Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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

The 28-85 is push-pull and is a very nice lens with about 180º of focus rotation. I think you mean the 28-70 which was more of a "kit lens" for them.
 
Brice Ansel said:
I have a question about the CZ 35-70, does it exist in AE version?
Click to expand...

Nope, they only made it in MM. The closest thing to it in AE was the 40-80 3.5 zoom...which was discontinued when it was replaced by the 35-70 during the MM era.

Tommaso Alvisi said:
Brice, I don't think they made it in AE, it's a recent design, in MM only.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Shervin Mandgaryan said:
Tommaso is correct. They only made the lens in two batches... one in 1987 and one in 1994. Both are MM.
Click to expand...

WOW. Shervin this level of specificity is blowin' my mind. How'd you find that out? COOL!!

jordan levy said:
are AE more desired than MM? i feel like more people are looking for and own AE series contax zeiss, when i was thinking from this thread that MM was a better lens series, no?
Click to expand...

You have to define "better". Both do different things "better".

Shervin Mandgaryan said:
There are benefits of either. You can't say that one is better than the other... each have their own characteristics that people may find to be a turn off or to be desirable.

MM's are a bit more contrastier and deal with flare a lot better. Bokeh is also normal compared to the AE Ninja Star (God I hate saying that.... there has to be a scientific term for it). The inverse is true for the AE set.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

AE=organic, flaring, less contrast, ninjastar
MM=cleaner, less flares, tad more contrast, no ninja star (all subtle differences...but still...there).

Ben Scott said:
So to recap on the zooms... All lovely except the non push-pull one, the 28-85, is that right?
Click to expand...

The 28-85 is AMAZING. It rivals the 35-70 optically, it just suffers from more distortion (especially on the wide end) as the design is more ambitious. The more conservative 35-70 is optically much less compromising (and thus even more "prime like"), which certainly explains why it enjoys an even greater cult status than the 28-85 (which has it's own loud following too, but not on the same level).

Tom Greenberg said:
The 28-85 is push-pull and is a very nice lens with about 180º of focus rotation. I think you mean the 28-70 which was more of a "kit lens" for them.
Click to expand...

Correct. The 28-70 should be considered a third party "kit lens"; if you look carefully you'll notice what looks like practically the same lens available in the Leica R line as well. The only differences presumably are that one has the Zeiss coating, and the other the Leica. I've handled this lens in person and it even at first glance the images didn't not have the pop I was used to. Not a lens I would keep or recommend, to be honest.
 
Nick, let's just say I have a book in my possession (or was rather) that had the Zeiss manufacturing codes and dates. The 35-70 is the only zoom to have only been made in two batches. Roughly 20,000 were made. Other primes, notably the rarer ones were sometimes made in 2 or 3 batches.

There's two other zooms that should share the same notoriety with the 35-70... the 35-135 and the 100-300. Both zooms are incredibly sharp and worth looking for if you're after slow and sharp zooms (And don't mind the push/pull bit either).
 
Shervin Mandgaryan said:
Nick, let's just say I have a book in my possession (or was rather) that had the Zeiss manufacturing codes and dates. The 35-70 is the only zoom to have only been made in two batches. Roughly 20,000 were made. Other primes, notably the rarer ones were sometimes made in 2 or 3 batches.
Click to expand...

WOW. I wish there was a way to scan and make a PDF of that thing!!!

Shervin Mandgaryan said:
There's two other zooms that should share the same notoriety with the 35-70... the 35-135 and the 100-300. Both zooms are incredibly sharp and worth looking for if you're after slow and sharp zooms (And don't mind the push/pull bit either).
Click to expand...

I would probably add the 28-85 in that category. But yes, at the time, when Contax was being sold, they pushed the 35-135 as their "flagship" zoom and it was priced accordingly.

I think over time, people have come to discover (and cherish) the 35-70, 28-85 and 100-300 quite a bit more.

That being said, I think the sheer SIZE of the 35-135 is probably part of it's limited appeal in the STILLS world. Obviously, in our community that doesn't matter anywhere near as much.

FYI...I think the 35-135 is quite rare. I read somewhere only about 4,000 were ever made. So again, I think just the sheer rarity of it adds to it's allure. It has also has an impressive macro function, even more so than the 35-70. Read the Pebblespace review here.
 
Hey guys. I just ordered a 135/2.8. I was looking for an opinion on 135/2 vs 135/2.8 from someone who owns both. I have read a few conflicting reports about the f2 version. Mainly that the lens is not sharp at all at WO. Considering I would rarely use the focal length for portrait I decided to go with the 2.8 and instead maybe save up for a 28/2 or a 35/1.4 when one of those comes across my radar in the future. Any thoughts?
 
Samir Patel said:
Hey guys. I just ordered a 135/2.8. I was looking for an opinion on 135/2 vs 135/2.8 from someone who owns both. I have read a few conflicting reports about the f2 version. Mainly that the lens is not sharp at all at WO. Considering I would rarely use the focal length for portrait I decided to go with the 2.8 and instead maybe save up for a 28/2 or a 35/1.4 when one of those comes across my radar in the future. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

samir, let me know how that lens is. my next two lenses will be 135 f2.8 and 180 f2.8 very curious to hear some feedback.

Dom
 
Samir Patel said:
Hey guys. I just ordered a 135/2.8. I was looking for an opinion on 135/2 vs 135/2.8 from someone who owns both. I have read a few conflicting reports about the f2 version. Mainly that the lens is not sharp at all at WO. Considering I would rarely use the focal length for portrait I decided to go with the 2.8 and instead maybe save up for a 28/2 or a 35/1.4 when one of those comes across my radar in the future. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I own both. The 135 f2 wide open is a bit soft, but its pleasing for portraits. Stopped down its a hair sharper than the 2.8

The 135 2.8 is quite sharp even wide open, and has remarkably even performance across all apertures (like most Sonnars). I love it for portraits (I own two), and I think for the price it's the best telephoto in the Contax lineup. There are two for under $200 at KEH right now.

Bang for buck the 135 2.8 is almost impossible to beat. Only the 50 1.7 comes close, IMHO.

The 180 2.8 is also good. Not as sharp wide open as the 135 2.8, but sharper than the 135 f2. It's a rare telephoto with a floating element that's optimized for closeup focusing (and I presume...portraits).

Together the 135 2.8 and 180 2.8 give you great tele range while you're shooting, with that amazing Zeiss look, at an unbelievable budget.

I look forward to 5 years from now...when all these lenses are gone...and people will be kicking themselves for not having jumped in sooner and acquired them for these insanely low prices.
 
Nick if you get a good lead on a 180 let me know. i just bought the mmj 135 from keh :) cant wait to put it on my epic.

Nick Morrison said:
I own both. The 135 f2 wide open is a bit soft, but its pleasing for portraits. Stopped down its a hair sharper than the 2.8

The 135 2.8 is quite sharp even wide open, and has remarkably even performance across all apertures (like most Sonnars). I love it for portraits (I own two), and I think for the price it's the best telephoto in the Contax lineup. There are two for under $200 at KEH right now.

Bang for buck the 135 2.8 is almost impossible to beat. Only the 50 1.7 comes close, IMHO.

The 180 2.8 is also good. Not as sharp wide open as the 135 2.8, but sharper than the 135 f2. It's a rare telephoto with a floating element that's optimized for closeup focusing (and I presume...portraits).

Together the 135 2.8 and 180 2.8 give you great tele range while you're shooting, with that amazing Zeiss look, at an unbelievable budget.

I look forward to 5 years from now...when all these lenses are gone...and people will be kicking themselves for not having jumped in sooner and acquired them for these insanely low prices.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Nick. Your knowledge on Contax is invaluable.

Nick Morrison said:
I own both. The 135 f2 wide open is a bit soft, but its pleasing for portraits. Stopped down its a hair sharper than the 2.8

The 135 2.8 is quite sharp even wide open, and has remarkably even performance across all apertures (like most Sonnars). I love it for portraits (I own two), and I think for the price it's the best telephoto in the Contax lineup. There are two for under $200 at KEH right now.

Bang for buck the 135 2.8 is almost impossible to beat. Only the 50 1.7 comes close, IMHO.

The 180 2.8 is also good. Not as sharp wide open as the 135 2.8, but sharper than the 135 f2. It's a rare telephoto with a floating element that's optimized for closeup focusing (and I presume...portraits).

Together the 135 2.8 and 180 2.8 give you great tele range while you're shooting, with that amazing Zeiss look, at an unbelievable budget.

I look forward to 5 years from now...when all these lenses are gone...and people will be kicking themselves for not having jumped in sooner and acquired them for these insanely low prices.
Click to expand...
 
I have both the 135/2.8 and the 180/2.8 in AE versions. As Nick says, they are both extremely sharp over the entire aperture range. I love having these longer lenses that really pull you into people's faces. Nothing against an 85 (that is one of my go-to lenses), but these teles give an extra intimacy that an 85 lacks. The other thing I love about both these lenses in the amazing, rock-solid construction. They are built so well compared to a similar Nikkor...they have a certain heft to them, and silky smooth focus rotation that is close to 270º.
 
Tom Greenberg said:
I have both the 135/2.8 and the 180/2.8 in AE versions. As Nick says, they are both extremely sharp over the entire aperture range. I love having these longer lenses that really pull you into people's faces. Nothing against an 85 (that is one of my go-to lenses), but these teles give an extra intimacy that an 85 lacks. The other thing I love about both these lenses in the amazing, rock-solid construction. They are built so well compared to a similar Nikkor...they have a certain heft to them, and silky smooth focus rotation that is close to 270º.
Click to expand...

BOOM. Exactly.
 
Despite my procrastination over the last month or so about whether to go Zeiss ZE I finally made an executive decision and just swapped out the 50 f1.4 I had for a 1.7 AEJ, and took delivery of an AEG 25mm f2.8 - both in mint condition. Very happy with them, although it's scary that having offloaded my Samyangs, I currently don't own any fast glass...
 
Hey guys. anybody have any experience with the contax 300mm 4.0? I really want a good long lens. Is this one worth getting. ive got 25 2.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 100 2.8 macro, 135 2.8, and 180 2.8. would it be better to get an older fd canon 2.8 300 or is the zeiss good even at 4.0?
 
Ben Scott said:
Despite my procrastination over the last month or so about whether to go Zeiss ZE I finally made an executive decision and just swapped out the 50 f1.4 I had for a 1.7 AEJ, and took delivery of an AEG 25mm f2.8 - both in mint condition. Very happy with them, although it's scary that having offloaded my Samyangs, I currently don't own any fast glass...
Click to expand...

Get yourself a Contax 85 1.4 my friend!
 
Domenic Barbero said:
Hey guys. anybody have any experience with the contax 300mm 4.0? I really want a good long lens. Is this one worth getting. ive got 25 2.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 100 2.8 macro, 135 2.8, and 180 2.8. would it be better to get an older fd canon 2.8 300 or is the zeiss good even at 4.0?
Click to expand...

Zeiss gets knocked around a lot for not making AMAZING telephotos. Something Canon, for example, has always excelled in. It's what they do (and always have) arguably better than anyone else.

Now, Zeiss HAS made great telephotos. They are just not affordable to mere mortals. Their 300 2.8 and 200 f2 are just, well...insanely expensive. And if you read reviews about them, you almost hear complaints that they are TOO SHARP (or their bokeh's too "harsh"). They don't seem to have the forgiving beauty of their other lenses cuz, well, presumably for $10k they were basically jet fueled and obliterated whatever Lion or Tiger they were being used to film with.

Not saying their other lenses aren't amazing, they are...but from my research it seems that to make a great TELEPHOTO, you need to mix up the special sauce. New rules apply. You have to use low dispersion glass, and other optical wizardry, to cut through and really deliver a sharp telephoto image. It's almost like a different branch of optical design, another specialty, that has nothing todo with the other focal lengths.

Point is, the Tessar 300mm F4 is NOT one of these lenses. It does not have low disperson glass, nor an APO design, and in fact uses the more simple Tessar design with fewer elements and is trying its best to cut through. In general, it does on OK job. But it's not "sharp". Its fine for portraits, and is quite affordable (you can find for $300), and I like it's rendering, but it does not have that "oomph".

However, the 100-300 4.5-5.6 DOES use low dispersion glass, and the latest lens alchemies, and fucking DESTROYS. Its the 35-70 on CRACK. Even wide open at 300mm this zoom is tack sharp and turns the Tessar into dust. This zoom has quite a following on the stills boards cuz, well...it obliterates, while also sporting that lovely Zeis coating. Get one while you can, they are running out...fast.

Another option is the Canon 300 2.8 FD. Fucking amazing lens that does use all of Canon's wizardry and is fucking blazing sharp...but...as it's a bit older has a nice, forgiving coating. You can find them modded to Arri and PL mounts quite commonly. They are popular in our community.
 
Here's a full poster with most (Not all) Carl Zeiss lenses made for the Contax RTS system.

page20.jpg


As well, here's a link to the Contax System Brochure with detailed descriptions of many of the lenses and accessories: http://www3.xitek.com/catalog/contax/ver1/contax1.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top