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

Could it be AEJ ?
 
WOOHOO!

I just secured my 85 1.4, it's on the way. I also have an 80-200mm on the way.

I now have the 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.7, 85mm 1.4 and 135mm 2.8.

I also have the 80-200mm and the 28-70mm.

The 85 is the only West Germany lens in the set. I opted in general for newer. They are all astonishingly good. The only weak point is the 28-70, which can wash out and react strangely on occasion, though the "look" is complimentary otherwise. My next step is to sell the 28-70 and get the 28-85. Then someday the 35 1.4. I dont miss the focal length, but having that fast wide would be great. An associate has the Rokinon 35mm 1.4 and it's cool as hell. Then I will look for a 100mm F2.

I have shot so many different things on these lenses, I hope to share a burst of samples soon. Maybe I will go through my whole set when the last two lenses arrive and put them through the paces.
 
Jeffrey T. Morgan said:
WOOHOO!

I just secured my 85 1.4, it's on the way. I also have an 80-200mm on the way.

I now have the 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.7, 85mm 1.4 and 135mm 2.8.

I also have the 80-200mm and the 28-70mm.

The 85 is the only West Germany lens in the set. I opted in general for newer. They are all astonishingly good. The only weak point is the 28-70, which can wash out and react strangely on occasion, though the "look" is complimentary otherwise. My next step is to sell the 28-70 and get the 28-85. Then someday the 35 1.4. I dont miss the focal length, but having that fast wide would be great. An associate has the Rokinon 35mm 1.4 and it's cool as hell. Then I will look for a 100mm F2.

I have shot so many different things on these lenses, I hope to share a burst of samples soon. Maybe I will go through my whole set when the last two lenses arrive and put them through the paces.
Click to expand...


:thumbsup: You should consider the 35 2.8 until you get the 35 1.4. Its a great lens.
 
Samir Patel said:
:thumbsup: You should consider the 35 2.8 until you get the 35 1.4. Its a great lens.
Click to expand...


You think so? I just wonder if I should set the money aside till I get that elusive 35 1.4? Then I have my 35, 50, 85 pretty fast.

Honestly, though, I am saving money next for the Redrock Micro remote focus unit, and one of the upcoming Movi knock offs.

http://defygimbal.com/

http://www.besteady.pro/

Then the 35 1.4
 
Samir Patel said:
:thumbsup: You should consider the 35 2.8 until you get the 35 1.4. Its a great lens.
Click to expand...
Jeffrey, I have the 35/2.8 AEG and absolutely love it. Don't know where you are in MI, but if you ever get over to Grand Rapids, I'd be happy to let you try it out and see what you think...
 
Tom Greenberg said:
Jeffrey, I have the 35/2.8 AEG and absolutely love it. Don't know where you are in MI, but if you ever get over to Grand Rapids, I'd be happy to let you try it out and see what you think...
Click to expand...

Tom! I am up in Traverse City, but my parents are in GR and I come through quite often. I have wanted to reach out for some time anyway, maybe a Contax 35 will be what finally unites us! lol.

BUT, if you make me want to buy one, my pocketbook will cry a bit, haha.
 
Uli Plank said:
My 180mm AEG is a beautiful lens, I see no reason to complain. Maybe on a Dragon we might see a difference with an MM.

It's so kind to faces. Maybe my Minolta 200mm 4.0 is a tad more analytical, yes. But the Zeiss C/Y has the nicer bokeh and flare.
Click to expand...

Hey, you know I'm a sucker for anything that says "Made in West Germany"!
Great to know the 180 AEG has some magic as well. And yeah, not surprised the flares are great...
 
Jeffrey T. Morgan said:
WOOHOO!

I just secured my 85 1.4, it's on the way. I also have an 80-200mm on the way.

I now have the 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.7, 85mm 1.4 and 135mm 2.8.

I also have the 80-200mm and the 28-70mm.

The 85 is the only West Germany lens in the set. I opted in general for newer. They are all astonishingly good. The only weak point is the 28-70, which can wash out and react strangely on occasion, though the "look" is complimentary otherwise. My next step is to sell the 28-70 and get the 28-85. Then someday the 35 1.4. I dont miss the focal length, but having that fast wide would be great. An associate has the Rokinon 35mm 1.4 and it's cool as hell. Then I will look for a 100mm F2.

I have shot so many different things on these lenses, I hope to share a burst of samples soon. Maybe I will go through my whole set when the last two lenses arrive and put them through the paces.
Click to expand...

NICE! Yeah, the 28-70 isn't a "real Zeiss", its made by a third party (Sigma?). It does have the Zeiss T* coating however, that's the one bonus. Otherwise it's pretty ordinary little lens (but again, I don't consider it a "real" Contax ). I'm almost positive the same lens was rebadged by Leica as well for the R line. I've seen a lens with similar specs (and low price) in their lineup too.

Def upgrade to the 28-85! Or the 35-70.

And yes...share some frames! Love to see.

And congrats on the 85 1.4 AEG! A brillant lens!!! One of the gems on the Contax line.
 
Jeffrey T. Morgan said:
Tom! I am up in Traverse City, but my parents are in GR and I come through quite often. I have wanted to reach out for some time anyway, maybe a Contax 35 will be what finally unites us! lol.

BUT, if you make me want to buy one, my pocketbook will cry a bit, haha.
Click to expand...
Jeffrey, I'd definitely enjoy getting together...love to talk about camera stuff anytime! I am in GR pretty much every weekday...sometimes on weekends, but I actually live at the lakeshore near Grand Haven. Shoot me a PM or email (tom.g at compass.edu) when you are going to be in the area and we'll try to make it work. You are welcome to try any of my Contax...got a pretty extensive collection at this point...all modified by Peter at RP Lens. Sorry if it sounds like I'm dealing illicit substances, lol..."c'mon kid, give it a try...first one's free", but I do love these lenses a ton! BTW, I was wrong...my 35/2.8 is actually an AEJ...
 
What is the best way to post pictures on Reduser?
 
I tend to post the bb codes from a photo uploaded to my flickr account but you can also upload for free to imgur and then copy the link to it, press the image icon above the posting box and paste that link into the popup box.
 
Samir Patel said:
I finally tracked down a excellent condition MM 35 1.4. Now I hope it gets to me in one piece from Japan. On pins and needles ;)
Click to expand...

BOOM! Shit's getting real now!!!! Yeah I just got a 16 2.8 (I know, I'm insane) and I feel the same way.
 
I had a very interesting shoot experience last Friday that I wanted to get your thoughts on. It was a 2 camera documentary project. The A camera was an Epic-X using ARRI Zeiss Standards cine lenses. The B camera was my Scarlet-X using Contax Zeiss AE lenses. Both cameras had the latest firmware installed (4.0.12). Both cameras were shooting 4K HD at 6:1. Each camera was feeding a video village monitor (matching Panasonic 1700's via SDI with identical settings).

Here's where it gets interesting...I felt that the visual "character" and "look" of both images was quite similar, as far as the way that separation and sharpness were rendered, although I did think that the Epic output looked a bit "crisper" and "cleaner"...which I would expect given the cost difference between the sets of glass. However, and this was definitely a bigger problem, the color rendition of the two systems was quite different. My Contax were considerably "redder" than the Standards. We verified at some length that the camera display and look settings were identical, and we swapped monitor SDI cables to make sure that the problem wasn't at the video village end. But on both the Scarlet's 5" touch and on the external monitors, the Contax had a reddish tint when compared to the Standards. Ultimately, I ended up turning down the red channel gain to .7 instead of the default setting of 1.0 and then everything looked very close.

I know that it's all just metadata, and we can adjust these parameters in post, but it freaked out the director when things didn't look the same, and it just didn't make much sense to me, so I am really struggling to understand what caused it. I did realize after the fact that we didn't do a black shade one either of the cameras after doing the firmware updates, so maybe that had something to do with it? Anyway, love to hear everyone's thoughts and if you have had any similar experiences.
 
Tom Greenberg said:
I had a very interesting shoot experience last Friday that I wanted to get your thoughts on. It was a 2 camera documentary project. The A camera was an Epic-X using ARRI Zeiss Standards cine lenses. The B camera was my Scarlet-X using Contax Zeiss AE lenses. Both cameras had the latest firmware installed (4.0.12). Both cameras were shooting 4K HD at 6:1. Each camera was feeding a video village monitor (matching Panasonic 1700's via SDI with identical settings).

Here's where it gets interesting...I felt that the visual "character" and "look" of both images was quite similar, as far as the way that separation and sharpness were rendered, although I did think that the Epic output looked a bit "crisper" and "cleaner"...which I would expect given the cost difference between the sets of glass. However, and this was definitely a bigger problem, the color rendition of the two systems was quite different. My Contax were considerably "redder" than the Standards. We verified at some length that the camera display and look settings were identical, and we swapped monitor SDI cables to make sure that the problem wasn't at the video village end. But on both the Scarlet's 5" touch and on the external monitors, the Contax had a reddish tint when compared to the Standards. Ultimately, I ended up turning down the red channel gain to .7 instead of the default setting of 1.0 and then everything looked very close.

I know that it's all just metadata, and we can adjust these parameters in post, but it freaked out the director when things didn't look the same, and it just didn't make much sense to me, so I am really struggling to understand what caused it. I did realize after the fact that we didn't do a black shade one either of the cameras after doing the firmware updates, so maybe that had something to do with it? Anyway, love to hear everyone's thoughts and if you have had any similar experiences.
Click to expand...

When Ryan de Franco and I compared Standards to Contax last winter, we did notice that the Standards had more "blue" in their coating than the other sets (Hasselblads, Supers, etc). Maybe you are seeing that? Other than that, the character and look were similar, yes. We also noticed that the Standards were sharper than both Contax and Supers even at F4. Remarkable glass. Pity they don't cover Dragon 6k.

But you are not going crazy. We both saw that too. You can even see the "blue" in the coating when you hold them. Thankfully we're shooting RAW, so those small variables are easily smoothed out.

I have to older Standard Primes (Arriflex Mount) that don't seem to have that blue coating. They are older serials (early 6's). I'll let you know how well they match when I get them back from servicing.

thx
 
Thanks for the feedback, Nick! Your experiences make me feel a lot better...I did think I was going crazy, lol. Of course in this situation, we weren't really trying to figure out which camera had the "more accurate" output...I was just trying to match my camera to the Epic, since it was the A cam. I want to stress that the Contax looked great...in no way did they look unpleasing or deficient...they were just different from the Standards. I guess I had expected them to be more similar based on the discussions we've had here about the coatings of the Contax (especially the AE's) being from the same eras as the Standards.
 
Tom Greenberg said:
Thanks for the feedback, Nick! Your experiences make me feel a lot better...I did think I was going crazy, lol. Of course in this situation, we weren't really trying to figure out which camera had the "more accurate" output...I was just trying to match my camera to the Epic, since it was the A cam. I want to stress that the Contax looked great...in no way did they look unpleasing or deficient...they were just different from the Standards. I guess I had expected them to be more similar based on the discussions we've had here about the coatings of the Contax (especially the AE's) being from the same eras as the Standards.
Click to expand...

Yeah I plan on dong a big coating comparison in the next couple of months - I have the glass todo it now. And I think it will be worthwhile. My impression is the Standards stand out. When Ryan and quickly compared them all, only the Standards had the "blue" to them. Bear in mind it also depends on the era of the Standards (some of the modern sets have serials in the 7s).
 
Since this thread is so popular ;-)
i propose to make "TV mini series" about Contax Lenses. ;-)
(just kidding)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top