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

Brice Ansel said:
Nick,
I wanted to say thank you for your time sharing your knowledge about those wonderfull piece of glass.
This thread is unvaluable for the people who are looking for a good glass investment.
I still can't understand why those C.Z Contax are so cheap.

My set so far (All AE)
25 Distagon, 28 Distagon, 35 Distagon, 50 Planar(1.7), 60s Planar, 35/70 Vario Sonnar, 85 sonnar,135 Sonnar, 200 Tele-Tessar
Looking for the 100 F2 (hard to find in AE version)
Did I miss something?
Nick do you have other sugestion to complete my AE set?

Best
B.
Click to expand...

Brice, love the pic!

Your set is pretty complete! You might want to consider the 18 as a wide (though its kinda slow at f4, the Tokina 11-16 is faster, but has different feel).

The one lens I'd say definitely look out for (in AE) is the Sonnar 100 3.5. It's cheap ($350-400), but kind of amazing. It's unbelievably sharp. Like the 85 Sonnar, but sharper. It's actually sharper than the 100 f2 across the board, at all apertures (the f2 planar has almost no distortion, though, so has its own magic that can't be dismissed...its famous for a reason). However the 100 Sonnar, for raw brute force, is hard to beat. It's charming. And tiny. I kind of love it. It has it's own "following" on the stills boards. Not as big a fan base as some of the regular All-Stars (100-300, 35-70, 35 1.4, 100 f2, etc)...but well loved for being a remarkable lens in a tiny package. Kind of like the 50 1.7. On crack.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Brice, love the pic!

Your set is pretty complete! You might want to consider the 18 as a wide (though its kinda slow at f4, the Tokina 11-16 is faster, but has different feel).

The one lens I'd say definitely look out for (in AE) is the Sonnar 100 3.5. It's cheap ($350-400), but kind of amazing. It's unbelievably sharp. Like the 85 Sonnar, but sharper. It's actually sharper than the 100 f2 across the board, at all apertures (the f2 planar has almost no distortion, though, so has its own magic that can't be dismissed...its famous for a reason). However the 100 Sonnar, for raw brute force, is hard to beat. It's charming. And tiny. I kind of love it. It has it's own "following" on the stills boards. Not as big a fan base as some of the regular All-Stars (100-300, 35-70, 35 1.4, 100 f2, etc)...but well loved for being a remarkable lens in a tiny package. Kind of like the 50 1.7. On crack.
Click to expand...

Hé hé you just sold me on the 100 F3.5 :-)
I already have the Tokina 11/16 and also the 19mm Elmarit in R mount wich I tend to prefer.
I was happy with the Leica R set but frankly I prefer the lowcon and organic feeling of those AE lenses.
At least I stayed a German groopie.
Thanks again Mr Morrison
Best
B.
 
Brice Ansel said:
Hé hé you just sold me on the 100 F3.5 :-)
I already have the Tokina 11/16 and also the 19mm Elmarit in R mount wich I tend to prefer.
I was happy with the Leica R set but frankly I prefer the lowcon and organic feeling of those AE lenses.
At least I stayed a German groopie.
Thanks again Mr Morrison
Best
B.
Click to expand...

Haha. No prob. I'm charmed by how the AE's have won you ever. I kinda pegged you as a Leica R guy, so happy to see you've fallen for the other germans as well.

Yeah, the organicness of the AE's is kinda sick. Also, the MM's have more barrel stiffness to them when you focus. The AE's are more silky smooth generally. I only built a backup MM set so I could shoot w/out the ninja-star if I needed to (in case a client had an issue with it). Im much more attached to my AEs. Seeing the "Made in West Germany" gets me every time.

Another lens for you to consider is the 180 Sonnar. I know you have the 200 Tessar, so it may be overkill, but the 180 is interesting in that it has a floating element to enhance it's close focus. Something you don't find often in telephotos. It's sharp, but doesn't have a ton of fine detail resolution (the 200 is better stopped down for this), but the 180 at 2.8 gives you a shallow plane of focus that's hard to replicate otherwise. I'd look for that after the 100, more as gravy than anything else. I kinda love the 200 tessar myself (I have the 3.5), so you are kinda covered.
 
Last edited:
He sold me on the 100 3.5 too. I got a minty one for 250 Euro in MM version. That beast is sharp!

But I went for both lines, AE and MM nevertheless. Since everybody seems to be hunting MMs, I went for slower MMs and got the fast AEs (50, 85).

I can't confirm a stiffer focus on MM in general. But that may be sample variation, after all these are all used lenses.
 
Uli Plank said:
I can't confirm a stiffer focus on MM in general. But that may be sample variation, after all these are all used lenses.
Click to expand...

All my MM's primes in the 7's have stiffer focus. The Zooms are all fine. My later MM primes (high 7s, 8s, 9s) have silkier focus. Something happened in that large batch of early 7s when a lot of the production moved to Japan. Not a huge deal, just something to keep in mind. I'm also just used to the AE's and how smooth they are, so its also about being a creature of habit. The stiffness is by no means a problem, just something small I noticed and cateloged to myself. If I'd never tried the AE's, I probably wouldn't have thought twice about it, to be honest.
 
Nick Morrison said:
I'm also just used to the AE's and how smooth they are
Click to expand...
I love my set of AE's! I recently got the 100 3.5, on Nick's recommendation (I think he is personally responsible for a worldwide shortage of this lens, lol)...bought mine from a dealer in Hong Kong for $475...it is sharp and smooth all at the same time.

We've been shooting some beauty shots for the new RP Lens website...I'll post some pix of my AE set in the next couple of days.
 
Tom Greenberg said:
(I think he is personally responsible for a worldwide shortage of this lens, lol)
Click to expand...

Haha, thanks Tom

Tom Greenberg said:
I recently got the 100 3.5...it is sharp and smooth all at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think pound for pound (its tiny) and dollar for dollar (its pretty affordable, really)...the 100 3.5 enters pretty rarified company. I'm not going to say something categorical like "for the price and the size, its the best lens of all time", but it's certainly in a very small elite group. It's just astounding how good it is, and yet how small and affordable it remains. The only chinks in its armor (if any) are it's speed (its slow) and separation (it can't get crazy shallow), and its distortion is common place (whereas the 85 1.4 and 100 f2 are WORLD CLASS for their lack of distortion, which I think must explain their hallowed reputation as superb portrait lenses).

But for sheer raw power, this thing is a monster. It's sharper than both the 100f2 and 100 2.8 Macro. EVEN WIDE OPEN it's sharper than the 100 f2 at any aperture, and is as sharp as the 100 2.8 Macro at 5.6. Kinda dizzying really.

It's the Manny Pacquiao of lenses.
 
Last edited:
Nick Morrison said:
Haha. No prob. I'm charmed by how the AE's have won you ever. I kinda pegged you as a Leica R guy, so happy to see you've fallen for the other germans as well.

Yeah, the organicness of the AE's is kinda sick. Also, the MM's have more barrel stiffness to them when you focus. The AE's are more silky smooth generally. I only built a backup MM set so I could shoot w/out the ninja-star if I needed to (in case a client had an issue with it). Im much more attached to my AEs. Seeing the "Made in West Germany" gets me every time.

Another lens for you to consider is the 180 Sonnar. I know you have the 200 Tessar, so it may be overkill, but the 180 is interesting in that it has a floating element to enhance it's close focus. Something you don't find often in telephotos. It's sharp, but doesn't have a ton of fine detail resolution (the 200 is better stopped down for this), but the 180 at 2.8 gives you a shallow plane of focus that's hard to replicate otherwise. I'd look for that after the 100, more as gravy than anything else. I kinda love the 200 tessar myself (I have the 3.5), so you are kinda covered.
Click to expand...

So today I was hunting for the 50 1.7 under steroid, I mean the 100 F3.5 (wich is a scary assumption 50 1.7 is already crazy sharp) and I finally found a 100 F2 AE.
Me think in the F2 league it will be a nice complement to my summicrons. ;-)

Best
B.
 
Here's a shot of my AE lenses, modified by RP Lens, here in lovely Grand Rapids...a little lens porn to start your day...

TG_Contax_AE_Set2.jpg


and a few with Allstar A-Mount...

TG_Contax_Allstar.jpg
 
Last edited:
Brice Ansel said:
So today I was hunting for the 50 1.7 under steroid, I mean the 100 F3.5 (wich is a scary assumption 50 1.7 is already crazy sharp) and I finally found a 100 F2 AE.
Me think in the F2 league it will be a nice complement to my summicrons. ;-)

Best
B.
Click to expand...

Haha. Nicely done.
 
Brice Ansel said:
A question for Dr Morrison,
does the Vario-Sonnar 100-300/4-5.6 exist only in MM version?
Best
B.
Click to expand...

It was one of the last lenses Zeiss made for Contax (if not the last), so I assume it's only MM yes.

It's a phenomenal lens. It will match your AE's, I wouldn't worry about that too much.
 
Guys - I'm soon have a delivery of a GL optics modified contax lens. I'll post a couple of shots and thoughts about it soon. Hope it interests you all.
 
Nick Morrison said:
It was one of the last lenses Zeiss made for Contax (if not the last), so I assume it's only MM yes.

It's a phenomenal lens. It will match your AE's, I wouldn't worry about that too much.
Click to expand...

Actually the 100-300 was first introduced in 1984, the first year MM's came about, so it could have been made in AE, though I'm sure they introduced it as an MM only lens to help drive sales. The last lens made for the Contax lineup was the 28-70 3.5-4.5 in 1998. Other than that, and excluding the anniversary versions, the 28-85 and the 35-135 follow suit (1989 and 1993).
 
Afternoon chaps and chappesses....

So my Canon 60D has recently died and I'm in the process of upgrading it to the full frame 6D. I'm going to offload my Tokina 11-16mm to get a wide that will work on both the Scarlet AND full frame DSLR.

The Contax 21mm f2.8 is sadly right out of the question, seeing as it is more expensive than my car so the current options are 20mm Zeiss Jena Flektagon f2.8 or f4, or Contax 18mm f4.

Any thoughts on these or recommendations for a good value full frame wide lens (prime or zoom) that would cut okay with the Contax lenses would be greatly appreciated.

Oh, and what do we think of the 60mm macro?
 
Last edited:
Your 11-16 should cover full frame at 16mm and will be wider than both the 18mm & 20mm lenses you mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top