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

Wow! This is quite exciting to hear! What should I get with it? Which is the correct hood, it's 82mm right? And also, I was looking at the Leitax adaptation... if I go for EF mount, then I'm stuck with it, right? I won't be able to go PL for example? I see they have a Cinema Adapter, but I don't really get how it works.

Thanks, cheers.
 
On Full Frame cameras, the 35-70 absolutely destroys the 28-85 in terms of edge to edge sharpness and CA. Where the 28-85 shines is on Crop cameras where a smaller area of the lens is being used. It won't show as much CA as it does on a Full Frame camera.

I have the Contax N 24-85 and to be honest, it takes the cake when it comes to lack of distortion, CA and sharpness compared to the two, as well as giving you a very nice range in Full Frame. Not many people own it because it's a hassle to convert from N Mount to EOS Mount, but the money spent in the conversion is well worth the outcome. Also, the BOKEH on the lens is absolutely majestic, completely buttery smooth with ABSOLUTELY no harsh circles... it's almost as if a post lens blur is being added when things are out of focus... it's that nice. The best I've witnessed on any lens, be it zoom or prime.
 
"I was looking at the Leitax adaptation... if I go for EF mount, then I'm stuck with it, right?"


The Leitax adapters are semi-permanent. You can easily remove them if desired.
 
Brandon Kelly said:
I got the 35-70, which I just love. Constant aperture throughout zoom. I'm pretty sure it's quite a bit smaller/lighter then the 28-85 as well. Seems as both lenses are great though.
Click to expand...

The 35-70 is much smaller, and has STERLING Macro. The 28-85 is a BIG PIECE OF GLASS. Heavy. Almost as large as my 180 2.8. Whereas the 35-70 is more the size of an 85 1.4. Light-weight, simple. Constant aperture. Nice.
 
Shervin Mandgaryan said:
On Full Frame cameras, the 35-70 absolutely destroys the 28-85 in terms of edge to edge sharpness and CA. Where the 28-85 shines is on Crop cameras where a smaller area of the lens is being used. It won't show as much CA as it does on a Full Frame camera.

I have the Contax N 24-85 and to be honest, it takes the cake when it comes to lack of distortion, CA and sharpness compared to the two, as well as giving you a very nice range in Full Frame. Not many people own it because it's a hassle to convert from N Mount to EOS Mount, but the money spent in the conversion is well worth the outcome. Also, the BOKEH on the lens is absolutely majestic, completely buttery smooth with ABSOLUTELY no harsh circles... it's almost as if a post lens blur is being added when things are out of focus... it's that nice. The best I've witnessed on any lens, be it zoom or prime.
Click to expand...

Shervin, stop it! Now you'r making me want to buy it! I resisted the last time you mentioned it...and now...like a Siren....it's beckoning me to come over...and smash my wallet on the rocks.
 
Shervin Mandgaryan said:
On Full Frame cameras, the 35-70 absolutely destroys the 28-85 in terms of edge to edge sharpness and CA. Where the 28-85 shines is on Crop cameras where a smaller area of the lens is being used. It won't show as much CA as it does on a Full Frame camera.
Click to expand...

Ok, first of all, I'm going to ignore whatever you said about Contax N! =) No Pun intended, I'm just trying to keep it simple for now... I won't be able to do any heavy conversions at this point.
Now, the 28-85 is not as good as the 35-70, let's say, as if comparing the Canon 24-105(useful but sucks) to the Canon 24-70 f2.8 II?

About constant aperture, I don't really care, I'd probably always use any of them at F4-5.6, and about weight, it does actually weight less then the Canon 24-70 f2.8 II, so it's fine. I worry a bit about the 82mm filters though, they are really really expensive...
 
DAVID BARKAN said:
Ok, first of all, I'm going to ignore whatever you said about Contax N! =) No Pun intended, I'm just trying to keep it simple for now... I won't be able to do any heavy conversions at this point.
Now, the 28-85 is not as good as the 35-70, let's say, as if comparing the Canon 24-105(useful but sucks) to the Canon 24-70 f2.8 II?

About constant aperture, I don't really care, I'd probably always use any of them at F4-5.6, and about weight, it does actually weight less then the Canon 24-70 f2.8 II, so it's fine. I worry a bit about the 82mm filters though, they are really really expensive...
Click to expand...

Both zooms are amazing. I used the 28-85 on a HUGE shoot on LA, and no one blinked. Looks amazing. Super sharp. As Shervin says, on a cropped sensor, the 28-85 is a monster. I don't have a 5D, so I've never even seen any of the 28-85's flaws vs the 35-70! For me, the 28-85 is much more useful. The extra range is a big deal. And the barrel rotation is crazy. It's so big a lens, you end up with almost 270 degree focus throw at all focal lengths...even at 28mm.

Don't worry about the 82mm thread. Just put a step down ring to 77mm. It won't ever vignette, even on Dragon.

And stopped down at 5.6 both zooms SCREAM.
 
Does anyone have a 200mm/3.5 AE with a Leitax Mount? I just got mine back from a local lens service centre, where it was having a simultaneous clean and Leitax conversion, and now it won't focus to infinity. I think it's a re-assembly issue. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Paul Russell said:
Does anyone have a 200mm/3.5 AE with a Leitax Mount? I just got mine back from a local lens service centre, where it was having a simultaneous clean and Leitax conversion, and now it won't focus to infinity? I think it's a re-assembly issue. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I have mine with a cheap chinese adapter, and it focuses to infinity fine. Must be the Lietax adapter...how it's been placed on lens. I'd have them re-align.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Shervin, stop it! Now you'r making me want to buy it! I resisted the last time you mentioned it...and now...like a Siren....it's beckoning me to come over...and smash my wallet on the rocks.
Click to expand...

You're not a true Contax Master until you get one :)

You seriously don't know what you're missing.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Is it parfocal when you zoom?
Click to expand...

No sadly, if it were, it'd be too good to be true.

At the end of the day, it's a kit zoom lens that just happens to produce amazing pictures. It has a limited application in cinema use... but the bloody images it creates are just eye popping.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Both zooms are amazing. I used the 28-85 on a HUGE shoot on LA, and no one blinked. Looks amazing. Super sharp. As Shervin says, on a cropped sensor, the 28-85 is a monster. I don't have a 5D, so I've never even seen any of the 28-85's flaws vs the 35-70! For me, the 28-85 is much more useful. The extra range is a big deal. And the barrel rotation is crazy. It's so big a lens, you end up with almost 270 degree focus throw at all focal lengths...even at 28mm.

Don't worry about the 82mm thread. Just put a step down ring to 77mm. It won't ever vignette, even on Dragon.

And stopped down at 5.6 both zooms SCREAM.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm convinced, I'll probably end up with a set from RPLens, but before that I'd like to get the 28-85 zoom... at KEH they have one in EX condition (with caps) for about 465 and today they had a 7% discount going... but I can get a like new condition from RPLens for 1300... Is it worth it? Or should I just go with the KEH one for now?
 
DAVID BARKAN said:
Ok, I'm convinced, I'll probably end up with a set from RPLens, but before that I'd like to get the 28-85 zoom... at KEH they have one in EX condition (with caps) for about 465 and today they had a 7% discount going... but I can get a like new condition from RPLens for 1300... Is it worth it? Or should I just go with the KEH one for now?
Click to expand...

Probably the one from KEH is fine...! Either way, you can't go wrong.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Probably the one from KEH is fine...! Either way, you can't go wrong.
Click to expand...

There's actually another interesting sample at eBay at the moment... From Portland, I'm waiting a bit mover to snatch one since I don't have anyone to bring it back to me... Just lost my lens hitchhiker.

Quick question, I've read and seen amazing things from the 45mm f/2 Planar G lens... But why didn't Zeiss ever replicate or re-used the formula for SLRs? Or did they?
 
DAVID BARKAN said:
There's actually another interesting sample at eBay at the moment... From Portland, I'm waiting a bit mover to snatch one since I don't have anyone to bring it back to me... Just lost my lens hitchhiker.

Quick question, I've read and seen amazing things from the 45mm f/2 Planar G lens... But why didn't Zeiss ever replicate or re-used the formula for SLRs? Or did they?
Click to expand...

RE: 28-85
I would def recommend getting the 28-85 from KEH vs one from ebay. Ebay only works if you are buying from a high volume, reputable dealer (ie an ebay front for an established photo store). I've found buying from enthusiasts on ebay can def be a bit of a risk.

RE: 45 f2 Planar
In regards the iconic Planar 45 f2, haha...you are the first to ask one of the million dollar questions about the "G" series.

Here's the thing. The "G" series are RANGEFINDER LENSES. Not SLR. So they were designed to couple to much smaller camera bodies (think small pocket Leica M lenses), with shorter flange distances (cuz there's no mirror). The shorter flange means the lenses are CLOSER TO THE NEGATIVE so....in theory...are imprinting their "image" more directly (and possibly can render "sharper").

At least, many people believe rangefinder systems are sharper than their SLR equivalents...possibly for this reason.

Because the Planar 45 f2 was designed for rangefinder specifically, I'm assuming that's why it was never ported over to the SLR line.

The "G" series are also autofocus (very rare for rangefinder, a big reason they are so saught after)...so for cinema this is problematic.

However...getting them onto a RED IS interesting...I agree..

The only way todo it, that I know, is to get a Leica M mount for RED, and then get the glass MODDED to Leica M. A long laborious process...but I'm intrigued mysel! Who knows!!!
 
Last edited:
DAVID BARKAN said:
Quick question, I've read and seen amazing things from the 45mm f/2 Planar G lens... But why didn't Zeiss ever replicate or re-used the formula for SLRs? Or did they?
Click to expand...

The closest lens to the 45/2 G lens is the 50mm 1.4 or 1.7 Planars. They're based on the same symmetrical double guassian lens design that all Planar's feature. I'm sure at F2 on a 50mm F1.7 or 1.4, you'd get the same performance as the G lens. The G lenses are smaller than C/Y lenses because the room between the sensor/film plane and the rear element of the lens is alot less, because rangefinder lenses do not use a mirror to function.

The 45/2.8 in the Contax C/Y set is totally different than the planars, since it's a Tessar design (Less elements and less glass to make than Planar's). The Tessar in my opinion is not a good performing lens, so it's best to avoid. It is compact, and good for traveling photographers, but not for cinema use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top