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

Ignasio,

The coating is different on my 20mm than the Zeiss. Also it has a nine blade iris that seems aftermarket as it opens well past 3.5 but the glass is limited to 3.5. Somewhat of a disappointment but a nice lens for S35.
 
Here's some stills from a piece I wrapped this weekend. Contax 35mm f.1.4, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm f/2.

43740328530_fdc9f1b607_h.jpg

43740328250_b2dc2577f8_h.jpg

44643792525_fb3b5916f5_h.jpg

43740327710_b050ff4047_h.jpg

44643791985_f60be4be46_h.jpg

44643791545_216dff612e_h.jpg

30616872867_1bfd16f1d0_h.jpg

43740326970_e0db13ea7e_h.jpg
 
Nick Morrison said:
Georgios I think your right - I've never seen anything earlier than 59, as far as I recall.
Click to expand...

I hunted for a long time and emailed various people and i don't think there is a source either. Interesting that there may be dates inside some of the lenses though. I've seen 58 and i've seen up to 83x

cheers
Paul
 
paulcurtis said:
I hunted for a long time and emailed various people and i don't think there is a source either. Interesting that there may be dates inside some of the lenses though. I've seen 58 and i've seen up to 83x

cheers
Paul
Click to expand...

I get a little confused these days because I look at so many old Arri mount lenses with serials in the 5's, that I've lost track. But now that I think of it 58's make sense. I guess 57 too. But definitely no 56 (I've only seen those on Arrri bayonet lenses).
 
Hey guys! I got a set of CY Zeiss and been happy with them for a couple of years now. My question is what is the like the max resolution they can handle? I shot the other day with the Helium in 8k on the 28mm 2.0 AEG and I saw a lot of CA in the high contrast areas. I’m not supersede because 8k is ridiculous but, what is everyone’s experience in regards to usable Resolution?
 
Ben Cotton said:
Hey guys! I got a set of CY Zeiss and been happy with them for a couple of years now. My question is what is the like the max resolution they can handle? I shot the other day with the Helium in 8k on the 28mm 2.0 AEG and I saw a lot of CA in the high contrast areas. I’m not supersede because 8k is ridiculous but, what is everyone’s experience in regards to usable Resolution?
Click to expand...

Ben CA has nothing to do with resolution.

You can use these lenses on any sensor up to full frame.

If you'd stopped down on the 28 Hollywood, the CA should go away by an F4.
 
I use my Contax lenses on a Sony A7R II with great results. It has 42 mpx…

Of course there are lenses which are not super sharp wide open (like the 25mm), but slightly stopped down they can compete with most modern glass.
 
Modern sensors can achieve 100-150 lp/mm at max, whilst the f2.8-f1.4 glass can reach 500-900 lp/mm in the center, so there's much room for sensor development
 
Infinity calibration

Infinity calibration

I am having issues reaching infinity on some of my lenses. AEG version. Are each focal lenght made differently? Found a guide to the 50mm 1.4, but the 35mm 1.4 seems different. Had anyone done this? I am on Raven, so no back focus adjustment for me :-)
 
Jonathan Grevsen said:
I am having issues reaching infinity on some of my lenses. AEG version. Are each focal lenght made differently? Found a guide to the 50mm 1.4, but the 35mm 1.4 seems different. Had anyone done this? I am on Raven, so no back focus adjustment for me :-)
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound right. What adapter are you using?
 
For the curious.
Contax Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 (MMJ 75xxxx) vs Zeiss Milvus Distagon 50/1.4

Here is a 250% crop of an out of focus background. Camera is BM Pocket4K in Loseless RAW; I understand this is not the best sensor to test exact sharpness but the look was my main target here. Both are shot at f2.8 but with unclicked iris so there might be a slight inconsistency. The same standard transform LUT was applied to both and nothing else was changed.

The differences to some might be subtle to others larger. The Milvus of course is a technically more advanced lenses but the reason we are here is because we do love those "imperfections" on the Contax lenses. I just wanted to try to quantify those differences a bit because there is so much talk online about how the Milvus is "too modern" or "lacks microcontrast" or the Contax being "too vintage". To people that don't have experience with both lenses they might expect something very dramatic in either side. Like, they might have expected the Contax performing much worse or having a very strong vintage look. Or might have expected the Milvus being even sharper or somehow magically give you the look of a Master Prime. Personally I expected a vast difference with that more "modern" character but what I see is the same Zeiss look I loved in my Contax lenses only more "perfect" - which for some projects might work better and others not.

Here is what I saw in my tests in general:
1) The Milvus as expected easily outperforms the Contax in terms of sharpness, definition and aberrations under f2.8. Then the contax catches up and by f4 they are quite identical in sharpness at least on this size of sensor.
2) When filmed against lights the Contax flares in many ways when the Milvus does not. When the Contax flares, a tint gradient (blue/purple) was applied across the whole shot. The Milvus remained controlled with clean blacks.
3) The 9 iris blades on the Milvus results into smoother bokeh and as a result into softer and more "diffused" highlights.
4) While the Contax is a little less contrasty in general (easily seen at the brown wood) some of the colors pop out more like more saturated or bit brighter (the yellow/orange cap). At the same time there are other colors that have that effect on the Milvus. Some of them are subtle some a little more noticeable but nothing extreme at all. There is definitely more contrast on some details on the Contax though - maybe the iris was a little more closed... or is this the famous "Micro Contrast"?
5) There doesn't seem to be any large difference in the white balance between the two lenses and generally I find them extremely compatible.

I will leave the rest of comparing to you since I believe there will be a lot of people with many different opinions :)

45256716_10155045100382168_1719124749725990912_o.jpg

45319102_10155045100407168_8394369342145298432_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
As I'm looking to expand my MM Contax Set I started looking at the "expensive 3". 21/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.4.
There are a good number of 21s and 35s MMs going around but the 28/2 seems to be extra challenging.
Here are the questions:
- was the 28/2 ever made in Japan as an MM? I see a couple of MMGs which are fine too but the serial seems to be at the 61xxxxx which is incredibly odd when compared with most MMs that start around 69xxxxx. Do these have a ninja-star iris although they are MMs?
- Has anybody seen any MM version of this lens that is not a 61xxxxx? Like 7xxxxxx?
- How different would the coatings be compared to the rest of my set (73xxxxx~75xxxxx)?

I'm thinking that if I can't get a hold of an MM that is in the 7xxxxx series and I'm stuck at the 61xxxx options potentially with a ninja-star anyways, perhaps I should just go for an AEJ 61xxxxx serial which are so much easier to find and cheaper.
Thanks :)
 
Hey guys I'm looking into either getting the 28mm 2.8 MMJ or the 35mm 2.8 MMJ and wondering on your thoughts about which generally has better optical qualities.

I notice the 35mm has more focus markings going to 5m where the 28mm goes to 2m which could be handy for better precision but other than that does one perform better than the other?

I only want to buy one for the moment and they serve a similar focal length depending on the cameras crop.

Thanks guys.
 
Ryan Payne said:
Hey guys I'm looking into either getting the 28mm 2.8 MMJ or the 35mm 2.8 MMJ and wondering on your thoughts about which generally has better optical qualities.

I notice the 35mm has more focus markings going to 5m where the 28mm goes to 2m which could be handy for better precision but other than that does one perform better than the other?

I only want to buy one for the moment and they serve a similar focal length depending on the cameras crop.

Thanks guys.
Click to expand...

Optically they are pretty similar in quality (as in both are VERY good).

Can't go wrong with either really.
 
What else do you have? I think the decision depends on that. Dont care too much about the focus markings, since they are probably off anyway, only true cine lenses have what we call witness marks.
Just use an FF and make your precise markings there.

Aesthetically the 35mm would be a 'normal' lens on S35, while the 28 is already a wide one. And I can confirm the impeccable quality of both!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top