Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Have other people had problems unscrewing the screws to attach the Leitax mount. I seem to press all I can while turning, but it is practically impossible to turn the screws before the screwdriver grinds the notch. It's my first attempt to convert at 35mm f2.8 MMJ Contax lens.

Your lens probably has some sort of bonding agent affixed to the screws as some Contax lenses have in the past. They are very very difficult to remove by yourself without stripping them. I'd take your lens to a local shop and have them convert it for you.

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

Your lens probably has some sort of bonding agent affixed to the screws as some Contax lenses have in the past. They are very very difficult to remove by yourself without stripping them. I'd take your lens to a local shop and have them convert it for you.

As I managed to release two screws, the notch on the two screws left unfortunately got smashed which has made it impossible to release them. I don't know any alternatives and I don't know of such a store nearby where I live in Copenhagen, and frankly I don't want to get the screws removed at any cost since that seems to be the whole point of buying into Contax lenses. I don't know what kind of metal these screws are made of but it certainly don't seems like they were put there to be released. As of now I'll go with the Big_is adapter instead. Hopefully it will still be possible to get the lens modified for cine lenses.

 

[Tom Greenberg]

RP Lens does great Leitax conversions, quite inexpensively for the amount of work involved. I'd suggest contacting Peter: peter@rplens.com

 

[Robert Rif]

For your stubborn screws, from an old lens service manual;

"Before attempting to remove any screws, apply ketone solvent such as acetone, or methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) around the screw to soften the thread sealant. If the screw does not readily release, apply more solvent./.../ In some cases the tip of a hot soldering iron will soften the thread sealant and allow a screw to be removed."

 

[Nick Morrison]

Your lens probably has some sort of bonding agent affixed to the screws as some Contax lenses have in the past. They are very very difficult to remove by yourself without stripping them. I'd take your lens to a local shop and have them convert it for you.

As Shervin correctly points out, some Contax primes are known to have "glue" added to secure the screws further. Not all of them mind you, just some. When you stumble on it, it can be a bit troublesome. In those cases, it's probably best to have a lens tech step in and help.

RP Lens does great Leitax conversions, quite inexpensively for the amount of work involved. I'd suggest contacting Peter: peter@rplens.com

As Tom says, Peter at RP Lens is one such tech...especially stateside here. He's done great work for us.

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Picked up the 85mm Sonnar 2.8 for my Contax RX (I do quite a bit of film photography now) and I put it up against my 85mm Planar 1.4. Both lenses are MM (1.4 is MMJ and 2.8 is MMG) Both here shown at F2.8. 100% crops, untouched 5D Mark II stills. Can you tell which is which?

 

[Samir Patel]

1.4 on the bottom

 

[Matthew Robertson]

Sonnar on the bottom

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Sonnar on the bottom

You got it.

It's really interesting to see the 85 2.8 performs on par with the much bigger, heavier and more expensive 1.4 at the same aperture. I'd even go to some extent and say the 85 2.8 has a more pleasing image to the eye.

One thing is certain though, the slower 2.8 versions of the 1.4's are absolute steals for the money.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

The only difference I see is a little more green aberration on the highlights of the photo on top. That's not a bad thing, mind you. The green/magenta aberration is something I actually like about the old Zeiss look. Much more pleasing to me than Red/Blue aberrations.

 

[George Su]

does anyone know of a good lens repair place for contax?
ive got an AE 28mm f2 that won't focus past 1 foot.

 

[Nick Morrison]

You got it.

It's really interesting to see the 85 2.8 performs on par with the much bigger, heavier and more expensive 1.4 at the same aperture. I'd even go to some extent and say the 85 2.8 has a more pleasing image to the eye.

One thing is certain though, the slower 2.8 versions of the 1.4's are absolute steals for the money.

I agree 1000% percent. The 2.8's ARE AMAZING LENSES.

As I said before, I remember hearing that a well known Zeiss engineer's FAVORITE lens EVER...was the Contax 85 2.8. Their was a "snap" to it he adored.

From your test, we can maybe see why he loved it so much. You are right, it DOES look great. But you can also see the "feathery-ness" of the 1.4 that some people respond to also.

And bear in mind, the 85 1.4 "allegedly" had a tiny change in it's design when it evolved from AE to MM. The MM version is supposed to be a tiny bit better WO. However, there are a number of folks who missed some of the "look" of the AE, so who knows...maybe we need to compare those two at some pont as well.

 

[Nick Morrison]

does anyone know of a good lens repair place for contax?
ive got an AE 28mm f2 that won't focus past 1 foot.

Maybe PETER at RP lens? Or Duclos?

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Finally my converted Contax N 24-85 arrived.

First Impression: Pretty solid, only quality deterrent is the use of an extending dual cam zoom mechanism, so there's a bit of play between the stages. A dual cam zooming mechanism means it's going to be a dust sucker (And there's a few specks of dust in it already)... but hey, a Contax zoom with TWO TOUCH? Hell yea! Focus ring turns a full 180 degrees (Really quite nice feeling too). Zoom ring is nice and smooth... has a little bit of zoom creep but it's not noticeable at all if the lens is horizontal. Hood is nice... not going to see much use in a mattebox though. Lens has an 82mm filter size so you're most likely going to have to get a step up ring to a 95 if you're going to seriously use this lens.

Performance: Sharp at all focal lengths. Almost ZERO chromatic aberration on the wide end or the tele end which is surprising. Rich saturated colors, yet subtle and not too overly punchy. I'm really really liking the contrast character of this lens as it's reminding me of the 100 F2 and the 35-70 f3.4 already. The image at max aperture does suffer coma and a soft haze ONLY slightly... this could be a benefit shooting people and skin as it does a nice job of rendering wide open as stepped down it's brutally sharp. Distortion is well controlled. Zooming is not parfocal. Flare resistance is exceptional (If you like flares, stay away from this lens).

I wouldn't recommend this lens as a 1st purchase for using it on a RED Epic or Scarlet as it's more of a lens for the adventurous type. I could see this lens being a hit with landscape or dude who like to shoot stuff stationary. The focus rotation is 180 degree's but it's not responsive (Need a bit of a push to come into affect), so focus marks on this lens are basically worthless. Otherwise the character this lens has is worth every penny to the Contax connoisseurs. Paired on an Epic and shot at a scene with some nice lighting, you are going to get some pretty exceptional results...

In conclusion, if you're looking for a lens with a metric shit ton of 3D contrast goodness, don't need an extremely fast wide aperture lens, and can live with some mechanical drawbacks, this is your lens. For the image it produces it's well worth finding and owning one.

Just for shits and giggles, here's a still of my dog shot at f/5 at 85mm. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51913995/IMG_3864.jpg

Photozone review: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/261...45-n-contax-n-to-canon-ef-review--test-report

 

[Nick Morrison]

Finally my converted Contax N 24-85 arrived.

First Impression: Pretty solid, only quality deterrent is the use of an extending dual cam zoom mechanism, so there's a bit of play between the stages. A dual cam zooming mechanism means it's going to be a dust sucker (And there's a few specks of dust in it already)... but hey, a Contax zoom with TWO TOUCH? Hell yea! Focus ring turns a full 180 degrees (Really quite nice feeling too). Zoom ring is nice and smooth... has a little bit of zoom creep but it's not noticeable at all if the lens is horizontal. Hood is nice... not going to see much use in a mattebox though. Lens has an 82mm filter size so you're most likely going to have to get a step up ring to a 95 if you're going to seriously use this lens.

Performance: Sharp at all focal lengths. Almost ZERO chromatic aberration on the wide end or the tele end which is surprising. Rich saturated colors, yet subtle and not too overly punchy. I'm really really liking the contrast character of this lens as it's reminding me of the 100 F2 and the 35-70 f3.4 already. The image at max aperture does suffer coma and a soft haze ONLY slightly... this could be a benefit shooting people and skin as it does a nice job of rendering wide open as stepped down it's brutally sharp. Distortion is well controlled. Zooming is not parfocal. Flare resistance is exceptional (If you like flares, stay away from this lens).

I wouldn't recommend this lens as a 1st purchase for using it on a RED Epic or Scarlet as it's more of a lens for the adventurous type. I could see this lens being a hit with landscape or dude who like to shoot stuff stationary. The focus rotation is 180 degree's but it's not responsive (Need a bit of a push to come into affect), so focus marks on this lens are basically worthless. Otherwise the character this lens has is worth every penny to the Contax connoisseurs. Paired on an Epic and shot at a scene with some nice lighting, you are going to get some pretty exceptional results...

In conclusion, if you're looking for a lens with a metric shit ton of 3D contrast goodness, don't need an extremely fast wide aperture lens, and can live with some mechanical drawbacks, this is your lens. For the image it produces it's well worth finding and owning one.

Just for shits and giggles, here's a still of my dog shot at f/5 at 85mm. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51913995/IMG_3864.jpg

Photozone review: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/261...45-n-contax-n-to-canon-ef-review--test-report

Thanks for the write up Shervin!

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Thanks for the write up Shervin!

I'm expecting you to scurry out and grab one of these from photography forum classifieds. Don't let me down dude!

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'm expecting you to scurry out and grab one of these from photography forum classifieds. Don't let me down dude!

Haha, I've been poking around.

 

[Domenic Barbero]

Finally picked up a 100mm 2.0. Holy crap man. Such a nice lens, though set me back a few bucks. But its mint. Took some pics. First pic is 4/5.6 split with hollywood black magic 1/2. The second is same ap, but no filter.

Graded in lightroom. some sharpening applied as well as some contrast. shot on epic 5k 5:1

This lens does breathe a bit more than i was hoping, but damn the image is real nice.

 

[Matthew Robertson]

You got it.

It's really interesting to see the 85 2.8 performs on par with the much bigger, heavier and more expensive 1.4 at the same aperture. I'd even go to some extent and say the 85 2.8 has a more pleasing image to the eye.

One thing is certain though, the slower 2.8 versions of the 1.4's are absolute steals for the money.

No doubt. I've got the 85mm f1.4 and the 85mm f2.8 and I actually prefer the 2.8. My 2.8 AE is fantastic. Doesn't have ninja star bokeh either. The rendering tends to be a little more towards the magenta side with the f1.4 having more green in its rendering. My 85 is also a few mm longer than the 85 f1.4 interestingly.

 

[Brice Ansel]

I didn't have the oportunity to push the 60 s Planar on insects shots yet.
But the other day I coudn't resist to give a try on a Jasmin Bush.

This lense is trully amazing, a lot hapen threw that glass when the light hits it.
More closer you are to the 1:1 focus and more color and 3D magic you get.

4KWS (ctrl+click for biger pic)

E viva.
B.