Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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

Hello,

Thanks for all the great advice in this thread - especially Nick Morrison. I've finally got a full set of MMs together which I'm eventually planning on rehousing with GL optics. I wondered if anyone had some recent experience of them? I emailed Nan and he sent over some images of a rehouse (I've attached a pic) and they look different to all the others I could find in this thread.

Until I can get the rehousing done properly in a few months I was going to get some gears. I bought Cool-lux ones but they're a little disappointing - not solid enough and they sometimes slip. Has anyone used the Cordvisions? The easy install version seems better than something you need to put in the oven.. https://www.cordvision.com/shop/lens-gears/lens-gear-easy-install/

Very best
Martin
 

Attachments

  • NAN.jpg
    NAN.jpg
    89.8 KB · Views: 1
Jake Wilganowski said:
What’s this? Some sort of variant of the 28mm Hollywood?
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?183211-CARL-ZEISS-28mm-f2-HFT-QBM
Click to expand...

I believe it is... there are 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 Rollei lenses, too, with the reuleaux triangle apertures similar to old B speeds.

The older Rollei QBM mount lenses are also earlier versions of later Contax lenses.

Not sure if HFT coating is rebranded T* or not.

There's also a 28mm f2 Pentax with the same design.... and possibly a 28mm Contarex prototype?
 
Concerning the HFT vs T coating debate, Dante Stella had provided this pretty interesting explanation in his website (the link no longer works, found on Fredmiranda).

He essentially claims that all the Zeiss Rolleis made in Zeiss Oberkochen actually had the T coating but were branded as HFT in order for Rollei to keep consistency in their product range.

"How do Zeiss T* and Rollei HFT compare?

Since this has recently grown into a frequently asked question we feel it is appropriate to provide an official and unequivocal answer from Carl Zeiss:

HFT, meaning "High Fidelity Transfer", is a multi-layer anti-reflection coating system co-developed by Zeiss and Rollei. This occurred several decades ago at a time when Zeiss T* coating was new on the market and could only be applied at the Zeiss Oberkochen plant to rather small camera lens production batches. Rollei envisaged very large volume production in their then new Singapore plant and therefore encouraged this joint development.

Today the situation is this: HFT has become a well established trademark for Rollei's proprietary multi-layer anti-reflection coating. The optical performance of this Zeiss/Rollei co-development is so close to the performance of the original Zeiss T* that one can hardly detect any difference in all practical picture taking.

The Planar®, Distagon®, Sonnar® lenses that Rollei produces under license from Carl Zeiss are all HFT coated by Rollei. All the lenses that Carl Zeiss produces for Rollei at the Zeiss Oberkochen plant are actually Zeiss T*. coated. However, the designation on these lenses is "HFT" in the interest of remaining fully consistent throughout the Rollei product range. "
 
After a few years of experience while working with Red cameras, I finally bought my own! Love these cameras and also the community. My son and I went out to visit family and we made a short family film while testing the brain after my purchase.

100% filmed on Zeiss Contax lenses....

enjoy!

Scarlet W
Zeiss Contax cinemod lenses

OnTheFarmsmall.jpg


https://vimeo.com/457444161
 
Hello community,

I’m a new user here at the forum and I’ve been amazed by all the info regarding Contax Zeiss lenses on this thread!
It’s hard not to be seduced, so I’ve decided to develop my kit for cinema purposes, MM actually, since I’m not a fan of the ninja star bokeh.

I do analog photography as well and already have a Contax 139 + 50/1.7 MMJ (which I love)

I’ve just ordered the 35-70/3.4 MMJ, mostly for the flexibility and because I’ve heard great things about it.

In terms of primes, I plan on getting the 85/1.4 . I’ll possibly upgrade to the 50/1,4 as well later down the road.

I have doubts where to go on the wider end.
I really like 35mm. Sadly, the 35/1.4 is out of my budget, so I won’t be getting it any time soon. I guess I could sacrifice the 85/1.4 (for now), but it’s still a hard pill to swallow!
I’m not sure if the 35/2.8 would make sense to me since I went for the 35-70 /3.4 for more flexibility, as mentioned.

So that leaves me with the 25/2.8 or 28/2.8
I’m leaning towards the 28 since I’ve heard the 25 MM is not that great wide open, but I wonder if what I’ll lose in sharpness I’ll gain in overall coverage for my set.

For now, I shoot full frame on mirrorless camera, but I plan on getting a RED Komodo when it’s available, so I guess I should also keep that difference in sensors in mind...

If you guys have any thoughts or suggestions, I’ll appreciate it.

Greetings from Spain!

Miguel
 
Miguel Calderon said:
Hello community,

I’m a new user here at the forum and I’ve been amazed by all the info regarding Contax Zeiss lenses on this thread!
It’s hard not to be seduced, so I’ve decided to develop my kit for cinema purposes, MM actually, since I’m not a fan of the ninja star bokeh.

I do analog photography as well and already have a Contax 139 + 50/1.7 MMJ (which I love)

I’ve just ordered the 35-70/3.4 MMJ, mostly for the flexibility and because I’ve heard great things about it.

In terms of primes, I plan on getting the 85/1.4 . I’ll possibly upgrade to the 50/1,4 as well later down the road.

I have doubts where to go on the wider end.
I really like 35mm. Sadly, the 35/1.4 is out of my budget, so I won’t be getting it any time soon. I guess I could sacrifice the 85/1.4 (for now), but it’s still a hard pill to swallow!
I’m not sure if the 35/2.8 would make sense to me since I went for the 35-70 /3.4 for more flexibility, as mentioned.

So that leaves me with the 25/2.8 or 28/2.8
I’m leaning towards the 28 since I’ve heard the 25 MM is not that great wide open, but I wonder if what I’ll lose in sharpness I’ll gain in overall coverage for my set.

For now, I shoot full frame on mirrorless camera, but I plan on getting a RED Komodo when it’s available, so I guess I should also keep that difference in sensors in mind...

If you guys have any thoughts or suggestions, I’ll appreciate it.

Greetings from Spain!

Miguel
Click to expand...

Hey Miguel, I have the 25, 28, 35, 85, all at 2.8 aperture as well as the 50 at 1.7. All are MMJ.
In my sharpness testing of the lenses there were no surprises. Everything that was said about the sharpness of these lenses on the following website (http://slrlensreview.com/web/review...9-carl-zeiss-planar-t-50mm-f17-cy-lens-review), was the same with my set.

The 28 2.8 is definitely much sharper than the 25 2.8 in the corners. It blows it away. The 25 2.8 never really gets super sharp in the corners but gets close around F8/F11
That does not mean the 25 2.8 is bad though! I love the center sharpness and the look of the lens and I need that focal length.
The 28 2.8 is also sharper than the 35 2.8 but I still need the 35 2.8 because of its focal length ;)
I think 28 2.8 would be your best bet for the first wide angle Contax. Though it's going to be less of a wide angle feel difference compared to the 25 and your 35-70 ;)
 
LEITAX VS SIMMOD

LEITAX VS SIMMOD

Hey everyone, I'm about to get hard EF mount rings for my Contax set (25 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.7, 85 2.8 and 135 2.8, all MMJ).
Is there a big difference between LEITAX and SIMMOD?
I'm pretty convinced to go for the LEITAX but maybe there's really no difference other than the brand recognition?
If so SIMMOD would fit me better because of the little price difference.
The most important thing for me is to have as little flex as possible.

Also, can the Leitax's be mounted so that the Contax lenses can be angled at a 90 degree (better view for the camera operator of focus distance marks) ?

Hope to hear back soon and kind greetings!

Ignacy
 
Ignacy Heringa said:
Hey Miguel, I have the 25, 28, 35, 85, all at 2.8 aperture as well as the 50 at 1.7. All are MMJ.
In my sharpness testing of the lenses there were no surprises. Everything that was said about the sharpness of these lenses on the following website (http://slrlensreview.com/web/review...9-carl-zeiss-planar-t-50mm-f17-cy-lens-review), was the same with my set.

The 28 2.8 is definitely much sharper than the 25 2.8 in the corners. It blows it away. The 25 2.8 never really gets super sharp in the corners but gets close around F8/F11
That does not mean the 25 2.8 is bad though! I love the center sharpness and the look of the lens and I need that focal length.
The 28 2.8 is also sharper than the 35 2.8 but I still need the 35 2.8 because of its focal length ;)
I think 28 2.8 would be your best bet for the first wide angle Contax. Though it's going to be less of a wide angle feel difference compared to the 25 and your 35-70 ;)
Click to expand...

Hi Ignacy,
Yep, I went for the 28! I found a nice deal on ebay so let’s hope that turns out well (seller has good reputation, so I think it’ll be alright)
I used ti have a 24-105 lens and never went all wide, so I think 28 will be enough for me.
Now on to the 85/1.4 and 50/1.4 :)

Cheers
 
Miguel Calderon said:
Hi Ignacy,
Yep, I went for the 28! I found a nice deal on ebay so let’s hope that turns out well (seller has good reputation, so I think it’ll be alright)
I used ti have a 24-105 lens and never went all wide, so I think 28 will be enough for me.
Now on to the 85/1.4 and 50/1.4 :)

Cheers
Click to expand...


Excellent. Enjoy these great lenses! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top