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

Mike Harrington said:
LOL

I was actually looking for a 28mm, just to save a bit of money....but when I saw the 21 I realized I probably would never see one that cheap again....
Click to expand...

The 28 is a great lens. I use the 18 and 28 quite a bit.
 
Mike Harrington said:
That concurs with every review and opinion I've ever heard as well......it also happens to be obtainable at a decent price.
Click to expand...

The 28 2.8 MM is a SUPERB lens, yes. And...great for price.

And yeah...the 100-300 is a BEAST.
 
Anybody notices any yellow fringing of highlights with the Hollywood 28mm f2?i was testing one out yesterday and it seemed like the behind the focal point bokeh was fringed with yellow (most noticeable on lights). This disappeared at about f4ish...
 
Tommaso (for some reason my nexus 5 wanted to change your name to Tomato!)

This is wwith a ZE lens. I was quite surprised as I expected better from a ZE with new coatings.

My old contax are much cleaner...
 
He he nevermind! ;)
The ZE 28mm is known to be sharper WO vs the CY, but at the cost of higher CAs...
and the other ZEs are also much contrastier and usually sharper than their CYs counterpart (generally speaking),
so CAs are much more evident in ZEs / ZFs.
I find the CYs great for low con WO / f2 drama shooting style and ZEs for clinical n' contrasy f2.8/4/5.6 commercial shootings.
Obviously if owning just 1 set is the only option would surely be the CY if Zeiss is you thing!! ;)
 
Tommaso Alvisi said:
He he nevermind! ;)
The ZE 28mm is known to be sharper WO vs the CY, but at the cost of higher CAs...
and the other ZEs are also much contrastier and usually sharper than their CYs counterpart (generally speaking),
so CAs are much more evident in ZEs / ZFs.
I find the CYs great for low con WO / f2 drama shooting style and ZEs for clinical n' contrasy f2.8/4/5.6 commercial shootings.
Obviously if owning just 1 set is the only option would surely be the CY if Zeiss is you thing!! ;)
Click to expand...

What he said!

Though if you look at the MTF charts, stopped down the ZE/ZF's and CY's are essentially identical in resolution (ie very sharp). The ZE/ZF's may have more CONTRAST due to their coatings, but actual resolution looks remarkably even. Where the ZE/ZF's are optimized is wide open performance, especially on the 18 and 28. The 50 many think got worse, and the 35 and 85 appear neglibly altered. The 21 ZE/ZF has better edge performance WO (which you won't notice probably on Dragon anyway), but as you say...it appears at the expense of more CA.

CY's are interesting. Such a wonderful BALANCE or resolution, naturalism, and control. Sharp enough to more than get the job done. Not too over-engineered to throw them out of harmony.

When I think of the Zeiss team who made the Contax lineup, I think of 3 or 4 engineers, working in a lab, hand drawing and sketching out these designs on detailed blue prints. Maybe they used old large IBM mainframes to help them out, but essentially, at their core, I assume these were rigorously tested, hand drafted, highly skilled technical designs. These were analog designs created by technical masters, who probably could not help but imbue some of their personality into these lenses...

Today, with computers and 3D modeling, I have to imagine the quest for perfection is so much more attainable, that what may get lost is some of this personality...the character that could only get infused when you are making something more with your hands. Across the board, it's easy to see this trend - new lenses look optimized and even starting to similar to each other. That's what makes beautifully made vintage glass from the 80's and 90's so compelling - technical enough to be brilliant, old enough to have personality.
 
Last edited:
Anyone with experience with 24-85 and 28-85 zooms ?
 
Hey guys. I have been loving my 25 2.8 and my 35-70! I have the canon 70-300L as my long lens, I use it mostly for filming backcontry skiing in Whistler and Alaska. It is a nice lens but the front elements are a bit wobbly, the focus and zoom isn't as smooth as I would like. I have been thinking about switching for the contax 100-300, which is a rare lens it seems. Just wondering if you guys think I would miss the IS for shooting action, and how do you guys think this lens stacks up to the canon in terms of sharpness or anything else. Also the 100-300 has variable aperture through the range on big zooms? Or if above 5.6 it will stay constant? Thanks.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
Anyone with experience with 24-85 and 28-85 zooms ?
Click to expand...

The 24-85 is a Contax N zoom. Would need to be converted by Conurus to EOS (not cheap). The 28-85 is a superb all around lens, large and heavy, with great focus rotation and feel.
 
Nick Morrison said:
The 24-85 is a Contax N zoom. Would need to be converted by Conurus to EOS (not cheap). The 28-85 is a superb all around lens, large and heavy, with great focus rotation and feel.
Click to expand...

Thanks Nick, much appreciated.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
Thanks Nick, much appreciated.
Click to expand...

I second that. The 28-85 is my main walk around lens. Its phenomenal in every way.

It's weird getting use to one-touch, and it's not parafocal, but those hardly matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top