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

Won't be ready until next week but I remain optimistic it will all be fine. Annoying as I have a stills shoot tomorrow it would have been perfect for!

In other news, I'm absolutely loving that Shoot35 follow focus I recently got. Just ordered a 15-19mm adapter for it as I'm going to switch to a 19mm rails setup for handheld. I find the 15mm rails/handles combo a bit flimsy feeling at the moment. Do you guys have any particularly cool handheld setups?

EDIT: In other other news I emailed that Sean guy about some delrin. Very reasonable prices and this way I won't accidentally saw my own head off, which was a distinct possibility with my DIY skills.
 
Last edited:
@ David Barkan

Did a quick test of the slower 35mm vs. the 1.4.

At 1.4 it's quite a bit more dreamy in contrast and softer than the 2.8 WO, as we may expect anyway. But at 2.8 the faster lens is already better in the center, very contrasty. In the corners it's a tiny bit softer, though, and as a tad of CA, of which the slower one is nearly free. Even at 5.6 this relation is the same: the slow 35 is tack sharp all over, while the fast one is retaining a bit softer corners and minimal CA. Both have close to no distortion at all.

Both simply great lenses, but if you don't need the speed, the small one is not only much lighter, but far cheaper as well – a similar experience as with 50mm or 85.

These tests were on MFT, which is just about the same as RED at 3K, and can't be extrapolated easily. Wide angles can have complex zones of sharpness and on 4K or Dragon this may look different. I'm still waiting for my C/Y to NEX adapter. Once it arrives I'll post tests on Sony A7R.
 
Ben, I got a measurment of 199.5mm and he said that was spot on with the other rings he has been producing so seems that is a standard diameter for some of the lenses. I am ordering a full set this weekend.

28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 135 f/2.8

can't wait!!
 
Uli Plank said:
@ David Barkan

Did a quick test of the slower 35mm vs. the 1.4.

At 1.4 it's quite a bit more dreamy in contrast and softer than the 2.8 WO, as we may expect anyway. But at 2.8 the faster lens is already better in the center, very contrasty. In the corners it's a tiny bit softer, though, and as a tad of CA, of which the slower one is nearly free. Even at 5.6 this relation is the same: the slow 35 is tack sharp all over, while the fast one is retaining a bit softer corners and minimal CA. Both have close to no distortion at all.

Both simply great lenses, but if you don't need the speed, the small one is not only much lighter, but far cheaper as well – a similar experience as with 50mm or 85.

These tests were on MFT, which is just about the same as RED at 3K, and can't be extrapolated easily. Wide angles can have complex zones of sharpness and on 4K or Dragon this may look different. I'm still waiting for my C/Y to NEX adapter. Once it arrives I'll post tests on Sony A7R.
Click to expand...

Uli your experience affirms what I've been pondering as well - that the slower primes generally have very even performance across the frame, whereas some of the faster primes may not resolve into the corners as commandingly. It's subtle, but worth noting.

I wonder how you're comparison would have looked at 6K, on Dragon's even wider FOV?

Another reminder of how interesting the Contax "Standard Primes" are.

Don't get me wrong - I love the faster primes, both for their "look", wider focus throws, and extra speed...but there is much to be said for their smaller/slower/more conservative cousins.

I also love the the Contax "Standards" are not "budget lenses" - but instead highly professional, impressive pieces of glass in their own right. Hats off to Zeiss for working hard to make a broad, impressive line of lenses.
 
Nick Morrison said:
@ David - those Delrin rings look sick!! I'm officially impressed! Nicely done! PS for your article you can of course quote anything you'd like. I'm flattered honestly.
Click to expand...

They do, right? I'm really happy as well. In the end it worked out doing the "Cinemod" my self, I did manage to save a few hundred dollars. I'll do the math later today. The only thing that I won't be doing myself is de-clicking of the iris, which I don't exactly miss at this point. And I'll eventually Leitax them, but at this point I'm using the GH3 quite a lot with the Contax/MFT SpeedBooster, and with the GH4 right around the corner; I'm probably going to use that a lot as well... plus I don't see them putting out a EF-MFT SB anytime soon.


Ben Scott said:
In other news, I'm absolutely loving that Shoot35 follow focus I recently got.

EDIT: In other other news I emailed that Sean guy about some delrin. Very reasonable prices and this way I won't accidentally saw my own head off, which was a distinct possibility with my DIY skills.
Click to expand...

Which one is that Shoot35? And yeah, Sean is a really nice guy, and very skilled as well. Sawing your head off, is definitely not a good idea.

Uli Plank said:
@ David Barkan

Did a quick test of the slower 35mm vs. the 1.4.

At 1.4 it's quite a bit more dreamy in contrast and softer than the 2.8 WO, as we may expect anyway. But at 2.8 the faster lens is already better in the center, very contrasty. In the corners it's a tiny bit softer, though, and as a tad of CA, of which the slower one is nearly free. Even at 5.6 this relation is the same: the slow 35 is tack sharp all over, while the fast one is retaining a bit softer corners and minimal CA. Both have close to no distortion at all.

Both simply great lenses, but if you don't need the speed, the small one is not only much lighter, but far cheaper as well – a similar experience as with 50mm or 85.

These tests were on MFT, which is just about the same as RED at 3K, and can't be extrapolated easily. Wide angles can have complex zones of sharpness and on 4K or Dragon this may look different. I'm still waiting for my C/Y to NEX adapter. Once it arrives I'll post tests on Sony A7R.
Click to expand...

Which adapter are you using with MFT? I definitely noticed that the 35mm is a bit dreamy... but it's not like it's "soft filter dreamy", I think it'll be just enough to break "digital over-sharpness" WO (good for skins), and when stopped down it retains it's character, kind of like the Superspeeds I'd say. I think both lenses have different purposes, sometimes you need sharp and crisp, and sometimes you don't... It seems to me that the 28-85mm Zoom follows the principles of the slower lenses, I feel that has this slight difference to the fast primes. I havent' had the time to compare it yet, but it just does.

When I go to test out the Follow Focus on the rings, hopefully they'll have some SuperSpeeds available, if so, I'll make a quick 35mm comparison.

Roy Rossovich said:
@ David Barkan

I got in touch with Sean and am helping him get a ring set up for the 28mm 2.0

David, how are the rings working out? Tried them with a FF yet?

cheers
/roy
Click to expand...

Sorry Roy, I haven't yet... My son was sick until yesterday, and today is my turn, I've got a big fever... I'll probably try it on monday.

Roy Rossovich said:
Ben, I got a measurment of 199.5mm and he said that was spot on with the other rings he has been producing so seems that is a standard diameter for some of the lenses. I am ordering a full set this weekend.

28 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, 135 f/2.8

can't wait!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think most lenses that have the same front diameter, have the same ring size. For example the 85mm 1.4 has the same as the 35mm 1.4.

Nick Morrison said:
Uli your experience affirms what I've been pondering as well - that the slower primes generally have very even performance across the frame, whereas some of the faster primes may not resolve into the corners as commandingly. It's subtle, but worth noting.

I wonder how you're comparison would have looked at 6K, on Dragon's even wider FOV?

Another reminder of how interesting the Contax "Standard Primes" are.

Don't get me wrong - I love the faster primes, both for their "look", wider focus throws, and extra speed...but there is much to be said for their smaller/slower/more conservative cousins.

I also love the the Contax "Standards" are not "budget lenses" - but instead highly professional, impressive pieces of glass in their own right. Hats off to Zeiss for working hard to make a broad, impressive line of lenses.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really think is worth having both kits... I'm very impressed with these lenses.

Out of curiosity: Here in Brazil no one cares about them... I keep talking about my lenses to people, and by people I mean professionals, and they don't really care or don't understand what I'm talking about... it's crazy. Better for me. =)
 
A couple of stills with the Contax 85mm f1.4

IMG_9991_zpseee0b97c.jpg


IMG_9972_zpsb024ae9c.jpg
 
The Contax/NEX adapter has arrived and I'm into testing my wides on the Sony A7R. The adapter is Chinese, named Fotga, and it's not bad at all. Tight, but not too tight, nearly no play. All my lenses focus to infinity, but not too much beyond.

21mm and 24/25:
I tested a Minolta MD Rokkor 24mm VFC against a Contax 25mm MMJ this time (last time I had an AEG at hand). Unfortunately the 25 is really one of the weakest lenses in the Contax line. The center is sharp on both, starting from 2.8, but the corners are considerably softer than those of the Rokkor. Even stopped down to 5.6 it stays a bit behind. At 8 it's more or less equal, both show some CA and the Rokkor seems to have a bit less distortion.

Of course this is all about charts and pixel-peeping, since character is such a subjective thing. But for character I'd probably prefer the AE. BTW, build quality is excellent on both lenses. The Rokkor is considerably wider, seems more than just one mm.

Since the 21mm Distagon is such an expensive beast, I tested the 21mm Rokkor too. That lens is soft in the corners WO, but stopped down to 8 it's tack sharp even on FF with just a trace of CA left. Nice for landscape at a fraction of the Distagon (Rokkor recently around 300,-€) and distortion is quite well controlled.

Now to 28mm:
The "Hollywood" 28mm f2 (AEG here) is sharper in the corners at 2.0 than my 28mm f2.8 (MMJ) at 2.8! Just a bit dreamy WO, but at 2.8 it kills the smaller 28mm. Both have some CA, but the Hollywood is much warmer in color all over. Even at 5.6 the Hollywood is still ahead. What a lens!

The MC W. Rokkor 28mm is softer than the Hollywood in the extreme corners at f2, but get's dangerously close at 5.6 – not bad for a much smaller and lighter lens. BTW, the Hollywood is even warmer than the Rokkor, which is not rendering cool.

Finally the 35's:
It's the other way around with the fast 35mm Contax and the small one, as described here before. The smaller 35 stays ahead WO into the corners even on FF – just wanted to make sure. Even the slower one has a tad of softness in the extreme corners on FF. At 2.8 the fast lens is still a tad softer and darker in extreme corners of FF, both should be perfect on Dragon. Between 4.0 and 5.6 it's getting hard to tell them apart, I can only identify them by color now – the slower MMJ I have is cooler again than my fast AEG.

The famous W.Rokkor 35mm f1.8 is pretty soft WO, even at 2.8 it can't catch up with the faster Contax – it just has a beautiful bokeh in it's favor and is a nice portrait lens on smaller sensors. But the small 35mm f2.8 is about as good as it's Contax counterpart, has practically no CA (the Contax has a little bit) and may even distort a tiny little bit less.

Finally the Shift Rokkor 35mm, which can still be found around 200,- €: it shows a bit more CA than the regular 35mm, but is sharp over a much larger area. I don't have a Zeiss Distagon PC 35mm to compare, since that goes from 900,- to over 1k regularly.

These two companies knew how to make lenses, I'm glad I own both lines and don't need to decide which ones I like better. I'm gonna have a lot of fun with both my Contax' and Rokkors on full frame!

I tested wides only this time, since their coverage is normally more critical. But if you want my opinion on any other Contax Zeiss lens I own, please ask.
 
I have a question to my fellow Zeiss C/Y fans regarding the "Hollywood" vs. 28mm f2.8: are you observing the same as me, i.e. the Hollywood being better at 2.8 than the smaller 28mm? Or do I have a lemon?

Other than the 25mm the 28mm f2.8 is normally regarded as a very sharp lens.
 
Just ordered my 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 plus all the gears for my set from Sean, only missing a 50mm now and I have a full set. So in love with the look my 28mm f/2 produces I never want to put another lens on, don't even need to grade the material it feels sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Uli, I was out with my 28 the other day, the f/2 version and felt it had a very pleasing sharpness, just where it was focused too, I really like the softness of everything else not in focus but at the same time I really love shooting with open apertures. I haven't tried the 2.8 version but everyone here says it's sharper throughout and edge to edge and all that. for me I don't mind softer corners :)



Uli Plank said:
I have a question to my fellow Zeiss C/Y fans regarding the "Hollywood" vs. 28mm f2.8: are you observing the same as me, i.e. the Hollywood being better at 2.8 than the smaller 28mm? Or do I have a lemon?

Other than the 25mm the 28mm f2.8 is normally regarded as a very sharp lens.
Click to expand...
 
The shop my Hollywood is with are getting to be a bit frustrating. They had the lens nearly a week before they said it would need to be stripped and cleaned out, although that was pretty much obvious from the off, and since we agreed on that work to be done it's already been nearly another week and it apparently won't be ready until the end of of THIS week. At a point where I have 9 interviews to shoot. Plus it's fairly pricey.

To be honest if this lens comes back in anything other than amazingly lovingly restored condition I'm going to be rather grumpy about the whole situation.

Well... GrumpIER. :)

In other news my set of gears from Sean are finish and being sent out. Can't wait to use them.

In other other news don't ever buy a Lanparte Dovetail because they're cheap. None of my Arri dovetail plates will fit it as the dovetail part itself is too shallow and everything hits the plate before it can make a connection. Booo.

I'm having a bad luck buying month.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 12542794773_8c8b1635a2_o.jpg
    12542794773_8c8b1635a2_o.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 12542444775_d63bec92cd_o.jpg
    12542444775_d63bec92cd_o.jpg
    91.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Hmm, hard to tell, there seems to be a lot of humidity in the air in your examples.

But since flange distance is more critical with wides: can you focus a hair past infinity (which is normal) or just about reach it? If the latter, it might be your adapter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top