Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Bill Sepaniak]

... I'll tell ya, the deciding factor for me for starting to go all in on Contax Zeiss rather than other glass, is that I can see the trend of the lens prices going up and up for the next few years. ... and the memory of the first time I stepped behind a piece of Zeiss glass; it was love at first sight.

I don't want to feed your addiction ... or be your pusher ... or cause a break-up in your marriage or relationship ... but KEH has a "like new" 21/2.8 Distagon for $1,950.00. A little more than $1,000.00 over what I paid for my copy ... but knowing what I know now about that lens ... I would jump on it in a heart-beat.

__________________________________
Scarlet X # 1859 “Bettie Page”
“… preparing to ‘whip’ the competition …”

Zeiss Lenses:

CY 21/2.8
ZF 28/2.0
CY 35-70/3.4
CY 50/1.4
ZF100/2.0

Nikon Lenses:
G 14-24/2.8
G 24-70/2.8
D 80-200/2.8

Tokina Lenses:

11-16/2.8

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

I don't want to feed your addiction ... or be your pusher ... or cause a break-up in your marriage or relationship ... but KEH has a "like new" 21/2.8 Distagon for $1,950.00. A little more than $1,000.00 over what I paid for my copy ... but knowing what I know now about that lens ... I would jump on it in a heart-beat.

"And just like that... it's gone."

 

[Nick Morrison]

Yeah I saw that lens there too....it's an unreal lens. GONE. Was on the store for 24hrs only. Haha.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

Don't have that kind of scratch right now anyway. Shame too; I need a good wide angle.

 

[Tom Greenberg]

I saw it too...thought about it seriously for about 10 seconds...came THIS close to pulling the trigger...then thought about what my wife would say...and closed the browser and walked away from the computer.

 

[Daniel Reed]

Thanks Shervin! I always wondered about the 35-70, what a treat to play with the R3D frame in RCX.
Looks like a fun and impressive lens!

I've attatched a quick shot of my dog...

 

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks Shervin! I always wondered about the 35-70, what a treat to play with the R3D frame in RCX.
Looks like a fun and impressive lens!

The 35-70 is great. It's cousin the 28-85 is essentially just as good, it just displays some distortion at 28mm, doesn't have a constant F-stop (loses half a stop at the end...goes from 3.3 to f4), and doesn't have any macro. But in many ways it's greater range makes it more usable.

But the 35-70 is just flawless. That's why it's special. Besides the push-pull and fact that it's not a 2.8, there are no "buts".

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

If you guys are looking into Canon mounting your Contax lenses and don't feel like dropping a wad of cash to Leitax each lens... look no further.

I bought 5 adapters from various sellers on eBay to test to see which is the best. I don't have a Leitax adapter to compare them with but I do have a $175 Kindal/Rayqual adapter from Japan which is king of the removable adapters to test them to. I did my own assessment based on how snug the adapters fit, if they focus to infinity, and if they don't throw off focus marks.

3 of the 5 adapters I bought were pure garbage. One would slip on and off as if the mount were covered in grease and would not click into place... and the other two slid on easily but couldn't stay snug when you mounted them on a camera.

The two adapters that were even WORTH mentioning are the best... each have their pro's and con's.

Big_Is Adapter

+ VERY Cheap at $9 shipped
+ Most snug adapter (You can't put the adapter on with bare fingers... that's how tight it goes on)
+ Infinity
+ Focus marks are correct
- Silver Brass
- Edges are VERY rough... changing the iris on lenses with this adapter is somewhat dangerous

The X Vision Adapter

+ Black Brass (Looks excellent and makes lens look like it's got a Canon mount nativley)
+ Soft edges
+ Very nice finish... dare I say better than my Japanese made one
+ Fits tight with just a little bit of play... nothing forward and backward to throw off focus... only play between where the C/Y mechanism of the adapter locks onto the lens
+ Infinity and correct focus marks
- More expensive than all the other Chinese adapters
- Not readily available

So you guys can pick your poison. I opted to purchase 5 Black Brass adapters from The X Vision for my Contax Zeiss primes and they work fantastic. The silver adapters are the BEST fitting ones but they're butt ugly and are not properly finished... I want to make sure my AC still has fingers when he changes the Iris. I'm happy and saved a buttload of money from not having to purchase Leitax. Nothing beats having a permanent mount... I'd still like to someday switch them all to Leitax but until then these cheap adapters will do the job.

 

[Nick Morrison]

If you guys are looking into Canon mounting your Contax lenses and don't feel like dropping a wad of cash to Leitax each lens... look no further.

I bought 5 adapters from various sellers on eBay to test to see which is the best. I don't have a Leitax adapter to compare them with but I do have a $175 Kindal/Rayqual adapter from Japan which is king of the removable adapters to test them to. I did my own assessment based on how snug the adapters fit, if they focus to infinity, and if they don't throw off focus marks.

3 of the 5 adapters I bought were pure garbage. One would slip on and off as if the mount were covered in grease and would not click into place... and the other two slid on easily but couldn't stay snug when you mounted them on a camera.

The two adapters that were even WORTH mentioning are the best... each have their pro's and con's.

Big_Is Adapter

+ VERY Cheap at $9 shipped
+ Most snug adapter (You can't put the adapter on with bare fingers... that's how tight it goes on)
+ Infinity
+ Focus marks are correct
- Silver Brass
- Edges are VERY rough... changing the iris on lenses with this adapter is somewhat dangerous

The X Vision Adapter

+ Black Brass (Looks excellent and makes lens look like it's got a Canon mount nativley)
+ Soft edges
+ Very nice finish... dare I say better than my Japanese made one
+ Fits tight with just a little bit of play... nothing forward and backward to throw off focus... only play between where the C/Y mechanism of the adapter locks onto the lens
+ Infinity and correct focus marks
- More expensive than all the other Chinese adapters
- Not readily available

So you guys can pick your poison. I opted to purchase 5 Black Brass adapters from The X Vision for my Contax Zeiss primes and they work fantastic. The silver adapters are the BEST fitting ones but they're butt ugly and are not properly finished... I want to make sure my AC still has fingers when he changes the Iris. I'm happy and saved a buttload of money from not having to purchase Leitax. Nothing beats having a permanent mount... I'd still like to someday switch them all to Leitax but until then these cheap adapters will do the job.

WOW. Nice work!

 

[Lliam Worthington]

Cheers Shervin. I've bought quite a few types of the cheapos and can second the big. Know what you mean bout getting them on! But they've been rock solid after which was a relief after having a few other brands that were rubbish and thinking I would definitely have to pull the trigger on the some leitax. Re AC's fingers Hah! Funny. Not "that bad" though )
But I haven't tried an Xvision. Will definitely get a few in to try. Thanks.

 

[Yean Loon]

Anyone got image shift problems whole pulling focus with their contax lenses? My 25mm is particularly bad.

Yean

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Cheers Shervin. I've bought quite a few types of the cheapos and can second the big. Know what you mean bout getting them on! But they've been rock solid after which was a relief after having a few other brands that were rubbish and thinking I would definitely have to pull the trigger on the some leitax. Re AC's fingers Hah! Funny. Not "that bad" though )
But I haven't tried an Xvision. Will definitely get a few in to try. Thanks.

Thanks for the comments guys... just had to share this info with the rest of you.

@ Liam: I'd only get X vision's adapters if you're a sleek "All Black" nut like me... can't stand silver adapters. Both adapters though are cheaper and pretty much better than the Rayqual adapter which was the first one to start the craze.

 

[Lliam Worthington]

What??

Are you joking Shervin? i thought silver adapters were the equivalent of lens bling? I only defaulted to silver as I couldn't find gold...

No I prefer clean black too. had a black one - didn't buy came with one my lenses - but far too lose. So cheap Ill definitely try a couple of the X visions and see. Thanks agin for the link.

Yean, I assume your talking about lens breathing? Interesting. I don't have the 25mm. I'm sure it's still a great lens but I had heard this lens get bagged a little to be honest in relative terms of Contax performance ranking. The IQ of the 28's considered superior and the 25 is said to fall off more in the corners. Photographers criticising this aspect largely, but for cine work not such a bad thing. But I hadn't heard about the breathing issues with the 25. I was pretty concerned with potential breathing issues before buying into Contax myself, but I have had no issues anywhere I would consider close to genuinely problematic with my set... perhaps it's the design of the 25? * Sits down to wait for Nick to come in and educate me

Martin the moderator had an old breathing test with CY glass on here. He might be a good resource too?

 

[Nick Morrison]

What??

Are you joking Shervin? i thought silver adapters were the equivalent of lens bling? I only defaulted to silver as I couldn't find gold...

No I prefer clean black too. had a black one - didn't buy came with one my lenses - but far too lose. So cheap Ill definitely try a couple of the X visions and see. Thanks agin for the link.

Yean, I assume your talking about lens breathing? Interesting. I don't have the 25mm. I'm sure it's still a great lens but I had heard this lens get bagged a little to be honest in relative terms of Contax performance ranking. The IQ of the 28's considered superior and the 25 is said to fall off more in the corners. Photographers criticising this aspect largely, but for cine work not such a bad thing. But I hadn't heard about the breathing issues with the 25. I was pretty concerned with potential breathing issues before buying into Contax myself, but I have had no issues anywhere I would consider close to genuinely problematic with my set... perhaps it's the design of the 25? * Sits down to wait for Nick to come in and educate me

Martin the moderator had an old breathing test with CY glass on here. He might be a good resource too?

The 25 Distagon is a really old design. I heard along the way that it's a legacy design, from pre-Contax RTS. It's one of the classics within the halls of Zeiss.

If you look at the MTF charts, the 25 is sill pretty good (but does fall apart at the edges, as so many wide angles). I like that focal length A LOT on S35, and I'm a big fan of mine. I have a late AE and it flares magically, and has great close focusing. Is it technically as good as the 28 f2 or 28 2.8? NO. But the 28mm focal length to me is a different animal. It doesn't feel wide yet. To me the 28 is my widest standard prime. Whereas the 25 is my first WIDE.

But lets get into the nitty gritty and really compare the MTFs. Here we go:

CONTRAST at 10lpm (this is generally used to measure "sharpness"; a 90 is excellent)
25mm 2.8 @2.8 = 92 Center/70 S35 edge @5.6 = 96 Center/90 S35 edge
28mm 2.8 @2.8 = 95 Center/70 S35 edge @5.6 = 97 Center/90 S35 edge
28mm f2 @f2 = 74 Center/73 S35 edge @5.6 = 96 Center/93 S35 edge

So in terms of everyday sharpness, you can see that 25 2.8 is actually pretty impressive. They all are. The f2 is soft wide open, but that's to be expected. All of these lenses absolutely explode at 5.6, giving extremely even performance from center to edge on S35mm sensors (approaching the levels of the new 15mm 2.8 Distagon, which at @5.6 = 96 Center/96 S35 edge).




RESOLUTION at 40lpm (this is generally used to measure the resolving power of fine details <think hair, or small landscape details>... a 60 is excellent)

25mm 2.8 @2.8 = 70 Center/22 S35 edge @5.6 = 80 Center/18 S35 edge
28mm 2.8 @2.8 = 70 Center/40 S35 edge @5.6 = 82 Center/38 S35 edge
28mm f2 @f2 = 42 Center/38 S35 edge @5.6 = 76 Center/40 S35 edge

These numbers don't paint the whole picture, cuz if you see the chart you'd see the 25mm bottoms out really quickly. It's resolving power over small details at the edges is it's achilles heel. In the centre it's fine. But the resolution plummets to 22 and 18 very fast, about half way across the edge of frame on S35mm.

Whereas the 28 2.8 has a more languid downward slope, and even at it's worst has twice the resolution of the 25mm (40's vs 20's).

The 28mm f2 is also peculiar. Yes it's not great wide open in the centre, but like all excellent lenses it has incredibly even performance across the frame. It stays at a steady (albeit it ordinary) 40's clip from center to edge, with little to no variance (an even "look"). Stopped down, it doesn't scream in the middle as much as either the 25mm or the 28mm 2.8. But what you can't see is that...as we extend outside of S35mm ...the 28mm f2 starts to IMPROVE...and at the edges of a FULL FRAME sensor it ticks back up to 70! So the 28mm f2 has several muscular attributes of a great, noble lens. But the numbers don't lie. In some key metrics, the 28mm 2.8 is better.

CONCLUSION
All three lenses are very sharp and have great contrast. However, not surprisingly, as many landscape photographers have discovered, the one with the greatest RESOLUTION of fine details is the 28mm 2.8. It's no surprise they love it for panoramas and gobble it up on ebay.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Anyone got image shift problems whole pulling focus with their contax lenses? My 25mm is particularly bad.

Yean

What adapters are you using? Image shifts happen a lot when you have a sloppy, loose adapter. The lens is essentially "loose" on the mount, so your image can bounce around a bit. But that's an adapter issue, not a lens one.

I've owned over 30+ Contax lenses, and only ever had one mis-aligned optic that actually "shifted".

Otherwise, it's usually the adapters that are causing the problem.

 

[Uli Plank]

@ Yean: Same here, my Contaxes shift very little if at all, especially when compared to any modern electronic lens. Could it be that yours was bumped once in it's lifetime, if it's not the adapter? If you are referring to breathing, there is some, but less than in many other still lenses. And they all have a very wide focus throw compared to other still lenses.

@ all: Found some time today to test my recent acquisition, the 28 to 85mm zoom, against some primes.

@28 against the slower 28mm 2.8 prime:
Center resolution about the same, the zoom is bit less contrasty WO. The 28mm has traces of CA in corners, zoom has obvious CA, which is not improving much @ 5.6. Corner sharpness and contrast when both are @ 5.6 is remarkable, about on par, but @ 5.6 the contrast of the prime in center is definitely better than the zoom.
The prime seems to have some minimal field curvature on changing the aperture (which is not rare for a wide that is well-balanced when open).

@ 35mm against the slower 35mm 2.8 prime (I didn't afford the 1.4):
Both WO center is about the same, corner sharpness impressive, nearly the same, but some more CA and less contrast again in the zoom. The prime is not completely free of CA, but it's minimal. Center contrast improved @ 5.6, nearly on par, CA still visible. My 35 seems to be a tad weaker than my 28.


@ 50mm against the 50mm 1.7 (a very sharp lens!)
The zoom is a tad sharper in the corners against the prime @ 1.7, but @ 2.8 the prime overtakes the zoom and kills it at 5.6, but it's my sharpest 50mm of them all, even better than the Planar 1.4 or the Rokkor PG, which are already analytical.

@85mm against the 85mm 2.8 (not the Planar 1.4):
WO the zoom is considerably softer, while on par in CA – both minimal, @ 5.6 the zoom is improving considerably and nearly touches the prime.

General observations on the zoom:
The zoom is generally improving regarding CA when going towards the long end, but it's also getting softer in contrast. Bokeh is very nice, no hard edges and minimal deformation in the corners. Go for MM to avoid Ninja blades, though. Zeiss is cheating a bit on both ends, the zoom is neither as long as the 85 nor as wide as the 28 primes. Color not quite the same, zoom seems to be a bit warmer than all my primes (more glass?).

Verdict (quite personal one):
This is a very impressive zoom, I did massive pixel peeping to spot the differences and it's true that it's very close to these primes. I'm sure it leaves many weaker primes in the dust. OTOH it's not constant aperture and has a one-touch zoom. It is parfocal if you manage to keep it straight when zooming, but I'd rather consider it a variable prime in practical use. Even if my zoom tube is still stiff compared to other one-touch constructions I held, it slides if tilted up or down.
While the mechanical construction is on excellent Zeiss level, this is caused by massive weight. It weighs a bit more than any three primes I could pick from the above (slower) ones and it needs a huge filter diameter and the filter rotates. I feel like I'm going to sell it again and rather hunt the 180mm now ;-)

 

[Nick Morrison]

@ Yean: Same here, my Contaxes shift very little if at all, especially when compared to any modern electronic lens. Could it be that yours was bumped once in it's lifetime, if it's not the adapter? If you are referring to breathing, there is some, but less than in many other still lenses. And they all have a very wide focus throw compared to other still lenses.

@ all: Found some time today to test my recent acquisition, the 28 to 85mm zoom, against some primes.

@28 against the slower 28mm 2.8 prime:
Center resolution about the same, the zoom is bit less contrasty WO. The 28mm has traces of CA in corners, zoom has obvious CA, which is not improving much @ 5.6. Corner sharpness and contrast when both are @ 5.6 is remarkable, about on par, but @ 5.6 the contrast of the prime in center is definitely better than the zoom.
The prime seems to have some minimal field curvature on changing the aperture (which is not rare for a wide that is well-balanced when open).

@ 35mm against the slower 35mm 2.8 prime (I didn't afford the 1.4):
Both WO center is about the same, corner sharpness impressive, nearly the same, but some more CA and less contrast again in the zoom. The prime is not completely free of CA, but it's minimal. Center contrast improved @ 5.6, nearly on par, CA still visible. My 35 seems to be a tad weaker than my 28.


@ 50mm against the 50mm 1.7 (a very sharp lens!)
The zoom is a tad sharper in the corners against the prime @ 1.7, but @ 2.8 the prime overtakes the zoom and kills it at 5.6, but it's my sharpest 50mm of them all, even better than the Planar 1.4 or the Rokkor PG, which are already analytical.

@85mm against the 85mm 2.8 (not the Planar 1.4):
WO the zoom is considerably softer, while on par in CA – both minimal, @ 5.6 the zoom is improving considerably and nearly touches the prime.

General observations on the zoom:
The zoom is generally improving regarding CA when going towards the long end, but it's also getting softer in contrast. Bokeh is very nice, no hard edges and minimal deformation in the corners. Go for MM to avoid Ninja blades, though. Zeiss is cheating a bit on both ends, the zoom is neither as long as the 85 nor as wide as the 28 primes. Color not quite the same, zoom seems to be a bit warmer than all my primes (more glass?).

Verdict (quite personal one):
This is a very impressive zoom, I did massive pixel peeping to spot the differences and it's true that it's very close to these primes. I'm sure it leaves many weaker primes in the dust. OTOH it's not constant aperture and has a one-touch zoom. It is parfocal if you manage to keep it straight when zooming, but I'd rather consider it a variable prime in practical use. Even if my zoom tube is still stiff compared to other one-touch constructions I held, it slides if tilted up or down.
While the mechanical construction is on excellent Zeiss level, this is caused by massive weight. It weighs a bit more than any three primes I could pick from the above (slower) ones and it needs a huge filter diameter and the filter rotates. I feel like I'm going to sell it again and rather hunt the 180mm now ;-)

Nice one Uli! Yeah, the push-pull nature is a bit frustrating on the 28-85, but that's also made up by the FANTASTIC barrel rotation (180 to 360 focus throws!). This zoom's 28-85 range is VERY versatile. What I'm considering...to transform this lens into a true variable prime...is to cover the entire barrel in a focus gear (think like a Macro lens). The focus gear will be three inches wide, meaning that the Follow Focus can engage the zoom no matter where it's pushed or pulled. So you're just popping the FF gear in and out as you're reframing. Not ideal, but better that the current way it works. The FF will also keep the zoom in place, stop it from sliding.

You def have the Contax fever, btw!

 

[Cameron Chin]

The 25 Distagon is a really old design. I heard along the way that it's a legacy design, from pre-Contax RTS. It's one of the classics within the halls of Zeiss.

If you look at the MTF charts, the 25 is sill pretty good (but does fall apart at the edges, as so many wide angles). I like that focal length A LOT on S35, and I'm a big fan of mine. I have a late AE and it flares magically, and has great close focusing. Is it technically as good as the 28 f2 or 28 2.8? NO. But the 28mm focal length to me is a different animal. It doesn't feel wide yet. To me the 28 is my widest standard prime. Whereas the 25 is my first WIDE.

But lets get into the nitty gritty and really compare the MTFs. Here we go:

CONTRAST at 10lpm (this is generally used to measure "sharpness"; a 90 is excellent)
25mm 2.8 @2.8 = 92 Center/70 S35 edge @5.6 = 96 Center/90 S35 edge
28mm 2.8 @2.8 = 95 Center/70 S35 edge @5.6 = 97 Center/90 S35 edge
28mm f2 @f2 = 74 Center/73 S35 edge @5.6 = 96 Center/93 S35 edge

So in terms of everyday sharpness, you can see that 25 2.8 is actually pretty impressive. They all are. The f2 is soft wide open, but that's to be expected. All of these lenses absolutely explode at 5.6, giving extremely even performance from center to edge on S35mm sensors (approaching the levels of the new 15mm 2.8 Distagon, which at @5.6 = 96 Center/96 S35 edge).




RESOLUTION at 40lpm (this is generally used to measure the resolving power of fine details <think hair, or small landscape details>... a 60 is excellent)

25mm 2.8 @2.8 = 70 Center/22 S35 edge @5.6 = 80 Center/18 S35 edge
28mm 2.8 @2.8 = 70 Center/40 S35 edge @5.6 = 82 Center/38 S35 edge
28mm f2 @f2 = 42 Center/38 S35 edge @5.6 = 76 Center/40 S35 edge

These numbers don't paint the whole picture, cuz if you see the chart you'd see the 25mm bottoms out really quickly. It's resolving power over small details at the edges is it's achilles heel. In the centre it's fine. But the resolution plummets to 22 and 18 very fast, about half way across the edge of frame on S35mm.

Whereas the 28 2.8 has a more languid downward slope, and even at it's worst has twice the resolution of the 25mm (40's vs 20's).

The 28mm f2 is also peculiar. Yes it's not great wide open in the centre, but like all excellent lenses it has incredibly even performance across the frame. It stays at a steady (albeit it ordinary) 40's clip from center to edge, with little to no variance (an even "look"). Stopped down, it doesn't scream in the middle as much as either the 25mm or the 28mm 2.8. But what you can't see is that...as we extend outside of S35mm ...the 28mm f2 starts to IMPROVE...and at the edges of a FULL FRAME sensor it ticks back up to 70! So the 28mm f2 has several muscular attributes of a great, noble lens. But the numbers don't lie. In some key metrics, the 28mm 2.8 is better.

CONCLUSION
All three lenses are very sharp and have great contrast. However, not surprisingly, as many landscape photographers have discovered, the one with the greatest RESOLUTION of fine details is the 28mm 2.8. It's no surprise they love it for panoramas and gobble it up on ebay.

LOL.. What a great tread Nick. For the last month I'd been hunting down a set of Contax primes. Looks like I'd just got done it time... well at least I got the four starter ones that I'd wanted. 28 f/2, 50 f/1.7, 85 f/1.4, 100 f/2.

What I'd used as an aid to the hunt was this website, this person seemed very knowledgeable about lenses.

http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/carl-zeiss-lenses-swhorizontalmenu-172

 

[Yean Loon]

It's definitely not lens breathing. It's more like the image jumps! I remember someone doing a test a when the epic first came with stills lenses and noticed it too. I'll definitely look into my adapter. It's cheapass ones I got from China. $2 each.

Yean

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Nick,

you have written a great extensive and comprehensive post on the Contax Zeiss lenses, BRAVO!


Only thing I can add to those going the Contax Zeiss route, is that it is important to understand that because of the age of this lenses, despite their original high quality glass, this with age tends to shift in color rendering, especially so on the wide side, so its imperative that any conversions be done by an expert, and that such conversion is not limited to the mechanical but also to the Extreme Careful cleaning and polishing of the Glass element themselves.


Other then that, I just like to Specify, that when you said as good as T* coated glass as in the Hasselblad's, this is only true for the older Hassy glass, when they were produced by Zeiss, as current coatings and elements polishing techniques have greatly changed as the elements themselves as they are no longer produced by Zeiss.

Again, great job, and this is what this community yet again should be about, sharing our collective knowledge for the benefit of us all...