost perfect condition but on one of the bottom lens elements there are these sparkly dots. I assumed it was oily haze, but I'm not sure. The owner had taken the lens to one of the leading optics experts in Stockholm. He said he wasn't sure what it was, that he couldn't fix it, and also that it didn't impact the pictures one bit.

I noticed I have similar sparkly dots in my 35-70/3.4 (also an MM). I figured if anyone in the world has seen this it would probably be Mr. Nick "Contax" Morrison himself. Any idea what this is? Is it possible to remove? From what I've understood, haze only worsens as time goes by which is what kind of upsets me. Am I paying a grand for a lens that's just started a downward spiral? Should I be worried, or should i just buy the 35 at that ridiculous price? One more thing is that the aperture ring has been declicked but not dampened which doesn't bother me much but it's kind of a bummer that it moves with the slightest touch.

The help is much appreciated.

Best Regards,
Oscar Stegland

Hey Oscar. Hard to tell what those "dots" are w/out seeing pics. Im my experience, buying lenses from individuals, and not from accredited photo stores, has usually led to my most disappointing experiences. I personally would not get that 35 1.4. Those dots sound like fungus (hence get "worse with time"), so I would play it safe, and "move along".

As Uli says, the 35 2.8 is also EXCELLENT (and very contrasty). Though you have the 35-70 so the 35 2.8 is only going to buy you half a stop, hardly worth the effort of getting the prime, come to think of it.

The 35 1.4, in my experience, is always expensive. Usually way north of $1k. It's very popular with the stills photographers as well, so there is a strong market for it.

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.

Also - about your 35 1.4, I am NOT A FAN of non-dampened de-clicked lenses. Loose irises can slip and move during interviews, altering exposure w/out you even realizing (something that's happened to a colleague of mine recently).

So that's another negative on that lens.

Sounds like dust to me. If not there could be some coating issues. However, a word to the wise, 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.

WOW. I want to buy lenses from where you're buying! $600 for a 35 1.4! I've only seen that price once, from a posting on craigslist, and I have to say…I was skeptical.

BTW. Clayton I finally got "The Rock". I can relax, and call myself a member of the club now. Getting it modded soon.

Sure? I've tried very hard to find a good 35/1.4 lately and they all went beyond 1K !

But the 1:2.8 is still cheap and a very good lens.

The 35 2.8 is a superb lens. It's so, so sharp. For the price, I think it's an unbelievable deal.

Should be on everyone's "intro set" when they want to jump into Contax, affordably.

 

[Randy Rubin]

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!