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 Survival Guide

Georgios Tryfonas said:
Hello Patrick. First I'm assuming you have the lenses Leitaxed; if not the same advice below should be still valid. Depending on the lenses it might be just the pin or both the pin and the guard. I would suggest you start with the pin and check how the lenses work. Always talking about MM lenses since I don't have experience with AE lenses. I was also very scared and a bit "turned off" to be honest when I got my first Contax Zeiss and was reading about all this pin situation and speedboosters. I was thinking why would I need to file or cut a perfectly fine lenses? And I was a bit scared about it as well. Turns out it feels more like fixing the lenses for our modern use rather than ruining them. Do mind this procedure is not just about speedboosters. Many DSLR users also need to take care of the pin and the guard otherwise the lens can damage the mirror.

The pin:
- Best option and the easiest and safest in my opinion is to simply cut off the pin slightly. I'm attaching an image of the simple tool I'm using - I have already cut the one in the photo by the way. It might take a little power to cut the metal pin and it probably won't cut in the first go. But every time you try you cut the metal a bit more so eventually it will cut. You can try swinging a bit left a right as well to make the cut deeper. You can cut it off as much as the Leitax mount allows you to. It will be more than enough to fit in the speedbooster. You might want to cover the back of the lenses with a cleaning cloth or something just in case.
- Second option is filling down the pin. It's not a bad idea but it's the less elegant in my opinion. The problem is that wherever that filing tool touches the black paint will come off. Also the pin moves, making it much harder to accurately file. As it was suggested by Steven above who has had great success with this method, you can tape things around and cover the rest of the lenses which makes things a little easier. But still you will be grinding some metal and you need to be really careful and make sure you clean well because you don't want any of the filled metal to touch your glass of course. I have done this on my first lenses after reading advice online and I was a bit in an agony during the procedure and I also slightly scratched the mount around the pin a bit. So if you do it this way make sure you really tape everything around the top well so the pin is steady and you don't scratch the paint of the mount off.
- The most elegant but also more complicated solution is to remove the pin completely. If you have the money and there is a local lens guy that would do it for you, this is an excellent option. For the sake of being complete I will explain here in case you want to do it on your own. The pin can be removed by taking off the Leitax mount and then the C/Y mount. The main lens can be covered and let alone away while working on the mount. If the aperture ring is removed you can simply add it back by paying attention that the aperture ring pin inserts properly into the aperture lever. The C/Y mount has two separable parts. The pin is part of the top part. Depending on the lenses it could be a little different but generally it involves some unscrewing and it might need a lens wrench for comfortable results. It's nothing complicated or dangerous for the operation of the lenses. You could technically just force the whole thing off (not recommended!) and everything would still be alright when you put the whole thing back as those parts are not even needed for modern filmmaking. I can't take the responsibility to suggest it though if you are not comfortable with opening the lenses in the first place. Do mind that this solution is completely not destructive and it means that one day you could be putting everything back together and sell that lens back to a photographer with an old Contax camera that will need those pins. That's if your lenses are already Leitaxed. A little warning in case your lenses are not Leitaxed already and you just have the original C/Y mounts: there is a large risk of stripping the original screws while attempting to unscrew the mount. There is a whole procedure for unscrewing the mount without risk the first time and a whole complex procedure for taking care of any stripped screws. You definitely don't want to go down this more complicated path unless you are interested in completely modding the lenses on your own.

The guard:
The guard can't be removed unless you remove the whole part of the mount letting some part of the lenses exposed. So cutting it or filing it is the better option. In some lenses it's plastic and can be easily cut. In others it's metallic and might be harder to cut so the best idea is to file it instead making sure you have put something over the back lens to protect it. Again it might not be a problem at all so make sure you test after taking care the pin and act accordingly.


In all cases, make sure you start off from your cheapest lenses of course. If you feel uncomfortable or not confident about something take it really really slow and maybe come back to it later. I think cutting is so simple, easy and not-dangerous so you should be fine!
Click to expand...

Georgios, many thanks for your feedback! Yes, all my lenses are already Leitaxed. Those look like 'diagonal pliers' to me (like the image attached, can you confirm?)... I'll go and pick some up this evening and see if I can do the modifications over the weekend! Thanks for your insights
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-07-27 at 8.38.34 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2018-07-27 at 8.38.34 AM.jpg
    16.7 KB · Views: 0
Ben Scott said:
Hi all,

Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in....

Building a new set from scratch, starting with another 28-85 (after I broke my old one) and a 100mm Planar F2.

Anyone bought one of those pricey 'mint' 35mm f1.4 MMJs on Ebay from Japan? Are they in as good condition as they seem?
Click to expand...

We got one of those mint 35 1.4 MMJ's a while back and it was legit. But only from the main power sellers.
 
Ben Scott said:
28-85 and 28 f/2 arrived from Japan in stunning condition. Seems like the real deal, even if dealing with customs was a pain.
Click to expand...

Is the 28-85 usable with a matte box? I figured the lens is a push-pull and the front barrel rotates when focusing, you would run into problems?. (I don't own a matte box, yet)

I've been searching for an 82mm lens hood that'll block enough light @85 but not vignette @28 as well, but the options are very few, maybe a collapsable rubber hood?
 
Nick Morrison said:
We got one of those mint 35 1.4 MMJ's a while back and it was legit. But only from the main power sellers.
Click to expand...

Hi Nick, you often mention "Power Seller." How do you identify a Power Seller? Or is it a specific group of sellers? Thanks!
 
William Long said:
Gene, they are the sellers that have enormous volume and very high approval ratings.
It actually says "Power Seller" next to their details with some sort of funny shooting star or whatever.
Good luck and happy hunting!
Click to expand...

What Will said.
 
Wyant Nguyen said:
Is the 28-85 usable with a matte box? I figured the lens is a push-pull and the front barrel rotates when focusing, you would run into problems?. (I don't own a matte box, yet)

I've been searching for an 82mm lens hood that'll block enough light @85 but not vignette @28 as well, but the options are very few, maybe a collapsable rubber hood?
Click to expand...

We don't use the 28-85 with a traditional Mattebox for that reason. We use a small clamp on shade Schneider custom made for us. Even though the 28-85 is 82mm, even stepped down to 77mm it doesn't vignette on s35 sensors (at least in our experience). For whatever it's worth.
 
I really like what I've seen with the Contax Zeiss. What do you guys think about vintage Nikon AIS vs Contax Zeiss? The main reason is the Nikon AIS are far easy to get ahold of and a lot cheaper for a set.
 
Also, have you guys seen these Anamorphic Oval Mod's done to Contax Zeiss? It looks AMAZING. Do you know anywhere in the USA that can do this mod? The less destructive version where you can still change the iris, but it needs to be at a certain F-Stop for the best Oval Bokeh.

Jason Wingrove - 2X Oval Mod, Zeiss Contax
https://vimeo.com/121985257

Another 2X Oval Mod, Zeiss Contax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eis-aY9lemM&t=85s
 
Gene Sung said:
I really like what I've seen with the Contax Zeiss. What do you guys think about vintage Nikon AIS vs Contax Zeiss? The main reason is the Nikon AIS are far easy to get ahold of and a lot cheaper for a set.
Click to expand...

The Nikons are lovely and have a 'creamier' rendition than the Zeiss glass but mechanically they are not on the same level even if you ignore the wrong focus direction. Small focus throws as well.
 
I'm not really convinced by these anamorphic mods. They don't look like the real thing by far. It's not only about light streaks (which would have been nice in the KFC video).
You know that DaVinci Resolve 15, which went final today, has a pretty sophisticated lens reflections simulation now, do you?
It goes a long way to avoid inserting a Nylon thread into your beautiful glass, reacting convincingly to the position of lights in the frame. Only thing they can't do is simulation off-frame light sources.
Well, if we can frame larger and crop in post from oversampled sources, they could do even that.

But IMHO, even the way these Oval Mod lenses transition into the typical deformed bokeh when changing focus looks kind of fake. I think it's a shame to do this to lovely C/Y glass.

BTW, they should get some ND filters for shooting in sunlight ;-)
 
Uli Plank said:
I'm not really convinced by these anamorphic mods. They don't look like the real thing by far. It's not only about light streaks (which would have been nice in the KFC video).
You know that DaVinci Resolve 15, which went final today, has a pretty sophisticated lens reflections simulation now, do you?
It goes a long way to avoid inserting a Nylon thread into your beautiful glass, reacting convincingly to the position of lights in the frame. Only thing they can't do is simulation off-frame light sources.
Well, if we can frame larger and crop in post from oversampled sources, they could do even that.

But IMHO, even the way these Oval Mod lenses transition into the typical deformed bokeh when changing focus looks kind of fake. I think it's a shame to do this to lovely C/Y glass.

BTW, they should get some ND filters for shooting in sunlight ;-)
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, I'd hate to butcher my lenses like that.
 
"BTW, they should get some ND filters for shooting in sunlight ;-)"

I am amazed that something so basic- that in cinema we are limited by shutter speed- that people invest in lenses that they do not buy the proper ND filtration to use any lens that they buy to it's full potential. To have to stop down because of necessity and not intent is amateur hour.
 
Well, stopping down may be an aesthetic decision, but stuttering motion due to short exposure times is normally not (if you are not shooting a sequel to "Saving Private Ryan").
 
Hi Nick,

Just to clarify on the Ninja Star.

You wrote on Page 1: “In my experience, ALL AE’s have the Ninja-Star.”

But further down you wrote: “For example, I notice it by far the most on my 35 1.4 and 85 1.4. It doesn’t really ever pop up on my 25 2.8, 28 f2, 50 1.4, or 135 2.8”

When you say “It doesn’t really ever pop up on my 25 2.8, 28 f2, 50 1.4, or 135 2.8” are you referring to your AE lenses still? Sorry, this is a bit confusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top