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

Thanks, Jeffrey. How's the focusing practicality/usability regarding the push-pull barrel, guys?
For hand focusing during a shot without FF.
 
The focus mechanism itself is fantastic. I have no problem smoothly pulling focus from one subject to the next. It feels Contax smooth! :-)
 
Jeffrey T. Morgan said:
The focus mechanism itself is fantastic. I have no problem smoothly pulling focus from one subject to the next. It feels Contax smooth! :-)
Click to expand...

Agreed, at times it can be quite convenient to zoom and focus at same time if you are running and gunning as a single operator...
 
I just found a 135mm AE in Tokyo in perfect condition for 170 bucks!

My whole set is MM, but I have read in this guide that the AE has poorer performance wide open. Anybody have experience with this lens and can offer any insights?
 
Ivan Kovax said:
I just found a 135mm AE in Tokyo in perfect condition for 170 bucks!

My whole set is MM, but I have read in this guide that the AE has poorer performance wide open. Anybody have experience with this lens and can offer any insights?
Click to expand...

Zeiss is alleged to have UPDATED the MM a bit to be a bit better wide open. That said, I have both the AE and MM, and though the MM does appear contrastier WO, and a bit cleaner, either way I think it's subtle. The AE has a kind of warmness though that is amazing. So I'm fond of both. The AE 135 2.8 is still a great lens IMHO.
 
Thanks Nick. It's an amazing deal for a lens in such perfect condition. I think I will snap it up no matter what!
 
Nick Morrison said:
Zeiss is alleged to have UPDATED the MM a bit to be a bit better wide open. That said, I have both the AE and MM, and though the MM does appear contrastier WO, and a bit cleaner, either way I think it's subtle. The AE has a kind of warmness though that is amazing. So I'm fond of both. The AE 135 2.8 is still a great lens IMHO.
Click to expand...
I will defer to Nick's greater knowledge of Contax glass, but my own experience is that the AE lenses are beautifully clean and sharp, even wide open. Although, like any lens, they perform their best closed down a couple of stops. My entire set of 8 Contax primes are all AE (by choice).
 
I'm just amazed. After scouring the local shops, KEH and Ebay to build up a nice set of mostly AE primes I finally got the chance to use them on an FMCG product commercial yesterday. The brief was 'hi-key, low contrast and modern'. The client was absolutely thrilled with the images, and so am I because this was my first job for a big multinational agency and I will definitely get more work because of it. They were amazed when I told them that the modern look came from lenses that were nearly 30 years old.

For this 5KHD shot, shown in both RLF and RG3 versions, I used the 85mm f1.4 at about f4. It's so sharp. Click the images for the full 4800*2700 jpgs.







In contrast, I was shooting a short film with another DOP on Friday night. We used his Cooke S4's and the images are nowhere near as clean or sharp as this.

Thanks again, Nick, for starting this thread. :-)
 
Ivan Kovax said:
I just found a 135mm AE in Tokyo in perfect condition for 170 bucks!

My whole set is MM, but I have read in this guide that the AE has poorer performance wide open. Anybody have experience with this lens and can offer any insights?
Click to expand...

I have a shoot in Tokyo at the end of the summer and was planning on scouring the city for lenses, seeing as 90% of the ones on ebay come from there
 
Jesper Sichlau said:
What is peoples opinion on mixing AEG's and MMJ's. How big is the difference?
Click to expand...

I mix them pretty frequently too, and don't think it's a big deal. They were designed by Zeiss to match, so I certainly feel comfortable doing so. In fact late AE's with mid 6 serials...and early MM's with high 6 serials... are very, very similar.

The biggest differences will be noticed when you mix ORIGINAL low 5 serial numbers with say LATE high 8 serial numbers. There could be up to 15+ years separating the coatings, so you may start to notice the lowcon and flaring of the AE more, and by comparison the saturation, contrast and "clean" look of the MM more. Even then, very easy to grade them together. Consider them family. The older AE's just have more "personality" in frame, as they are more likely to be lowcon, flare and have ninja stars.

But again, some of my early MMs look very similar to late AE's. So variances are more noticeable as you go to extremes in the lines. Very early AE's vs very late MM's for ex.

Hope this helps!
 
Paul Russell said:
In contrast, I was shooting a short film with another DOP on Friday night. We used his Cooke S4's and the images are nowhere near as clean or sharp as this.

Thanks again, Nick, for starting this thread. :-)
Click to expand...

HAHA. No problem Paul. Feel like thread cred needs to be shared by all though, it's taken on such a remarkable life of it's own!

Love the pics BTW! Can't wait to see the final spot!!

best
 
Hi Everyone, I am a newcomer to the contax zeiss manual lenses (one of the results of this thread!). I recently acquired the 50mm 1.7, 85mm 1.4, and 135mm 2.8 to shoot portraits with. I just received my 85mm 1.4 and it rattles when shaked. I understand that rattling is normal for some lenses. My 50mm and 135mm rattles too but much more softly than my 85mm. Is the louder rattling on the 85mm 1.4 normal or is it something I should be worried about?

The only info I have managed to find on the rattling was here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-124770.html
 
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but my 85mm 1.4 (AE) doesn't rattle at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top