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

im relatively sure this will be a pretty close guess as to how itll turn out.

Nick Morrison said:
Interesting. Let us know how it goes. My guess is the Supers and Contax are pretty similarly mushy (but pleasing) wide open. The Contax maybe a bit more so because of their larger image circle. The RPP will be sharp, even wide open. But big and heavy. CNE should be good. Panchros too. To me the test is if you can tell them apart by 2.8. My guess is probably not. Which of course is where the Contax show their stripes: considering how small, "good looking" and affordable they are, Contax is the blue collar choice for great glass. Also there are so many primes/zooms to choose from - from 18mm to 500mm.

But if $$$ was no object, it would be hard to turn down some Panchros. If I had to rank these sets, they would be:

1) Mark I Super Speeds (small size, 80mm fronts, super fast, brilliant look. The 1.4 wonders)
2) Panchros (best mechanics, but 2.8 creates some creative limitations)
3) Contax (small, affordable, great look, tons of primes to pick from, worst mechanics by far)
4) CNE (not enough primes in the set to make them interesting to me yet)
5) RPP (amazing glass, but too big, and they look too exacting for my taste. But if we were only judging sharpness could go to top of list easily).
Click to expand...
 
Is there anyone who can compare the Canon L 24-70mm vs Vario Contax 35-70mm in term of:
-Sharpness
-Color rendition
-Bokeh
-Macro

I'm looking for a Zeiss but still consider those things, this contax is 1/2 Price of L . Thank you.
 
Moc,
I'll try to do a comparison during the christmas holidays if I'll find the time. ;)
BTW I think that the 2 lenses are complementary and suited to different jobs…

Canon: run'n gun, low light, doc style
CY 35-70: exterior, crispy, need for hard stops, etc
 
Never used the 35-70 but certainly I found the 28-85mm Zeiss to be sharper and to have a more pleasing rendition than the 24-70 I used for a few months last year. That said though there is seemingly such a wide variance between a good one and a bad one when it comes to the MK1 24-70L that's I've no way of knowing where on the scale it sat.
 
Ben Scott said:
Never used the 35-70 but certainly I found the 28-85mm Zeiss to be sharper and to have a more pleasing rendition than the 24-70 I used for a few months last year. That said though there is seemingly such a wide variance between a good one and a bad one when it comes to the MK1 24-70L that's I've no way of knowing where on the scale it sat.
Click to expand...

Both the 28-85 and 35-70 are beasts. My new fave beast is the 35-135. WOWZERS. So sharp and I love the range! And the macro function is the real deal. Its a real workhorse.
 
Last edited:
Moc Nguyen said:
Is there anyone who can compare the Canon L 24-70mm vs Vario Contax 35-70mm in term of:
-Sharpness
-Color rendition
-Bokeh
-Macro

I'm looking for a Zeiss but still consider those things, this contax is 1/2 Price of L . Thank you.
Click to expand...

I haven't tried the Contax 35-70, but I recently acquired the 28-85. My wife told me, that instead of getting a set of Contax Primes and a "slow" Zoom, I should've gotten two Canon Zooms, because it's what I've been using most of the time. That last part is true, everybody has these lenses, everyone uses them. I choose to be different, at least here in Brazil, I haven't heard of a single soul that owns a set of Contax lenses for video.

Based on that, I'll tell you two things:
1 - I have used both 24-70mm I and 24-70mm II, the first sucks and it sucks badly but it was very versatile, especially when shooting APS-C... Because in FF you get all kinds of crazy distortions and quite low sharpness. The II version, is waaay better then the first, but I've been hearing from different people here and there about how they've been getting bad copies that, when compared, is even worst then version I... so honestly? the claim "the best performing standard zoom lens on the market" too me is false.

2- Ultimately it's a matter of taste and how you'll be using the lens. I haven't been able to make an extensive test yet... but it'll probably be sharper and with a different color rendition, but totally different handling. Will you be using for stills as well? Just on a RED or in other cameras as well? Gotta think about all of this...

Hope it helps.

Cheers.
 
What I love is that with Dragon these Contax Zooms become even more practical. Their F4 limitation just won't be as restrictive when iso 2000 becomes our new reality. Looking forward to it.
 
Ben, sorry for the late reply.
It's the Schneider True Streak Blue 2mm filter. Max aperture was 2.8, mostly f1.4. Interestingly, even that wide open the HBM filter caused little spots in the bokeh, which I presume was because most of the shots were macro.

Happy, drunken, xmas everyone. It took me a long time to type this :-)
 
Last edited:
Food for thought as we close in on 2014, the year of The Dragon.

As far as VINTAGE Zeiss glass goes, Contax wide-angles have the best Dragon 6k coverage on the market. The Contax 15, 16 fisheye, 18mm and 21mm all cover every flavor of Dragon 6K.

Whereas:
Super Speeds cover all Dragon formats starting at 25mm
Standard Speeds cover all Dragon formats starting at 50mm

2014 will be defined by two things: the Dragon, and gimbals like the Movi. Having small light-weight lenses that cover all flavors Dragon (and look great to boot) are going to be a major advantage.

And now that affordable remote focus systems are improving our mechanics even more...it's hard not to get even more excited.

For those of you that have started to build your Contax set in 2013....I can't wait to see what you'll do in 2014!

Tiny primes like the 28 2.8 and 35 2.8 may become some of the most gimbal friendly primes out there - their ratios of size/weight, coverage, and sharpness will be hard to beat. Same for the 100 3.5 and 85 2.8 - such tiny telephotos could find new life on Movi + Dragon.

Point is...it's a good time to invest in small, Dragon covering primes. Whether they be Leica R's, Contax or ZF/ZEs. For those of us that love the classic Zeiss look, our Contax primes appear to fit the bill.

Happy holidays.
 
Last edited:
To mix them in the same sequence you'll need color correction for sure, but they are not worlds apart.
 
Signed up to say hi and thanks to Nick for such a great job in widening the audience for the Contax Zeiss lenses. I started picking them up for my still photography (documentary landscapes) on a D800 just before this thread started so have picked up some info along the way. Currently I have the following:

28mm 2.8 MM -superb all the way out to the edges (shooting at 4:5 ratio on the d800). Slight CA along some edges within the frame but this is a one click removal in Lightroom so no issue. Very even sharpness across the frame at f8 and f11 which is where I spend 99% of my time.

35mm 2.8 MM Again superb but tends to see less use than the 28mm due to the way I shoot (lots of forest scenes where space can be tight). No problems when it is used though.

50mm 1.7 MM. Superbly sharp. This is the main reason I am posting. I have a low serial MM and it has the Ninja star bokeh. I've not heard of another example of this but thought some might find it interesting that ninja star MMs DO exist. Mine is serial #6803841 and has the ninja shape in the 2 lens stops between 1.7 and 2.8. I am fairly indifferent to this as I only use it stopped down to f8 or f11. I don't have any samples but next time I am shooting in woods I will shoot a frame or two at the affected stops to see the effect in the highlights through the leaves.

100mm 3.5 MM Just bought this lens and haven't received it yet. Doubt it will see much use but it was cheap and sometimes I need the extra length when confronted with a more wide open space. Again, this will be stopped down and as it is so light this will likely be perfect for my needs.
 
I LOVE the entire contax line. Lightweight, compact, sharp, organic, etc. best bang for the buck lenses.

I've got the Zeiss contax 35-70 f3.4 lens for sale here on RU. In excellent condition. Comes with Leitax canon mount. $525 PM me.
 
I should add that I intend to add a 60mm macro C MM if I ever find one and an 85mm 2.8 MM, and possibly a 21mm but these are expensive for a lens that I doubt would see more than a couple of shots a year. The 85mm is largely redundant with the 50 and 100 but would like one for the sake of its reputation and it is becoming tricky to source a good MM version. I aim to use these lenses for a good number of years over different bodies so am thinking in terms of a long term system. The 60mm C seems very rare and if I don't find one in I'll get a 60mm elmarit instead as it is a superb lens and would only be used on a copystand so the weight doesn't bother me.
 
Dave Wyatt said:
60mm C seems very rare and if I don't find one in I'll get a 60mm elmarit instead as it is a superb lens and would only be used on a copystand so the weight doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

I own the 60 Elmarit, the 60 micro Nikor and the 60 AE (not the compact one) and I much prefer the 60AE, the Elmarit is the one I prefer the less.

Edit: If you want to take the macro Leica R road, the 100 Apo is your winner IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top