Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Ben Scott]

Yeah Sean seems a great guy and he's sent me a million gears once he has revised stuff. Crazy the 50 is causing so much trouble.

Would love to see a shot of that 300mm gear/mount if you get a chance at some point.

@Nick. Great stuff, and I look forward to buying you a pint if we cross paths in person

 

[John Brennick]

This is by far my favorite thread to date. The overwhelming willingness from everyone to share their opinions and findings is so amazing to see.

Peter Collister said to Nick

"Nick,

What I want to acknowledge is your efforts here. To impart the history of cinema/still glass and to also convey a certain passion for glass that is wonderful.
Sometimes we get caught up in the tech specs of glass. The MTF and mechanics ..... We forget that glass is what helps us convey the mood and feeling of scenes, along with our lighting , production design, costumes and maybe smoke.
Thank you for reminding about the emotional component of lens choice"


That was a compliment and an testament to Nick's passion for this, and a very well deserved on at that.

While my first exposure to the zeiss contax look would be here : https://vimeo.com/presynkt , my growing yearning to learn more and more stems from Nick's passion when speaking of these lenses. From looking around there are such unique characteristics in these lenses that truly excite me. Everyone touts post-processing to soften an image and push it to feel less digital. To me, these lenses do that for you. When I first started I started with the 5D and loved the canon look. Now to me? I'm growing incredibly more partial to that lowcon feel. Thanks to Nick and all of the contributors on this thread I find myself literally doing the same search for new footage shot on RED with these lenses. (almost on a daily basis... and no I'm not kidding...) ahaha But it's created an excitement that I cant compare to many other things.

So after emailing Nick and Patrick and going back and forth I ended up ordering the 35 1.4 AEG, 50 1.4 AEJ and 85 1.4 AEG. I'm in NZ for another 3 weeks and my friend is staying at my house in LA. He told me that they were all delivered. So now at my house I have my lenses and my RED.... and just time between us. I'm so excited and I have to say that the passion here is infectious, and for all of those that have contributed to these 44 pages on this thread to date, I thank you for inspiring me, from the bottom of my heart.

 

[Mike Harrington]

Looking at at Hollywood now....

Just wondering on the difference between that and a ZE 28f2....as a brand new copy is generally cheaper then a used Hollywood.
Besides the advantage of an aperture ring...

I can't imagine optical performance isn't better in the ZE then the Hollywood....but would it have the same character?
Also how is the focus rotation in comparison?

 

[Nick Morrison]

@John: thanks so much for kind words!! Can't wait to see what you do with your set! This thread (and everyone on it) is a constant reminder that filmmaking is a collaborative process. Together, by sharing and giving feedback, I hope we can all rise with the tide...and grow!

@Mike: that's a tough one, with no easy answer. The 28 ZE is technically sharper wide open yes. Stopped down I think you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart. I've tested both of them side by side informally with a DP friend of mine on these boards (on his Epic), and I can confirm...the ZE 28 is RAZOR sharp wide open. I mean it's a doozy. I almost thought it was TOO sharp (ie unforgiving), but nonetheless for many that sharpness is still a good thing. The ZE "looked" good too. Again, modern and refined. The Hollywood had CHARACTER. The flares were sick, and it oozed personality. Of all the 28's we tried, my friend agreed the "Hollywood" had the most character of all (vs Leica R, 28 ZE, Nikkor 28, and Standard Prime 28). Wide open, the Hollywood is not as sharp no, but still perfectly usable. It's a tough call. The ZE is sharper wide open. I think others have suggested the ZE may have more CA than the Hollywood, but we weren't looking for that during the test so can't confirm. You won't get the lowcon flare and character on the ZE. That's what the Hollywood gives you. But the ZE will give you performance wide open. I suppose it all depends on what you are looking for - the modern ferrari, or the classic ferrari. Both give you thrills galore, you'll just need to decide what thrills you need. Haha. Hate to be leave you on a metaphor, but probably best I can do!

 

[Mike Harrington]

Cool....that helps

I think character is what I am after.
My director and producer both commented on certain shots in my latest production.....all of them happened to be CZ shots...intermixed with canon and others.
Nobody commented on MTF or the technical aspects sharpness....they just noticed the intangible qualities that these lenses bring.

My creative brain is just turning the corner from pixel peeping to respecting beauty when you see it. I would rather have character and texture in my shot over pure clinical perfection.
Of course it's nice if you can have both.....

 

[Joshua D. Lassing]

shot on my contax 25 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 135 2.8 (all mmj)
R1MX

believe it or not, but this sketchy alley was entirely pitch black up in the war-zone ghetto of Northern STL. It was a total playground because we had access to that whole street, and could put lamps where ever we wanted. If you look at the wide down below where they're running you can get a good idea of how many lights we used rough grade in redcine --

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Of all the 28's we tried, my friend agreed the "Hollywood" had the most character of all (vs Leica R, 28 ZE, Nikkor 28, and Standard Prime 28).

Nick, isn't the CY Hollywood optically almost equivalent (or at least inspired from) to the 28mm Standard?

And if vignetting is taken as a character trait, the 28 standard, given its smaller targeted coverage, should have more of it!

 

[Uli Plank]

I bought my 'Hollywood' for 627,- € in decent condition, while a ZE is still about 1K. Apart from the optical differences Nick described above, I'd say focusing is smoother on the ZE, or at least most used C/Y versions will need a cleaning and re-lubrication, since they seem to have the stiffest focus from all smaller C/Y lenses.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Nick, isn't the CY Hollywood optically almost equivalent (or at least inspired from) to the 28mm Standard?
And if vignetting is taken as a character trait, the 28 standard, given its smaller targeted coverage, should have more of it!

Ok, this is interesting. Side by side, the "Hollywood" and the Standard Prime 28 look REALLY SIMILAR. Very twin like bodies (long, thin). I was so hopeful and anxious that they WOULD be the same. I can confirm that they are NOT. Their designs "may" be similar (one inspired from the other, both with floating elements in the front), but their IMAGE CIRCLES is what seems to set them apart.

In short, the Standard Prime is WICKED SHARP wide open. I would put it up against the ZE easily. Don't forget, it's image circle is probably 60% smaller than the "Hollywood". By projecting onto a much smaller "circle", the Standards design is clearly fine tuned for this smaller coverage and can deliver "more" over "less". In general, Standard Primes seem to have this distinction over their Super Speed cousins - Standards have smaller ACADEMY coverage, and are slower (T2), but these two conservative limitations seems to allow them to make the most of what they have. At T2 they are sharper than Super Speeds (and many Contax), and deliver robust performance up and down the iris. By T4 Super Speeds (and Contax) noticeably catch up.

I love Standard Primes for this reason, but in a RED ecosystem their smaller coverage means they come with limitations. Yes they are crazy sharp and look amazing, but they don't have 6K coverage until 50mm (whereas Super Speeds cover up to 25mm). They are also well known for portholing and vignetting in MX 5K workflows, too. During our test, the 28 Standard seemed to cover 5K HD, but on a white Cyc I have to wonder if we'd see portholing, vignetting, etc. That said, the flare and look of the Standard was awesome. By comparison, the Hollywood seemed to have more bloom and texture, and def made it's "presence" felt more. But the Standard is not to be underestimated. On top of its superb mechanics, its combination of sharpness and look was pretty intoxicating. If it had a slightly bigger image circle...LOOK OUT. I guess that's what ULTRAPRIMES are! (though those coatings are newer, and def appear much more contrasty and clean than their classic cousins)

Hope this helps!

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Thanks Nick for the detailed comparison!

 

[Mike Harrington]

I bought my 'Hollywood' for 627,- € in decent condition, while a ZE is still about 1K. Apart from the optical differences Nick described above, I'd say focusing is smoother on the ZE, or at least most used C/Y versions will need a cleaning and re-lubrication, since they seem to have the stiffest focus from all smaller C/Y lenses.

I had read that they were the stiffest focusing C/Y's as well...definitely need 2 fingers

 

[Oron Cohen]

Hi Contax lovers,

This is my first post on reduser, I'm shooting RED since 2009 and this community was really helpful for me! for all my shoots I always used Cinema lenses (Cooke and Zeiss).

I've a 50mm 1.4 contax Zeiss MMJ, and thinking of making a set for personal use and maybe in the future to do the GL PL conversion.
But there is one issue, it's seems that since this thread started Ziess contax are very hard to find, they ones that are available are quite expensive. I would like to first get the 35mm 1.4 but find prices online a bit to high than what I would like to pay.

Now, my question is, should I just get modern glass like the excellent Sigma 18-35, which basically covers 4 lenses (18, 21, 25, 35) at once or the fairly good Rokinon 35mm Cine or Zeiss ZF F2 or even the Nikon AIS 35mm 1.4? Other option is to get the Zeiss contax 35mm 2.8 that is much cheaper, thing is, I really prefer to have the extra stop or two on this focal length unless the 2.8 is AS sharp as the 1.4 contax at 2.8.

Sorry for the long question, but If any of you used those lenses on a RED, it would be really great to hear your thoughts! Just can't get my hand around this.

btw- KEH hardly got any Contax lenses, B&H used also basically have non...did this community bought them all :smile5:

 

[Uli Plank]

The 35mm 2.8 is damn sharp!

That said, I'd consider a combination of the 18-35 Sigma and some longer C/Y lenses quite interesting for limited budget. Even their colors aren't too far off.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The 35mm 2.8 is damn sharp!

That said, I'd consider a combination of the 18-35 Sigma and some longer C/Y lenses quite interesting for limited budget. Even their colors aren't too far off.

Agree with Uli that the 35 2.8 is VERY SHARP!! Even at 2.8. Its a fantastic lens. Considering how affordable it is vs the 1.4, it's a superb choice.

Also...agreed the Sigma 18-35 is interesting lens...I find that at 18 it has quite a bit of distortion, but other than that...seems to check of A LOT of boxes (to quote Toia).

 

[Ben Scott]

Can't comment on the Sigma, but the C/Y 35mm f2.8 is absolutely brilliant. I can't think of another piece of glass that gives as much bang for buck as that. Just buy it. Don't think about it. Just buy it. You won't lose money on it if you decide to sell it which is a bonus too.

 

[Uli Plank]

These days you can't go wrong buying any good vintage glass. I did a bit more photography with the Sony A7R and some of my favorite C/Y and Rokkor lenses, and I can imagine people will jump on these.
It's impressive how some of these lenses can still live comfortably on 36 mpx.

Just for the fun of it I even got me a M39 (Leica Screw mount) adapter for my old Russian lenses, like 37mm Mir or 85mm Jupiter-9, and I love them too.
Sure, the don't resolve the sensor outside of the center, but the look…

OTOH, with todays prices for the Zeiss C/Y in 18, 21, fast 28 and 35, the Sigma is tempting. I doubt I would have gone as far buying into C/Y if it would have been around at the time.

 

[Oron Cohen]

Can't comment on the Sigma, but the C/Y 35mm f2.8 is absolutely brilliant. I can't think of another piece of glass that gives as much bang for buck as that. Just buy it. Don't think about it. Just buy it. You won't lose money on it if you decide to sell it which is a bonus too.

Ben, Thanks for advise, you're so right, it's bloody cheap, I just buy it!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hey Uli agreed about old Russian glass...some great primes out there with superb looks.

 

[Oron Cohen]

Uli and Nick, thank you very much for your advise ,you're both right. I think I would buy both the Sigma and Ziess 2.8. interesting that no one even bothered to talk about the Rokinon...I guess the Sigma make more sense, and The Zeiss could be great when I get my hands on a dragon.

And again, want to say, this forum is great! the amount of camera owners here is amazing. In the past you could hardly find one DOP with a camera package, but RED completely changed that, I'm for one still not an owner.

btw, I've tried to flick through most of this massive thread, and couldn't really see anyone posting any images of the contax lenses doing what they were designed for: projecting an image onto 35mm film My 50mm is still being used on my Yashica FX-3 body (had a Contax body before, that got broken), I took this picture using the Contax 50mm 1.4 @1.4 on Fuji NPH 160ASA. The Bokeh and highlight rendering are great, and I for one love the vignetting at 1.4.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Awesome pic Oron!