Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Zack Birlew]

Zack I haven't encountered any of the problems you refer to and I use every Contax lens you mention there. Congratulations on your 80-200mm it produces an unbelievably beautiful image that you just wouldn't expect from that sort of zoom. Same for the 100-300mm and of course the 35-70mm.

If you’re talking about the 100-300 and 35-70, I’ve seen them come up fairly regularly with their separate issues, the 100-300 with its fogged glass and the 35-70 with some zoom issues most likely due to the bushings issue, very similar to the Canon FD 35-105 3.5 which can suffer from the same problem. This isn’t to say every lens will end up with these issues, except the 100-300’s glass over time, but if you search forum posts about wobbly fronts on the 35-70, you’ll see it’s there and as I looked for my zoom lenses, I noticed there were more 35-70’s on the lower end with mechanical issues from the last times I had searched around for Contax zooms. Looking back at it, one person wrote that the 35-70 in particular will be affected if treated harshly as it may be the only Contax Zeiss zoom with nylon bushings, the 28-85 definitely having metal bushings according to his tear downs, but even if that is the case, as with any push-pull zoom, be gentle with your zoom lenses, people!

 

[Neil Hodgkinson]

I’m selling a collection of the six most sort after Zeiss Contax primes and 2 Zeiss Contax zooms all cine-modded and in excellent condition.


2.8/21mm 8094790 MM

2/28mm 6090185 AE

1.4/35mm 7336689 MM

1.4/50mm 7494581 MM

1.4/85mm 7156019 MM

2/100mm 7010403 MM

3.4/35-70mm 7016527 MM

4/70-200mm 7220878 MM


They are all the slightly later MMs apart from the 28/2 which is an AE. I chose to collect just MMs or the AEs to get a match on colour for the set but the difference I found between the MMs and the AEs is so subtle to be barely discernible. There were some slight improvements made to a few lenses on the MMs so I went with the MMs.


All lenses have been cini-moded. De-clicked, the aperture and dampened, focus gears, Leitax hard EF mounts and universal 80mm front ends.


It’s extremely rear to see a complete collection of the best Contax primes in one place. I’ve been collecting Contax for over 10 years so it’s important to realise that for many of these lenses, I’ve bought 3 or more examples over the years to find one really pristine copy of each.


I’m asking £6500 for the set and I’m based in London.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Well, anybody notice an influx of Contax lenses on the auction sites? I saw a video on the 28mm F2 "Hollywood" and decided to take a look and there's just a lot of availability, even the Pentax K variant! Is it just the time of year or are the newer options out there finally biting into the Contax line?

Aside from that, I haven't been able to play with my Zeiss/Yashica set too much but I'm still leaning towards the newer ZF.2 and Milvus options if I'm looking for new Zeiss additions to my collection. However, I can't help but look elsewhere like the Sigma Art and even the Laowa Argus FF line, particularly their 28mm 1.4 and 28mm 1.2 respectively. Has anybody put these newer options up against the old "Hollywood" or is it just too different to call anything out?

 

[Steffen Loeffler]

Love the lens … all with RED Komodo and 28mm 2.0

 

[Daniele Barraco]

Hello guys!
I just bought a Contax Zeiss 28 2.8 MMJ but I noticed that little mount tongue typical on MM lens is cutted out (pic attached).
What would be the problem using it with EF mount?
Thanks in advance!

 

[Zack Birlew]

I wouldn't think so as the adapters would click in elsewhere. However, like my post above, it's been a bit since I dabbled with my Contax lenses, I've been playing with Nikon and Minoltas of late. I would say the best option is to try an adapter and see if there's any wobble or play. If you were hoping to use it on a Contax film camera I would say there would be an issue.

 

[Uli Plank]

Even if that little tongue shouldn't matter, I would rather consider a Leitax mount, Daniele. Unless there's another mount on the camera in your future, but the Leitax mount can always be reversed.

 

[Daniele Barraco]

I wouldn't think so as the adapters would click in elsewhere. However, like my post above, it's been a bit since I dabbled with my Contax lenses, I've been playing with Nikon and Minoltas of late. I would say the best option is to try an adapter and see if there's any wobble or play. If you were hoping to use it on a Contax film camera I would say there would be an issue.

Thank you Zack! Exactly my thoughts but I needed to be sure before keeping that lens and not return it.

 

[Daniele Barraco]

Even if that little tongue shouldn't matter, I would rather consider a Leitax mount, Daniele. Unless there's another mount on the camera in your future, but the Leitax mount can always be reversed.

Ciao Uli!
Thanks. Right now I’m using a cheap K&F adapter for initial test but I know Leitax and I will convert it with that one.
Last question: is that a way to fix the infinity focus issue that is passing infinity focus position on my 28 2.8 lens gear?
Thanks again for your time and your knowledge.

 

[Uli Plank]

So, if I understand you correctly, your lens is going beyond infinity, right? That's pretty normal with photographic lenses, they are made that way to avoid not reaching infinity under all temperatures.
But if you don't reach infinity, your adapter is a tad too thick. Not having a Red camera any more, I don't know if these mounts can be shimmed.

 

[Daniele Barraco]

So, if I understand you correctly, your lens is going beyond infinity, right? That's pretty normal with photographic lenses, they are made that way to avoid not reaching infinity under all temperatures.
But if you don't reach infinity, your adapter is a tad too thick. Not having a Red camera any more, I don't know if these mounts can be shimmed.

I see, shimming is to place very thin sheet of plastic /mylar film in order to micrometrical increase distance from lens to plane of sensor?
Thanks again Uli!

 

[Zack Birlew]

I see, shimming is to place very thin sheet of plastic /mylar film in order to micrometrical increase distance from lens to plane of sensor?
Thanks again Uli!

The inverse has also been true to gently shave an adapter with sand paper to be thinner if that is what is needed. I would research the topic more before committing to any modifications of your adapter. I don't have the 28mm 2.8 myself but if you are using a follow focus you could always just make a note on where your ideal infinity is as a simple solution. Another technique is that the 28mm 2.8 could just be a lens you don't rack focus with and instead focus on controlled camera movement and blocking if using it in motion. I know on our feature film, "The Diner" (working title), we had a small Sigma Super Wide II 24mm 2.8 lens that didn't have a very big focus throw for movie use but did a great job with our Rokinon Cine DS lenses and served as our "set it and forget it" wide angle lens of choice, especially during our gimbal scenes. If nothing else, practicing with the lens over time should help you determine how to work with it in case you need to rack focus.

 

[Uli Plank]

Just another small remark: shims are usually thin foils of metal, not to deform under pressure.

 

[Miguel Calderon]

Haven't been to this thread in a while but wanted to ask for your thoughts on mixing a Mamiya 645 Sekor C 80 f1.9 with a Contax Zeiss set?
Obviously in lieu of the 85 f1.4.
I made a few quick tests and while the color rendering is a tad different and the flares differ, they seem in a similar ballpark in terms of vintage vibe. Will they mix well in a shoot? Maybe the colors in a real scene would be different in the end.
Everyone rages about the 645 glass now.
I love my Contax 21, 28 and 35, and I know I can't get those on the Mamiya.