Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Nick Morrison]

PS guys I'll have a lot of work to post soon...all shot in some way or other with Contax!!

A piece with Ashanti, a Project Runway spot, an Ancient Aliens trailer, and now some Shelby Xmas spots. Just waiting on client approval and for these shows to air. The Contax glass crushed on all of them.

Have to say, my Contax Primes did really well on a bartech this weekend, FYI.

Can't wait to see how they perform on the new Redrock Microremote!!

 

[Sam Barnett]

Woah. That looks delicious.

 

[Paul Russell]

Some good news from here too. That little short we made has caused a film distie to offer us a nationwide cinema deal on a full length sequel - in part due to the 'hollywood look' that the Contax lenses gave us.

Now all we have to do is make a 90 minute version on a Blair Witch budget

 

[Nick Morrison]

Some good news from here too. That little short we made has caused a film distie to offer us a nationwide cinema deal on a full length sequel - in part due to the 'hollywood look' that the Contax lenses gave us.

Now all we have to do is make a 90 minute version on a Blair Witch budget

WOW!!!! Awesome news!!!!

 

[Brice Ansel]

I love how much olive oil she uses at the end...SO GOOD.

And I did cut the take before the end.
The amount of olive oil was "abondante"like they say here.

If you don't mind Nick I'm going a little bit of topic (talking food instead of lenses) to answer Paul's quote.

Very nice. I always wondered how sun-dried tomatoes were really made.

If you want top dry tomatoes, you will prefer to use the sun to dry them, the process is of course a little bit longer.
And by the way Paul, congrat for the good news.



Ps: Thanks gentlemen for the compliments
Cheers
B.

 

[Daniel Reed]

Hi All, I'm trying to find a good ultra wide non-fisheye w/ a front ring that is 77mm or smaller that cuts well Zeiss Contax lenses manufactured in the mid 1990s

Strange enough to me, I'm considering the Rokinon 16mm T2.2 cine model - does anyone have any experience using this w/ Zeiss glass?

This is to match a set of duclus/leitax modified contax lenses w/ serials ranging from 7,500,000 to 8,100,000
This is to be used on a Scarlet

The widest lens in my set is currently a 28mm
I usually have to rent or borrow ultra wides, and frankly never have been satisfied w/ them or they are too pricey for me to consider buying outright w/in the near future

Prior Lenses I've considered:
The Contax 18mm has a 86mm front if I'm lucky enough to find the 70/86 ring - plus its super slow (f4)
Zeiss ZE 18mm has no manual aperature - the nikon version does but spins backwards - once again both are pretty slow (f3.5)
The Tokina 11-16 while fast, looked soft to my eyes (maybe a bad copy)
Contax 21mm, hard to find a good copy and i want wider then 21mm
Zeiss 21mm ZE/ZF - same reasons as ZE/ZF 18 and from above (except not slow)


Any advice is much appreciated - this ultrawide problem has been an ultra pain in my ass!
Thank You

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Daniel, start with the C/Y Zeiss 21mm MMJ, believe me.

 

[Tom_Gaudet]

...Have any of you guys tried alternate (cheap) focus gears?...

Hi David, might try the rings this e-bay seller has: helicoptersean

What he has advertised are gears he has made for others. If you want them for another lens, he will make them. I was not ready to commit to full cine-mod, so his rings have worked well for me. Tom

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hi All, I'm trying to find a good ultra wide non-fisheye w/ a front ring that is 77mm or smaller that cuts well Zeiss Contax lenses manufactured in the mid 1990s

Strange enough to me, I'm considering the Rokinon 16mm T2.2 cine model - does anyone have any experience using this w/ Zeiss glass?

This is to match a set of duclus/leitax modified contax lenses w/ serials ranging from 7,500,000 to 8,100,000
This is to be used on a Scarlet

The widest lens in my set is currently a 28mm
I usually have to rent or borrow ultra wides, and frankly never have been satisfied w/ them or they are too pricey for me to consider buying outright w/in the near future

Prior Lenses I've considered:
The Contax 18mm has a 86mm front if I'm lucky enough to find the 70/86 ring - plus its super slow (f4)
Zeiss ZE 18mm has no manual aperature - the nikon version does but spins backwards - once again both are pretty slow (f3.5)
The Tokina 11-16 while fast, looked soft to my eyes (maybe a bad copy)
Contax 21mm, hard to find a good copy and i want wider then 21mm
Zeiss 21mm ZE/ZF - same reasons as ZE/ZF 18 and from above (except not slow)


Any advice is much appreciated - this ultrawide problem has been an ultra pain in my ass!
Thank You

The new Rokinon may work for you, I've never used it myself. The new Sigma 18-35 1.8 may also be your answer. Has much more distortion at 18mm than the Contax 18 F4, but otherwise looks pretty good. I've just got modded copy back from RP lens, need to test.

Or you can do what I ended up doing...finding a Zeiss Arriflex 16 T2...just got mine serviced...and believe it or not...I'm going to probably get it Leitaxed haha (its currently Arri B mount). Just to be clear, these "Arriflex Primes" are the predecessors to the Standard Primes...think of them as the B-Speeds to the Standard Primes...very similar optics, except the housings look more like Contax Stills lenses. I got both a 16 T2 and a 24 T2 and just had them fully serviced and "modded" by Visual Products. But now I want them to be Leitaxed so they can sit in a case with all my other Leitax Contax modded lenses.

Both my 16 and 24 are "T" coated with serials in the early 6xx-xxx range. Both have serated aperture blades that produce wicked "star" like flares. I need to do extensive tests to see just how close they match my Contax primes, but so far...I'm pretty happy these small beauties just fit in my case with the rest of my glass. Been a 18 month odyssey to find and service them. Getting them Leitaxed will be the last step in a very long journey.

Once that's done, my two "main" cases (I have many I know, its a little ambarassing) will be:

PELICAN 1
16T2, 21 2.8, 24 T2, 28 f2
35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 135 f2
(goal was to be F2 btw 16mm and 135mm, and all are modded and with 77mm fronts)

PELICAN 2
11-16 2.8, 18-35 1.8, 18 f4 (or 25 2.8)
60 2.8 Macro, 100 2.8 Macro, 100 f2
180 2.8

Btw two cases, full set is 11mm to 180mm at 2.8
And 16mm to 135mm at f2
and 18mm to 85mm at 1.8

I also have a third box I've started to bring to set with:
Nikkor 200 f2
Nikkor 300 2.8

But these Nikkors don't have 77mm threads and require a whole other workflow (longer railes, mattebox, etc)...so we actually haven't used either lens yet.

I have other cases I bring to set at times...which include my Hasseblads, other Contax glass (AEs...Zooms), but the above is my main kit right now...

Point is Daniel, I understand your dilemma and have asked myself the same question..how to get a great ultra wide that matched the Contax? I landed on the Arriflex 16 T2, as well as the 11-16, and the 18-35...I think they all work in different degrees...and with RAW its prett easy to match looks...especially on the wider end.... (where things tend to stay in focus, so you don't have to think as much about variances in bokeh, etc).

You could also get the 21 2.8 Contax too, FYI. Don't forget on Dragon it will end up with a FOV of a 16 (and your 28mm will have a FOV of a 24)

Also...about the 18 F4 "issue" with the 86mm front...yeah I have that 86/70 and its an enormous pain in the ass (once you add a 77mm step up and start adding filters...the stack begins to vignette quick)...but Steve Gall in NYC apparently has some kind of solution for this...so going to see him about it...

 

[Nick Morrison]

Here's a sample from a shoot last weekend. Its a poor still from a Quicktime, but I promise I'll post the video (and many others) next week or immediately after the holidays. Shot on a 21mm 2.8 Contax, Scarlet 3k 48fps, on a Seven Jib, with Hollywood Black Magic filtration. Graded.

And here's the Tim Burton version...pretty terrifying and spellbinding at same time...part of me wishes we'd gone in that direction...but it would have been way too much (for that job...but for another future gig...this dark, tilt shifted look is unreal).

 

[Tom_Gaudet]

...With a step-down ring to 77mm on my 28-85 and 300mm which have 82mm filter threads.

Hi Ben, when using the step-down ring (82-77mm) is there any vignetting at the wide end of the 28-85?

Thanks, Tom

 

[DAVID BARKAN]

Hi All, I'm trying to find a good ultra wide non-fisheye w/ a front ring that is 77mm or smaller that cuts well Zeiss Contax lenses manufactured in the mid 1990s

Strange enough to me, I'm considering the Rokinon 16mm T2.2 cine model - does anyone have any experience using this w/ Zeiss glass?

This is to match a set of duclus/leitax modified contax lenses w/ serials ranging from 7,500,000 to 8,100,000
This is to be used on a Scarlet

The widest lens in my set is currently a 28mm
I usually have to rent or borrow ultra wides, and frankly never have been satisfied w/ them or they are too pricey for me to consider buying outright w/in the near future

Prior Lenses I've considered:
The Contax 18mm has a 86mm front if I'm lucky enough to find the 70/86 ring - plus its super slow (f4)
Zeiss ZE 18mm has no manual aperature - the nikon version does but spins backwards - once again both are pretty slow (f3.5)
The Tokina 11-16 while fast, looked soft to my eyes (maybe a bad copy)
Contax 21mm, hard to find a good copy and i want wider then 21mm
Zeiss 21mm ZE/ZF - same reasons as ZE/ZF 18 and from above (except not slow)


Any advice is much appreciated - this ultrawide problem has been an ultra pain in my ass!
Thank You

I wouldn't really consider f/4 slow, especially in todays ISO standards... but go as you please. =)

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hi Ben, when using the step-down ring (82-77mm) is there any vignetting at the wide end of the 28-85?

Thanks, Tom

Tom, no it doesn't vignette. Remember the 28-85 is designed for full frame, so you're only using the middle 60% or so of the image circle.

I've used it with a 82-77mm step down, AND a Cordvision cine-front, and it's been fine on a 7D and Scarlet.

My 28-85 with stepdowns was also used on an Epic for parts of this trailer. All the shots between the "SHE'S ON A MISSION" card and "SHE'S NOT GOOD AT BEING BAD" were shot on the 28-85. Looked fine!!

 

[Nick Morrison]

I wouldn't really consider f/4 slow, especially in todays ISO standards... but go as you please. =)

David while I generally agree with you, and indeed a majority of my studio shoots ARE at an F4, but I'd say about 1/3 of my work is at a 2.8, and we've been known to go down as far as an F2. So...while F4 is often fine, it's still good to have options. It's nice to know you can go more open if needed.

That said, I'm pretty fond of the 18 F4. It's lack of distortion makes it a charming lens to me.

 

[Daniel Reed]

Thanks Nick for the advise and input. I suspect you're right about the 21 - I should just get the c/y 21!

I generally don't shoot wide open. The point for me is, most glass in my experience is much sharper knocked down a stop or so from open.
For example, if a lens is rated at T/F 2.8... i consider my shooting aperture range to start somewhere around 4-5 for optimal clarity.
Therefor, if open is around F/T 4... I'd want to start my range around 6-8
This requires more lights and/or higher output lights... this means higher electrical requirements...
...even more difficult (aka exponential power needs) when taking an ultrawide FOV into consideration.
On a side note, I generally try not to stop down smaller then F/T 11.
I'm giving approximates as I tend to ride the aperture knob to get the most latitude I can (declicked irises).

BTW, love the snow man shot above - really good work
I've added the Schneider Hollywood Black Magic filter to my list of things to experiment w/
If you don't mind, can you share more about using those filters?
Aka they come in 1/2, 1, 2 in terms of strength. which one did you use in that shot, and what are the lighting/contrast ratios best suited for each strength of the filter.

Thank You :thumbsup:

David while I generally agree with you, and indeed a majority of my studio shoots ARE at an F4, but I'd say about 1/3 of my work is at a 2.8, and we've been known to go down as far as an F2. So...while F4 is often fine, it's still good to have options.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks Nick for the advise and input. I suspect you're right about the 21 - I should just get the c/y 21!

I generally don't shoot wide open. The point for me is, most glass in my experience is much sharper knocked down a stop or so from open.
For example, if a lens is rated at T/F 2.8... i consider my shooting aperture range to start somewhere around 4-5 for optimal clarity.
Therefor, if open is around F/T 4... I'd want to start my range around 6-8

Hey Daniel, yes you are right...most lenses are much sharper stopped down...but it also depends on the design. For example, most fast 1.4 lenses suffer wide open. You shoot at 1.4 only for the artistry of the "look", or if you really need the light. But stopped down to 2.8....they shine.

However, more conservative designs (for example most Contax 2.8 primes) tend to be sharp even wide open. The Contax 21 2.8 is RAZOR sharp wide open. Stopped down the edges improve, but you'll barely notice it on a Scarlet as the lens is a full frame design (and you'll never see the edges on s35 anyway). Same goes for the 28 2.8 MM, 35 2.8, 85 2.8 and 100 3.5. The 85 2.8 and 100 3.5 barely improve stopped down for example (which is remarkable).

But yes, your general rule of thumb is right about stopping down is right. But the degree of variance of wide open performance again depends on the lens design. And the virtues of conservative, slower lenses is that they frequently surprise you with their performance...even wide open.

For example...the 100 3.5 Sonnar is technically sharper WIDE OPEN than the 100 f2 is stopped down!! Amazing what a stop and a half of light can gain you (mind you, the Sonnar has more distortion than the Planar, and there is more to the eye than sharpness!)

BTW, love the snow man shot above - really good work
I've added the Schneider Hollywood Black Magic filter to my list of things to experiment w/
If you don't mind, can you share more about using those filters?
Aka they come in 1/2, 1, 2 in terms of strength. which one did you use in that shot, and what are the lighting/contrast ratios best suited for each strength of the filter.
Thank You :thumbsup:

Hollywood Black Magic comes in many strengths. From what I know...1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1 and probably 2.

Its become a very popular filter in narrative work because it combines TWO other famous filters...CLASSIC SOFT...and BLACK FROST...something it seems lots of DP's were already doing on set (stacked in their matteboxes).

The Classic Soft adds a nice diffused "glow" to your image (it's used all the time on Glee for example, and it extremely popular with female talent), and the Black Frost (same as Black Pro Mist) is a BLACK DUST that is very hard to register optically (ie you don't notice it in the picture like say white pro mist)...but it does knock off the edge a bit, and most importantly BLOOMS YOUR HIGHLIGHTS. In effect it adds an "analog" look to digital (Black Pro Mist is used on Iron Man, Iron Man 2, After Earth, The Descendent's and many many other pictures...as a means of removing a sort of clinicalness that exists in either the digital image, or the exacting sharpness of modern photography...and to make something look just a bit more "filmic" and familiar).

So combined they are in interesting cocktail.

I own a number of filters in 77mm thread filters (which it perfectly in front of the Contax primes!!). Optically these filters are exactly the same as their larger 4x5.65 counterparts, but they are much more affordable and smaller in size. Makes for fun experimentation on set!!!

For the Snowman, we used 1/2. That's the smallest strength available in 77mm. The 1/2 means the following...all Hollywood Black Magic has 1/8 Black Frost as its base....the "number" of its strength refers to the amount of Classic Soft you add on top....except in this case it uses HD Classic Soft (which is a tighter pattern and weaker than normal Classic Soft)....so a 1/2 HBM is in effect 1/8 Black Frost + 1/2 Classic Soft HD (which is as strong as 1/4 Classic Soft)...if that makes any sense. If we threw on HBM 1 (then that would look like Black Frost 1/8 plus Classic Soft HD 1...which is more like Classic Soft 1/2).

Anyway. I basically use HBM 1/2 a lot!

But there are many other fun filters to use...HBM is just the top of the iceburg!!

 

[Ben Scott]

Nick those stills look incredible. Very very Burton-esque.

In other news the doc I shot at Christmas (using a bit of Contax 50 1.4) has just won one a BAFTA. It's not one of the sexy categories but I'm totally calling myself BAFTA award winning Ben Scott for the next year

 

[Brice Ansel]

Nick those stills look incredible. Very very Burton-esque.

In other news the doc I shot at Christmas (using a bit of Contax 50 1.4) has just won one a BAFTA. It's not one of the sexy categories but I'm totally calling myself BAFTA award winning Ben Scott for the next year

A really nice tribute to Mr Burton indeed.
Congrat for the Bafta Ben . ;-)

 

[Brice Ansel]

Tom, no it doesn't vignette. Remember the 28-85 is designed for full frame, so you're only using the middle 60% or so of the image circle.

I've used it with a 82-77mm step down, AND a Cordvision cine-front, and it's been fine on a 7D and Scarlet.

My 28-85 with stepdowns was also used on an Epic for parts of this trailer. All the shots between the "SHE'S ON A MISSION" card and "SHE'S NOT GOOD AT BEING BAD" were shot on the 28-85. Looked fine!!

It sounds like fun.
Really like the texture shots in the church.
Cheers
B.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Nick those stills look incredible. Very very Burton-esque.

In other news the doc I shot at Christmas (using a bit of Contax 50 1.4) has just won one a BAFTA. It's not one of the sexy categories but I'm totally calling myself BAFTA award winning Ben Scott for the next year

Thanks Ben! I'll be posting the Vimeo link this week!

CONGRATS ON BAFTA!!!!