Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[paulcurtis]

I'm a big contax fan and just been through this thread (pretty much all of it!). I have a set of primes, i've looked at the zooms but what's put me off is the pump action zoom and dealing with follow focus etc,. So how do you all handle that - do you all focus off the barrel or are there other ways to hook them up?

I'm using my contax primes with Sony ZA zooms (16-35 and 24-70), they match quite well but it would be nice to stick with a uniform set of glass.

So how are the zooms ergonomically?

thanks
Paul

 

[Nick Morrison]

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.

Welcome Dave! Thanks for posting and sharing! I love that your 50 1.7 MM has a Ninja-Star! So it's true! I've always heard there were "transition" lenses that had the MM aperture control, but still hadn't had their iris changed (and makes sense it's a 50 1.7 which was probably produced in a large number of batches, and odds are one of them was transitional...as opposed to day the 28 f2 which I've heard was made in selective runs for example).

Thanks again for sharing. These details are fun.

as opposed to say the 28 f2 that apparently was made in many more limited runs).

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.

Curious what you think of the 100 3.5. My copy is very, very sharp. Still trying to find the right to shoot on, to be honest.

Happy holidays all!

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'm a big contax fan and just been through this thread (pretty much all of it!). I have a set of primes, i've looked at the zooms but what's put me off is the pump action zoom and dealing with follow focus etc,. So how do you all handle that - do you all focus off the barrel or are there other ways to hook them up?

I'm using my contax primes with Sony ZA zooms (16-35 and 24-70), they match quite well but it would be nice to stick with a uniform set of glass.

So how are the zooms ergonomically?

thanks
Paul

Ergonomically, they have to be treated like variable primes unfortunately. I have all the main Contax Zeiss zooms fully cinemodded (28-85, 35-70, 35-135, 80-200, 100-300) and all of mine are decklicked, with 80mm fronts, and a focus gear. For run and gun, I think they are very versatile, as you can focus and reframe at once. In a studio environment, you have to unhook the follow focus and reset it - a pain, but takes much less time than changing a lens however.

Personally, here's my take on the Contax Zooms. I think Dragon is going to really bring out their value. Right now at 320 ISO I find them a bit slow, but at ISO 1200 suddenly that changes. Also when you think about the 20% extra FOV you get on Dragon vs what I get now at 4K Scarlet, I'm starting to drool.

The 28-85 is crazy sharp, and has a beautiful feel to it. Focusing is a dream on it, and it has almost a 180 throw, even at 28.

The 35-70 has a limited range, so it's the one I use the least right now. However on Dragon it becomes a 28mm to 60mm (fov wise), which is firmly in the Roger Deakins camp, so I'm considering calling mine "The Deakins" and doing an entire shoot with it, just for the healthy limitations. The macro mode is a bonus, but not as robust or professional as the 35-135. I'm also considering having RP lens upgrade my focus gear on this so it covers the entire barrel (like a Macro), so that I can just reframe the zoom (pushing and pulling) but never have to change the position of the follow focus as the gears will still lock in. Could really make this more usable. Has a great, great look

35-135. This lens is, quite frankly, blowing my mind right now. Its like the 35-70 on crack. To me it's just as sharp, but being able to zoom out to 135 tickles me pink every time. And it has pretty great close focus at 135 to it gets very, very shallow...even at 4.5 at 135mm. Crazy sharp. Did I say that already? Also...the Macro Mode is genius. So professional. What's incredible is the Macro mode works independently of the rest of the lens. So you can focus at 10 feet at 135mm. Engage the Macro. Focus down to a couple of inches. And then focus back and forth perfectly. Totally. Insane. And you can ZOOM in on the Macro...from 35 to 50. Yes...it's a zooming macro. On Dragon the FOV becomes a 28 to 110, which starting putting you almost in a Cooke 21-100 territory, except that this bad buy covers Dragon 6k, whereas the Cooke covers 5K. I'm being cheeky I know, but you can see why this lens is getting me droolling. If I had a quick 2hr mini-doc shoot on a slider somewhere...on Dragon...I'd probably just throw this on and call it a day.

80-200. So cheap. So good. It's mutant power is its macro ability. It's close focus at 200mm is staggering (even at 80mm actually). So you get dreamy, extremely shallow shots on Macro from a comfortable distance. Fantastic b-roll lens for mini docs. I now consider this my third macro after the 60 and 100. For mini doc shoots, it will always be in the case. A broll machine.

100-300. It's like the 80-200 except sharper, and longer. But it can't focus as close, do you don't get the macro creaminess of the 80-200. And it's slower so the image gets quite dark at 300 when you are doing product like shots. But outside for dramatic 300mm tele shots and for b-roll, its a killer. So horses for courses. The extra range this has is amazing, and at 100mm it gives even the majestic 100 3.5 a run for its money.

Hope this helps!!!

 

[Nick Morrison]

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.

Brice your 60 AE footage this year has been some of my fave Contax material of 2013. Keep it up!

PS - there is a small chance I may get to shoot in Europe this summer (Portugal, if I'm really lucky)...you should swing on by if we do!!!

 

[paulcurtis]

Ergonomically, they have to be treated like variable primes unfortunately. I have all the main Contax Zeiss zooms fully cinemodded (28-85, 35-70, 35-135, 80-200, 100-300) and all of mine are decklicked, with 80mm fronts, and a focus gear. For run and gun, I think they are very versatile, as you can focus and reframe at once. In a studio environment, you have to unhook the follow focus and reset it - a pain, but takes much less time than changing a lens however.

Nick, that's some awesome information. Thank you. I wondered if i was missing something with the focus and follow focus but that makes sense.

Are the focus ranges in sensible divisions, by that i mean some of the primes are nicely balanced for 1 to 3 ft then you have half a degree from 3ft to infinity. Well, okay, exaggerating but the idea is there which makes for tough focus pulling at 'normal' drama distances?

I am comparing to the ZA zooms which are sony alpha mount (i'm not using them on reds), so that's probably a comparison that you've not been able or inclined to check out. But it does mean that i can add a speed booster to the contax lenses and get the full frame effect on APS-C, this will extend the range although 28 is still not wide enough.

What about the 40-80? Anyone use that?

thanks
Paul

 

[Nick Morrison]

Nick, that's some awesome information. Thank you. I wondered if i was missing something with the focus and follow focus but that makes sense.

Are the focus ranges in sensible divisions, by that i mean some of the primes are nicely balanced for 1 to 3 ft then you have half a degree from 3ft to infinity. Well, okay, exaggerating but the idea is there which makes for tough focus pulling at 'normal' drama distances?

I am comparing to the ZA zooms which are sony alpha mount (i'm not using them on reds), so that's probably a comparison that you've not been able or inclined to check out. But it does mean that i can add a speed booster to the contax lenses and get the full frame effect on APS-C, this will extend the range although 28 is still not wide enough.

What about the 40-80? Anyone use that?

thanks
Paul

The zooms space out their focusing pretty much like all the other primes in my experience. However some like the 28-85 certainly have noticeably more focus rotation @28mm than say even the 28mm 2.8 or even 28mm f2 because...essentially...the zoom maintaints its 85mm "throw" across the entire prime range. So you get an 85mm throw...at 28mm. Which I find very convenient.

Bear in mind at 28mm it does have a bit more distortion than either prime. Not noticeable on Scarlet, but not surprised if I start to see it a bit on Dragon.

Are the ZA zooms autofocus? If they are the throws will likely be much shorter and not be as smooth...these zooms are built like tanks and designed to be hand focused. The 28-85 and 35-135 in particular are joys to focus with, essentially cuz they are just so fucking big. Each has an 82mm front, and have massive barrels. You really feel the weight and quality. The 35-70 is much smaller by comparison, with a 67mm front...delicate, but still very, very well made...Just doesn't have the focusing mass of the other two.

The 40-80 is a very old design. Has lots and lots of distortion, too much for my taste. It was replaced by the iconic 35-70. The 40-80 is only interesting to me as it's really the only affordable AE zoom that exists. Some have very old coatings, in the 5's. I wonder if they have the ninja star? The 70-210 is also an AE zoom, and seems to not be too much better than the 80-200...but is many times more expensive. Was certainly very well regarded when it came out...but again...not sure if it's worth it. Seems more like a collector's item to me.

Hope this helps!!!

 

[paulcurtis]

Are the ZA zooms autofocus? If they are the throws will likely be much shorter and not be as smooth...these zooms are built like tanks and designed to be hand focused. The 28-85 and 35-135 in particular are joys to focus with, essentially cuz they are just so fucking big. Each has an 82mm front, and have massive barrels. You really feel the weight and quality. The 35-70 is much smaller by comparison, with a 67mm front...delicate, but still very, very well made...Just doesn't have the focusing mass of the other two.

The ZA are autofocus but the throw on them is okay, not as short as usual (135 degrees). They have semi hard stops too, in that you can hit the end but you can push on past with a different stiffness. They're very decent performers even at f2.8 (they are constant on both) they out perform the primes in terms of flare and resolution (in my experience, i really should put them side by side). The downside is a range from 16 to 70 overall and nothing beyond, they're heavy and the 24 70 barrel extends and is a bit of a dust collector. They have higher contrast than the contax but that's balanced by quite a creamy bokeh. One of the most useful features is the close focus.

But they are focus by wire and there's a certain feeling with that so i'm keen to explore the contax zooms.

thanks
Paul

 

[Nick Morrison]

The ZA are autofocus but the throw on them is okay, not as short as usual (135 degrees). They have semi hard stops too, in that you can hit the end but you can push on past with a different stiffness. They're very decent performers even at f2.8 (they are constant on both) they out perform the primes in terms of flare and resolution (in my experience, i really should put them side by side). The downside is a range from 16 to 70 overall and nothing beyond, they're heavy and the 24 70 barrel extends and is a bit of a dust collector. They have higher contrast than the contax but that's balanced by quite a creamy bokeh. One of the most useful features is the close focus.

But they are focus by wire and there's a certain feeling with that so i'm keen to explore the contax zooms.

thanks
Paul

Those zooms are very modern, so will have the benefits of a computer generated design (so likely very sharp), and their new Zeiss coatings will likely yes be higher contrast, and control flair very well. Ironically, when filming video I find these later qualities problematic (at least with the ZF/ZE's, I'm assuming the ZA coatings are similar). With the extra contrast, I find the "harshness/sharpness" ratio gets a bit too extreme. Things edge out to much, start to look plastic and fake. And then the flare control comes at a cost too...the ZE/ZF's at least end up flaring into splotches of blue and purple that don't look real. Whereas the older coatings of Contax, especially the AE's, will flare white...which when your shooting video looks terrific. Luckily we have Matteboxes, so we can control the flare...but when we WANT to flare (which happens a lot), the Contax coatings look great (see also all the recent movies this year that have shot on vintage lenses: ALL IS LOST (Standard Primes), AMERICAN HUSTLE (Standard Primes and K35's), and HER (Super Speeds, Uncoated Panchros and K35 Zoom).

So, sometimes flaring is good...haha...especially if it LOOKS GOOD.

And the lower contrast I think adds a gentleness to the digital picture I like as well.

Considering that Contax primes were probably not designed with as much computer input, they have character, while still being sharp, and having very even controlled performance. And they reveal the hand of their creators too - their bokeh and look feel very human drawn, while still being excellent, and scientifically made.

I'm curious what you think of the Contax Zooms, as they are some of the latest Contax lenses made...the 100-300 being the last lens Contax officially released I believe. They have less character than any AE lens, but have some of the most modern rendering, and sterling performance of the line. For character, go with the primes. The 35 1.4 wide open is magic. The 85 2.8 AE is magic. The 25 2.8 AE has magic. But the Contax Zooms make compromise beautiful. I find using the 28-85 and 35-135 sheer bliss. The mechanics alone of these lenses, the way the barrels glide up and down, is a joy. They are german engineering at their best.

Curious to see what you think!

best

 

[Brice Ansel]

Brice your 60 AE footage this year has been some of my fave Contax material of 2013. Keep it up!

PS - there is a small chance I may get to shoot in Europe this summer (Portugal, if I'm really lucky)...you should swing on by if we do!!!

Coming from you, it has a really special meaning, thank you Nick.
Portugal sounds good, I cross my finger for you. ;-)
And happy new year everybody.
B.

 

[Ben Scott]

I use the 28-85 when I don't need to use a follow focus and keep my hand on the lens, for the most part. Far too many things could go wrong with lining up the follow focus and the ring being in the wrong place and needing to be adjusted then deciding on reframing and zooming in and the gears not lining up again. For run and gun or statics it is grand though.


And Nick if you make it to London I owe you a pint or two

 

[Uli Plank]

Dear Nick, you wrote:

For character, go with the primes. The 35 1.4 wide open is magic. The 85 2.8 AE is magic. The 25 2.8 AE has magic.

Hmm, I had the 25mm 2.8 for a while and wasn't too impressed – sold it again. Compared to other 25mm lenses it was more like 26mm and the corners were softer than I expected.

I agree on the magic of the 35mm 1.4 and I'd add the 28mm 2.0 aka "Hollywood" to your small list, but is there something I missed about the 25 when I already have the 28? I admit it's heavier, but so is the 35mm 1.4.

All the best for 2014!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Dear Nick, you wrote:


Hmm, I had the 25mm 2.8 for a while and wasn't too impressed – sold it again. Compared to other 25mm lenses it was more like 26mm and the corners were softer than I expected.

I agree on the magic of the 35mm 1.4 and I'd add the 28mm 2.0 aka "Hollywood" to your small list, but is there something I missed about the 25 when I already have the 28? I admit it's heavier, but so is the 35mm 1.4.

All the best for 2014!

My 25 AE isn't as sharp as my 28 MM, or as versatile as my 28 Hollywood. So Uli you're likely right. It's probably not as good as my Rokkor 24 2.8 either, technically. I just like how it renders though (kind of like my Hasselblads, if that makes any sense). The center is sharp, even at 2.8. It's one of those lenses that can't help itself, and has character. Lovely flares too.

That being said, probably shouldn't put it on my "magic list" when others deserve better mention - say the 21 2.8, 85 1.4, etc. I just think the 25 has some great mojo, so I'm fond of it...haha

 

[Nick Morrison]

As we get close to 2014 (my Dad is already drinking Champagne in Madrid), may I wish you all a Happy New Year!

Here's to a great new year, full of fun shoots, and great work!

best.

 

[Samir Patel]

Happy New Year to you Nick and to all other redusers. Be safe everyone and lets look forward to making 2014 great!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Happy New Year to you Nick and to all other redusers. Be safe everyone and lets look forward to making 2014 great!

Happy new year Samir!!!!

 

[Ben Scott]

Happy New Year all. Hope it's a great 2014.

 

[DAVID BARKAN]

Happy New Year everyone! and may our Contaxes be put to even greater use! =)

cheers!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Happy New Year everyone! and may our Contaxes be put to even greater use! =)

cheers!

haha, thanks David. You too! Happy New Year all!!!

 

[Nick Morrison]

I was up late bored and started to look for some good 25mm AEG shots on flickr, and stumbled on these. I think these shots convey some of the character and texture this "legacy" design has. Remember, the optical design of this lens was rumored to be much more classic than the majority of the Contax lineup (apparently this design was used on earlier Contax SLR systems...allegedly some of the first SLR's in the world), which may explain why it's corner sharpness may not be as good, but it's character is distinct. Take a look:

What I find interesting is how (up close) the bokeh is superb, alluring even. It's swirly in a very gentle, elegant way. Whimsical even.

Meanwhile, the irony is this lens -- though clearly striking for up close work -- was allegedly optimized for infinity focus, for landscape work. Word is at f8 it's unbeatable. Makes we want to strap it on my Scarlet this weekend and try! But as we can see in these last pics, the seascapes, it certainly even has character when going wide.

What I love about this AEG is how it flares. Which we can see in all these shots. Something about the old coatings and the old design mixing together appears to create something quite sublime.

Happy New Year all!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Also found this Contax lens test on a Sony F5 and thought it was worth sharing - the glass is radiating it's usual character. The lowlight and rolloff on the Sony are certainly commendable as well: