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

Ben Scott said:
Those hoods look fascinating Alfonso. I can't make up my mind if they'd make my life easier or not.
Click to expand...
The small lens like the 25, 28 and 50 is easier to make the change of focus, and you have more presicion with follow focus because of increasing diameter to 114mm but you have to use mattbox to see the mark for distance.
 
Good lord the 135 has too much 3D. Stopped down this thing is a beast!

135still1.jpg

135still2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Shervin Mandgaryan said:
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?

IMG_3823.jpg

IMG_3822.jpg
Click to expand...

it appears the oof rolloff is very different...probably that's why the 85 2.8 usually gives the appearance of a sharper image, the focus area seems deeper, even at the same stop.
 
Brice, this is one of my FAVORITES!!! This clip is SICK!!! So Beautiful!!!!

Brice Ansel said:
Having a push and pull design for filming a very fast hunter like the Hornet is more than welcome.
I was actually able to reframe in a snap while the fast subject change direction.
Sharpness isn't bad for a 2K WS Format thought.

Few more sample for the love of Contax Bokeh.

100/300 MM and 60 AE
Cheers.
B.
Click to expand...
 
Absolutely, the combination of micro contrast and bokeh in this one (and a few others in the line) is unique!

BTW, I have tested a Rokkor 35-70mm against it's Zeiss C/Y brother (or sister?) by now. They are pretty much head-to-head, actually. The Rokkor is a tad sharper in the corners WO in the longer range, while the Zeiss has a bit less CA (actually, close to none) on the wide end (the Rokkor has a little bit there). But these are both as close to primes as it will get in this price range (and far beyond).

I also tried to check consistency of colors with a DSC chart for some of my lenses today. This is what I found:
– the Rokkors are remarkably consistent in color, even over generations like MC and MD
– the Contax Zeiss' are less consistent and a bit cooler in general
– the 35-70mm Contax and Rokkor are pretty close in color

I'll stick to the Rokkor zoom, though, since it's two-touch. With a focus gear-ring attached to the zoom ring I can make a buttery smooth push-in or creep-out – impossible with the Zeiss.

Consequently, the Zeiss 35-70 is on Ebay right now, until the weekend: 231000810572
(I'm in Europe, shipping overseas might not make much economical sense)
 
OTOH, the Zeiss C/Y ones have less CA in most cases (apart from the 25mm vs. 24mm Rokkor).
 
Another week, another lens. This time it's the 100mm F3.5 Sonnar.

I remember Nick talking about this lens quite some time ago so I decided to purchase it and give it a whirl. Never in my life have I experienced this much bang for buck in ANY optic before. Small, lightweight, metal, super sharp, contrasty and smooth bokeh rolled into one. I seriously think that this lens, along with the 50mm 1.7 Planar should be the defacto 'gateway drugs' into the Contax world. The Sonnar has something quite magical to it that I really can't describe.

If you're reading this I strongly urge you to run out and get this lens. I picked my MMJ copy for $250. The only real drawback that exists is that it's F3.5. A deal breaker for some, but for deep focus lovers like me, it's not an issue.
 
Shervin Mandgaryan said:
Another week, another lens. This time it's the 100mm F3.5 Sonnar.

I remember Nick talking about this lens quite some time ago so I decided to purchase it and give it a whirl. Never in my life have I experienced this much bang for buck in ANY optic before. Small, lightweight, metal, super sharp, contrasty and smooth bokeh rolled into one. I seriously think that this lens, along with the 50mm 1.7 Planar should be the defacto 'gateway drugs' into the Contax world. The Sonnar has something quite magical to it that I really can't describe.

If you're reading this I strongly urge you to run out and get this lens. I picked my MMJ copy for $250. The only real drawback that exists is that it's F3.5. A deal breaker for some, but for deep focus lovers like me, it's not an issue.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA!! Totally agree. If you look at the MTF charts, the 100 3.5 ranks as one of the SHARPEST of all Contax primes - and is certainly a contender for sharpest Contax telephoto.

And it's such a tiny lens, too....go figure.

WIDE OPEN, it sharper than the fabled 100 f2 at any aperture (you read that right). And WIDE OPEN it's also as sharp as the 100 2.8 Macro STOPPED DOWN. At 5.6...it outresolves both of its bigger brothers.

It's basically the 85 2.8...ON CRACK.

So glad you took the plunge!

It's astonishing to think...a set of the 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.7, and 100 3.5 can have you shooting razor sharp Zeiss shots...for absurdly little $$$.
 
Last edited:
Shervin Mandgaryan said:
If you're reading this I strongly urge you to run out and get this lens. I picked my MMJ copy for $250. The only real drawback that exists is that it's F3.5. A deal breaker for some, but for deep focus lovers like me, it's not an issue.
Click to expand...

No! No! No! 35mm 1.4 is next. Don't distract me!
 
Nick Morrison said:
It's astonishing to think...a set of the 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.7, and 100 3.5 can have you shooting razor sharp Zeiss shots...for absurdly little $$$.
Click to expand...

Fully agreed. It's almost ridiculous to think you can get this quality of glass for incredibly cheap. The little brothers of the bigger F1.4 lenses are such amazing value for the money. It's a shame Zeiss isn't continuing the tradition of making slower glass but I guess that would just cannibalize their sales! Lenses of an era gone by that are totally kickass!
 
Shervin Mandgaryan said:
Fully agreed. It's almost ridiculous to think you can get this quality of glass for incredibly cheap. The little brothers of the bigger F1.4 lenses are such amazing value for the money. It's a shame Zeiss isn't continuing the tradition of making slower glass but I guess that would just cannibalize their sales! Lenses of an era gone by that are totally kickass!
Click to expand...
I am totally on board with this. I have the 25, 28, 35, 60, 135 and 180...all in 2.8, and the 100/3.5...they are all incredible lenses...super sharp...great color rendition, beautiful focus depth. I don't know why the current thinking is that only super-fast lenses are worthwhile...just add some more light...sheesh. I always try to light to 4.5 or 5.6 anyway...and at that point, these lenses really shine. I get that sometimes you have to shoot in available or limited light...that's why I am also building a "super speed" set of Contax 1.4's and 2.0's...but for most situations, I find that the 2.8 lenses are fantastic. By the way, all my Contax are AE...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top