Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Brice Ansel]

Ahh okay. I thought it was some crazy street fetish party...

*cancels flight*

Not a street fetish party, but their is room for improvisation.
You have to remember the Chianti is a wine area.
And usually after some glasses of red wine those parade can end into big hapening.

 

[Ben Scott]

*rebooks flight and orders a gimp suit*

Got a DSLR shoot on Tuesday with the 6D so I thought I'd give the 28-85mm a test run. With the 6D being so good in poor light I figured the slow speed of the zoom won't be as much of an issue.

Will report back.

 

[David W. Jones]

The 28-85mm is a great lens. I used it to shoot car lot drive-bys a couple of weeks ago and the lens flares off the early morning sun was perfect. The only issue I have with the lens is the lack of threads on the front to attach filters or change the hard front size..

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

David, hasn't it 82mm threads??

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

I just shot a short doc-style piece using only a small 250W bulb, sunlight through a window, the 35-70, and a few shots with the 80-200, on Scarlet 4K, no Mattebox or Filters. When it's done I'll post a link here. I'm just in AWE of the images I'm getting with, aside from camera and accessories, $650 of glass and $50 worth of light.

Seriously. Think about that. If the 35-70 was a person I'd marry it.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The 28-85mm is a great lens. I used it to shoot car lot drive-bys a couple of weeks ago and the lens flares off the early morning sun was perfect. The only issue I have with the lens is the lack of threads on the front to attach filters or change the hard front size..

Yeah David mine has 82mm fronts. Just add an 82-77 step down.

I just shot a short doc-style piece using only a small 250W bulb, sunlight through a window, the 35-70, and a few shots with the 80-200, on Scarlet 4K, no Mattebox or Filters. When it's done I'll post a link here. I'm just in AWE of the images I'm getting with, aside from camera and accessories, $650 of glass and $50 worth of light.

Seriously. Think about that. If the 35-70 was a person I'd marry it.

Haha, awesome Nick. Yeah the 35-70 is great. The 28-85 is a champ too.

 

[Brice Ansel]

As many of you know...I have been a strong proponent of Contax Glass on REDUSER for a while now. I get asked lots of questions. So I figured I would write up a little CONTAX SURVIVAL GUIDE that tries to answer them all at once...

Hope this helps...


Note - I've been writing and editing this for over 3 months. So please be kind. If you disagree with something, be classy, and I'll try and update this guide if I feel I have, in fact, made an error. This is a living document, meant to be updated. This is also why it's on it's own thread.

Also bear in mind I've written this on countless different nights after my night shifts (at 2am), or when I had some down time, and clearly on some sittings I was in a foul mood as some sections are riddled with curse words, which I think is hilarious, and for now, I've left them in...intact...as a momento to how long this took me to write.

Without further adieu...I present to you...


The Contax Zeiss Survival Guide:


1) WHY SHOULD YOU CARE ABOUT CONTAX GLASS?

Contax Zeiss should be on your radar for a couple of reasons.

A) They are FULL FRAME and will cover Dragon, and BEYOND.
B) They share very similar designs as the ZF/ZE/CP2 lenses, but for ½ or ⅓ the price
C) They have the older Zeiss T* coating that we also find on Hasselblads, Super Speeds and Standards...and as such have a more organic rendering on digital than ZF/ZE/CP2s. This is my personal opinion.
D) They are very easy to adapt to EOS mount.
E) They are very easy to cinemod. In fact, they MOD better than ZF/ZE’s believe it or not. Because they focus the right way (ZF’s do not, they are Nikon-oriented and focus backwards) and have an aperture ring (ZE’s don’t have one, as they are EOS-designed and have a digital iris controlled by the camera). Like ZF/ZE’s, they have fantastic barrel rotations (usually 180 degrees or more).


2) THE HISTORY OF CONTAX

Lets go back to the 70’s. Zeiss was making Hasselblad lenses for Medium Format. Super Speeds and Standards for cinema. And needed a new line of lenses for 35mm still photography. In 1974, Contax was born.

Actually, I should say RE-BORN. Because “Contax” is actually one of the most storied names in photography. It’s history criss-crosses wars, politics, and conjures up the never-ending battles between Leica and Zeiss.

Originally launched in 1932 to compete with - you guessed it, Leica - Contax was created by Zeiss subsidiary Zeiss Ikon. An instant hit, it became synonymous with innovation. After WW2, Zeiss was split asunder in TWO. Western Zeiss was migrated to Stuttgart under the watchful eye of American troops. And Eastern Zess remained behind in the ruins of the city of Jena, trapped behind the Iron Curtain. The two rivals would go to war over the name “Zeiss” until the end of the Cold War (it was the longest court case in the history of East Germany).

Zeiss Ikon was also split asunder into Eastern and Western divisions, but these two subsidiaries kept working together...and Contax cameras and lenses continued to be made on both sides of the wall. By the 1960’s, competition from the Japanese led to the eventual shuttering of both Ikons, even as the larger Zeiss’s stayed in business.

Under enormous pressure from the West, Eastern Zeiss eventually relinquished the naming rights to “CONTAX” to Western Zeiss. Eastern Zeiss instead consolidated all their smaller name brands into PENTACON.

So Contax = Western Zeiss. I say that because I’ve encountered many people who get confused and think Contax is weird Japanese junk. It’s not. It’s awesome Western Zeiss glass. Wake the fuck up.

Contax lenses became Zeiss’s flagship 35mm stills lenses. They were a massive hit when they launched in ‘75, and were fabricated until 2005 (when they were promptly tweaked and re-badged as ZF/ZE’s in 2006). Clearly Leica freaked the fuck out when these were released, because the next year Leica released their “R” line in 1976. For the next 20 years, Contax and Leica R would slug it out once again for optical supremacy. If you look at their “lines”, you’ll notice lots of similarities. Both have a 35-70 zoom, etc, etc.


3) DIFFERENCES/SIMILARITIES TO ZF/ZE

When the ZF/ZE’s first came out in 2006, they appear to have been direct re-badges of the Contax line (with small modifications to the designs). Over the years, Zeiss has added new, fantastic designs, this can not be overlooked. The 35 f2, 25f2, 50 f2 lenses are all completely new and completely superb. However, the optical quality of the Contax’s is certainly very close to ZF/ZE’s and many of the designs appear to have barely changed at all over the years, in particular the 21 2.8, 34 1.4, 50 1.4, and 85 1.4.

The one main difference I can see is...as stated above...I think the Contaxes cinemod slightly BETTER than ZF/ZE’s (because they ALL focus the right way, and ALL have an aperture ring), and also ALL they have that wonderful older T* coating that I believe looks better on digital than the newer T* coating (renders more organically). It has less contrast, and flares more.

On almost all shoots we’ve done with Contax lenses, where we have used other glass, be it Leica R’s or Canon EOS, every time the DP has noticed that the waveform’s “jump”. Because the Contax lenses are noticeably more low-con than even Leica R’s their contemporaries, you will notice more latitude in your image.

Another major advantage to the Contax’s is the sheer SIZE of the lineup. There are DOZENS of lenses to choose from, that cover all focal lengths from 15mm to 500mm. Yup...they go as far 500mm. ZF/ZE’s only go as far as 135mm. Contax also made very impressive Zooms. Here’s the full line of glass.

PRIMES:
15 3.5, 16 2.8 FISHEYE, 18 f4, 21 2.8, 25 2.8, 28 f2, 28 2.8, 35 1.4, 35 2.8, 45 2.8, 50 1.2, 50 1.4, 50 1.7, 60 2.8 Macro, 85 1.2, 85 1.4, 85 2.8, 100 f2, 100 2.8 Macro, 100 3.5, 135 f2, 135 2.8, 180 2.8, 200 f2, 200 3.5, 200 f4, 300 2.8, 300 f4, 500 5.6, 500 f8, 1000 f8

ZOOMS:
28-85 3.3-f4, 35-70 3.3, 80-200 f4, 100-300 4.5-5.6, 70-210 3.3, 40-80 f4


4) DIFFERENCES/SIMILARITIES TO LEICA R’s

I don’t want to get into a German war over which is better, Leica R or Contax. But Leica R’s are certainly more expensive, so take that into consideration if you are on a budget.

Optically, I’ve read numerous reports that show BOTH lines are very sharp, but frequently the Contax equivalent is deemed a tad sharper (stopped down). Take or leave it. Both look awesome, and I think people are splitting hairs.

In terms of a “look”, we’ve shot with both and there is a clear difference to me. Leica R’s are much prettier. They have more saturated colors, deeper blacks. If that’s your deal, then you will love Leica R’s. They also look more modern and clean.

Contax is more low-con, and more organic, to my eye. I prefer it, cuz there’s an honesty there I appreciate.. Things can still look beautiful, but Zeiss’s philosophy is not to make things pretty, but to be true. So I respond to that more. Also the low-con coating does give you more latitude. We noticed this specifically on a shoot where we mixed Leica R’s and Contax’s, and the Contax’s def gave us about a stop extra in latitude. The Contax don’t look vintage to me, but they also don’t look modern. I know “organic” is a hackneyed term, but it fits. On digital, these things are a home run, like Standards and Super Speeds.

Note: My hunch on the latitude/low con deal is as follows. In the same way RED wants to give you as many “options” by letting us shoot RAW, my hunch is that Zeiss was doing the same back in the day with a low-con coating. By giving you that extra latitude in the blacks and highlights, they were letting photographers dial in how much “black” and “contrast” they wanted later in the dark room...when they were printing. I’m sure that approach had similar benefits with cinema lenses and Hasselblads. Again...this is just a hunch on my part, don’t shoot me...


5) HOW TO SHOP FOR THEM - DON'T GET "G", "N", or "645". ONLY "RTS"

For our purposes, you only want to get the ORIGINAL SLR line of glass. The RTS line with the C/Y bayonet. They adapt to EOS (and other mounts) very easily.

Avoid the following, which do not:

G glass: these are rangefinder lenses (think Leica M)

N glass: this is a short-lived line of autofocus lenses that are very expensive to convert to EOS.

645: These are Medium Format lenses that competed with Hasselblad, P6, Mamiya, etc.

Well...
Glad your ode to Contax became a sticky Nick.

 

[Scott Miller]

Well, digging thru my extra bits laying about I finally found some old Contax bodies... Each with a 50mm attached. I already sold the 70-200 F3,5 (?) hope I remembered that correctly

anyway, so I tried reading but got lost...

One is :

Planar 1,4/50, 6872646, Carl Zeiss, Made In Japa

So this is the newer coating if I read ccorrectly? Still a desirable/sellable lens?

Other is a Yashica DSB 50mm 1:1,9. So not a Zeiss.looks like it is a sub $50 lens.

 

[David W. Jones]

David, hasn't it 82mm threads??

Yes you are absolutely correct. I zoned!

Was thinking about the 28-85, but picturing the 18mm in my head with that removable hood.

 

[Brice Ansel]

Well, digging thru my extra bits laying about I finally found some old Contax bodies... Each with a 50mm attached. I already sold the 70-200 F3,5 (?) hope I remembered that correctly

anyway, so I tried reading but got lost...

One is :

Planar 1,4/50, 6872646, Carl Zeiss, Made In Japa

So this is the newer coating if I read ccorrectly? Still a desirable/sellable lens?

Either way your 50mm planar is AE (white marking on diaf) or MM (with last diaf number green) it is a really desirable lens to buy.
Cheers

 

[Scott Miller]

Brice,

Thank you When I get home I will look for the colors indicated and see where I stand

Then some pics and onto the FS forum it will go!!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Well...
Glad your ode to Contax became a sticky Nick.

Awww....how cool is that?! Thanks for the heads up Brice, I hadn't even noticed!

Few things have made me happier than seeing Contax-mania spread. Good to know I'm not the only one with a "problem" anymore. Haha.

 

[Ben Scott]

Just this one 'sticky' is gonna add about 20% to every price now

 

[Scott Miller]

Been following this thread for a while, and finally got the info I needed!!

Thx to Nick and Brice!! Now I know I have a MM F1,4 50mm.... Now to see how to value it and list it!

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

What a fantastic thread. I have litteraly spent the last two days reading this whole thread while researching some shopping possibilities. I'm very hooked for the Contax lenses, but will probably have to start with the f2.8 of the lenses. Originally I had my eyes set on the Rokinon cine lenses - especially the 35mm T1.5, when I stumbled upon this thread. But I obviously don't want to mix too many brands to make the lenses match. And francly I must admit that the Zeiss lenses has always been a guilty pleasure of mine which I couldn't afford at such a rapid paste that it would make sense to even begin to buy into a complete set of lenses. But with this way, it is definately possible. I'm looking for a 35mm lens to begin with and has my eyes set on either the f2.8 (since the f1.4 is a bit to pricey for now) or the 35-70 zoom. But I'm not sure about the whole push-pull way of zooming. I mean how accurate is it and does it move when your camera tilts? My collection of lenses so far only contains the Canon 50mm f1.4 and the inevitable Tokina 11-16. I don't have a particular need for covering as many focal lengths as possible as soon as possible, but more of buying lenses I will enjoy over time and actually be using in the future so I'll do as litte double dibbing as possible.

 

[Ben Scott]

I was in the same situation as you Jesper. I actually had the Samyang 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 and sold them to put the proceeds towards some Zeiss glass but could only afford the 2.8 versions.

I bought a 35mm f2.8 a couple of weeks back and it is beautiful. Incredibly sharp and pretty close focusing.
Most recently I got a 28-85 zoom (push pull again) and used it with the Scarlet for the first time today. It needs a fair amount of light to sing but it's a far better lens than the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 I sold to buy it.

I definitely want/need/must have some of the faster glass now, but really don't have any worries about the quality of the cheaper or slower glass. All three of my f2.8 Contax lenses look sexy as hell wide open.

 

[Nick Morrison]

What a fantastic thread. I have litteraly spent the last two days reading this whole thread while researching some shopping possibilities. I'm very hooked for the Contax lenses, but will probably have to start with the f2.8 of the lenses. Originally I had my eyes set on the Rokinon cine lenses - especially the 35mm T1.5, when I stumbled upon this thread. But I obviously don't want to mix too many brands to make the lenses match. And francly I must admit that the Zeiss lenses has always been a guilty pleasure of mine which I couldn't afford at such a rapid paste that it would make sense to even begin to buy into a complete set of lenses. But with this way, it is definately possible. I'm looking for a 35mm lens to begin with and has my eyes set on either the f2.8 (since the f1.4 is a bit to pricey for now) or the 35-70 zoom. But I'm not sure about the whole push-pull way of zooming. I mean how accurate is it and does it move when your camera tilts? My collection of lenses so far only contains the Canon 50mm f1.4 and the inevitable Tokina 11-16. I don't have a particular need for covering as many focal lengths as possible as soon as possible, but more of buying lenses I will enjoy over time and actually be using in the future so I'll do as litte double dibbing as possible.

The push pull zooms make GREAT variable primes, especially if you put a FOCUS GEAR on them. That wil lock them in place. And the Contax Zooms are superb, especially the 35-70, 28-85, 100-300, and 80-200.

The 35-70 and 100-300 are EXCEPTIONAL and uncompromising when it comes to their optics. The 28-85 would be perfect, if it wasn't for it's slight distortion at 28, and that it loses a half stop between 28 and 85. But because of it's convenient range, I find it the most usable of the zooms, and the one I recommend the most.

I was in the same situation as you Jesper. I actually had the Samyang 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 and sold them to put the proceeds towards some Zeiss glass but could only afford the 2.8 versions.

I bought a 35mm f2.8 a couple of weeks back and it is beautiful. Incredibly sharp and pretty close focusing.

Most recently I got a 28-85 zoom (push pull again) and used it with the Scarlet for the first time today. It needs a fair amount of light to sing but it's a far better lens than the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 I sold to buy it.

I definitely want/need/must have some of the faster glass now, but really don't have any worries about the quality of the cheaper or slower glass. All three of my f2.8 Contax lenses look sexy as hell wide open.

I think the Contax 2.8 "budget" glass may be one of the best deals in DSLR optics, period. They'll shock you with their sharpness, quality, look...and of course price (most of these primes are $300-400).

The 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.7, 85 2.8, 100 3.5, and 135 2.8 are optically SUPERB. The 135 is GREAT, but the other ones are special, IMHO. As good as any of the best Contax primes, just a tad slower. If you don't need speed, and are looking for superb budget glass, give these a long, long look.

The 35 2.8 is my favorite. Sharp wide open, and a joy to use. The 85 2.8 is fantastic too. The 100 3.5 is funny for how sharp it us.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

The 35-70 doesn't move when the camera tilts. There is a bit of breathing when rack-focusing. But it's a lens meant for stills and cheap as hell compared to cine glass. One thing that the push-pull nature of the zooms helps with, is snap-zooms. Those ocasional shots where you need to SNAP from one extreme focal length to another. It's a weird, over-the-top kind of effect, but when you need it (as I did a few weeks ago) it's actually pretty helpful.

The only downside of the 35-70 is that it's a 3.4. But, as compensation, it goes macro at 35.

Honestly, I have both the 35 2.8 and the 35-70. This weekend, on a shoot, I only used the 35-70 and the 80-200. If I were you (and I'm not) I'd grab the 35-70 first, and then move on to other lengths.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The only downside of the 35-70 is that it's a 3.4. But, as compensation, it goes macro at 35.

The Macro is pretty phenomenal, too. Not as close as the 60 and 100 macros, but the pretty stellar in its own right. Makes the 35-70 very versatile.

 

[Brice Ansel]

Few things have made me happier than seeing Contax-mania spread.
Good to know I'm not the only one with a "problem" anymore. Haha.

I know what you mean...:mad2: