Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

Just got mine 28 f2 Hollywood & 135 f2, it's abit soft wide open, I've heard that they have lots of characteristist so I decided to keep. I have a plan to switch to GH 4, need some advices to build a Contax set for m4/3. Someone help me please...

Well, those are impressive lenses to start with! I would get the 50mm and 80-200mm next. Then save for an 85mm (look deep back in this thread for my learnings about which 85mm NOT to buy. I personally like my 50mm 1.7, but others go for the 1.4.


From the GH4 side of things, the Metabones C/Y to m43 Speedbooster adapter is pretty flipping awesome. It gets results like those below. I also might be willing to chance other options from China, if money is tight. The EOS>m43 I got from overseas has been awesome! Great option for my contax that were adapted to Leitax.

 

[Tom Van]

Slowly starting to build my set. I'm beginning to use these more over my Canon L's. One question...

If I don't shoot wide open, what are your thoughts on going with super speeds over the standard primes? Besides the difference in price and f-stop of course. I started with the 50mm 1.4 and the goal was to continue on with the 35 and 85 supers but after seeing some of Chris's work with 2.8's across the board, I'm beginning to rethink my route.

 

[Brian Robbins]

Slowly starting to build my set. I'm beginning to use these more over my Canon L's. One question...

If I don't shoot wide open, what are your thoughts on going with super speeds over the standard primes? Besides the difference in price and f-stop of course. I started with the 50mm 1.4 and the goal was to continue on with the 35 and 85 supers but after seeing some of Chris's work with 2.8's across the board, I'm beginning to rethink my route.

Don't rethink it.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Slowly starting to build my set. I'm beginning to use these more over my Canon L's. One question...

If I don't shoot wide open, what are your thoughts on going with super speeds over the standard primes? Besides the difference in price and f-stop of course. I started with the 50mm 1.4 and the goal was to continue on with the 35 and 85 supers but after seeing some of Chris's work with 2.8's across the board, I'm beginning to rethink my route.

Personally, I prefer having the Super Speeds, because when you need the extra speed or shallow DOF, it's there.

Don't forget, Chris is on a GIMBAL, and for him having the small uniform WEIGHT and SIZE of the Standard Speeds was a huge plus for him. Believe it or not, the 18 f4, 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.4, and 85 2.8 are almost exactly the same weight and size!! Which makes sense, as I believe Contax designed a number of these with travel in mind for a small travel camera that was available within the Contax system.

 

[Samir Patel]

Slowly starting to build my set. I'm beginning to use these more over my Canon L's. One question...

If I don't shoot wide open, what are your thoughts on going with super speeds over the standard primes? Besides the difference in price and f-stop of course. I started with the 50mm 1.4 and the goal was to continue on with the 35 and 85 supers but after seeing some of Chris's work with 2.8's across the board, I'm beginning to rethink my route.

Both. Haha I know that doesn't help Tom. Anyway I finally got that property under contract so after it closes in a couple weeks I'll be freed up to come up there to run some experiments with my Contax and your Epic! Sit tight!

 

[Tom Van]

Don't rethink it.

Done

Personally, I prefer having the Super Speeds, because when you need the extra speed or shallow DOF, it's there.

Don't forget, Chris is on a GIMBAL, and for him having the small uniform WEIGHT and SIZE of the Standard Speeds was a huge plus for him. Believe it or not, the 18 f4, 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.4, and 85 2.8 are almost exactly the same weight and size!! Which makes sense, as I believe Contax designed a number of these with travel in mind for a small travel camera that was available within the Contax system.

The extra stop of light does come in handy, although I'm beginning to stray away from shooting shallow DOF. I was wondering if there was a quantifiable difference in character (if there is one) between the supers and the standard if both were shot at the same f-stop. I imagine they would look nearly identical. Thats the reason why I thought going 2.8 wouldn't be such a bad idea.

And a super thumbs up for the information on this thread Nick. I would've dismissed at the Contax name altogether like the lens snob I can't afford to be but I'm now a convert

 

[Tom Van]

Both. Haha I know that doesn't help Tom. Anyway I finally got that property under contract so after it closes in a couple weeks I'll be freed up to come up there to run some experiments with my Contax and your Epic! Sit tight!

YES PLEASE!

 

[Nick Morrison]

The extra stop of light does come in handy, although I'm beginning to stray away from shooting shallow DOF. I was wondering if there was a quantifiable difference in character (if there is one) between the supers and the standard if both were shot at the same f-stop. I imagine they would look nearly identical. Thats the reason why I thought going 2.8 wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Generally speaking, the Super's have more "character" in their bokeh because they go more shallow and also close focus more (the 35 1.4 and 28 f2 can be very dreamy wide open, and at near macro distances...). Other than that, at 2.8 the standards render in very similar ways at 2.8 yes...in fact...some may even punchier and more even across the frame. The 85 2.8 comes to mind, very even performance WO even on a full frame. Also, at 2.8 the 85mm Sonar has PERFECT CIRCULAR BOKEH, whereas the 85 1.4 has either ninja bokeh (AE) or hexagon bokeh (MM). But the SONNAR...circles...dreamy circles...

So, other than speed and some dreamy WO stuff, yes...the Standards are superb as well...and also have the added advantage of being smaller, similarly sized, and...more affordable (nice bonus).

 

[Uli Plank]

Dear friends,

a question about Mutars ( II in particular): Are they OK for having something longer on rare occasions? My longest one is the 180mm (and I love it), but I can't justify to spend for anything beyond, since it's so rare I really need it (I'm not into wildlife, just for an occasional shot with lots of spatial compression).

I have a Minolta collection too (as you may know by now), but I wasn't very happy with their 2x extender. Even if it has a decent reputation, it ruins my beautiful Rokkors: too much CA, soft corners.

So, before I grab one, is the Mutar II a better choice?

 

[Brice Ansel]

Dear friends,

a question about Mutars ( II in particular): Are they OK for having something longer on rare occasions? My longest one is the 180mm (and I love it), but I can't justify to spend for anything beyond, since it's so rare I really need it (I'm not into wildlife, just for an occasional shot with lots of spatial compression).

I have a Minolta collection too (as you may know by now), but I wasn't very happy with their 2x extender. Even if it has a decent reputation, it ruins my beautiful Rokkors: too much CA, soft corners.

So, before I grab one, is the Mutar II a better choice?

I don't know about the Mutar I, but I have a Mutar II and I can confirm in arsh circonstencies you will get some CA
Here is a few pic took with a 100/300 at 300 and the Mutar II

And a crop one who exibit some CA on the left part

Don't aspect miracle but it is not too bad when exposure isn't critical.
Cheers
B.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The Mutars are complicated, because there are THREE optical designs, and many Contax lenses are designed to optimally work with only one or two of these. It's important to try and match each Contax lens or zoom with it's corresponding Mutar for optimal results.

In the case of the 100-300 for example, I'm not sure any Mutar is officially registered as compatible with this superb zoom, so some aberrations may be expected.

However, the 180 2.8 is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to work well with the Mutar II (a 2x), but not the Mutar I (also a 2x). It also plays well with the Mutar III (a 1.4x).

Hope this helps!

 

[Chris McKechnie]

Thanks for the compliments Tom and Nick.

The reason why I shy away from 1.4 lenses, is it's too difficult to retain focus with any movement if you're actually going for 4K sharp focus. 4K soft focus just doesn't do it for me. That's why I chose to stick to 2.8's. I feel confident at shooting a 2.8 aperture and retaining focus, even when moving. Plus, the 2.8's are all cheaper. Hehe

For most of my MoVI work, I use the entire f-stop range, depending on the shot. However, I generally try and not use f16/22 if I can, just to make it feel less videoish, though there is definitely a time and place for deep focus.

These lenses are so true to the world we see which is why I don't think I'll ever switch to anything else.

 

[Uli Plank]

Thank you, Brice and Nick,

so I'll go for it, it looks decent and should pair nicely with my 180mm.

 

[andy black]

@ Andy:
To be precise, the 50mm f1.7 has a stop at 2.0 (if not declicked), but no mark.

Thanks Uli.

 

[Phil Dickinson]

For those that might like a few very cheap, but slightly oddball, versions of these lenses.

A seller on another forum has the 1,4/50 2,8/85 and 3,5/200 for sale for $625 for the bundle.

The only catch is that they're in Rollei mount. The coating is called HFT, but Zeiss admitted it was identical to T* in their camera blog, so they should match nicely.

Im im not sure if cross posting to another forum is allowed, but here ya go anyway....

http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/23541-carl-zeiss-lenses-50mm-85mm-200mm/#entry266501

 

[Phil Dickinson]

Mutar compatibility lists are attached to their spec sheets....

http://www.zeiss.com.au/content/dam...nloadcenter/contax_yashica/mutari-ii_2x_e.pdf
http://www.zeiss.com.au/content/dam...loadcenter/contax_yashica/mutariii_1-4x_e.pdf

the 100-300 doesn't seem to be compatible with any of them.

 

[Nick Morrison]

For those that might like a few very cheap, but slightly oddball, versions of these lenses.

A seller on another forum has the 1,4/50 2,8/85 and 3,5/200 for sale for $625 for the bundle.

The only catch is that they're in Rollei mount. The coating is called HFT, but Zeiss admitted it was identical to T* in their camera blog, so they should match nicely.

Im im not sure if cross posting to another forum is allowed, but here ya go anyway....

http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php/topic/23541-carl-zeiss-lenses-50mm-85mm-200mm/#entry266501

True, the Rolleis are allegedly mass market clones of select primes from the Contax lineup! Not sure if the construction is identecial to Contax (ie all metal and as robust, or if they used lighter, cheaper plastic components to keep costs down)...but the optical designs and coatings ARE allegedly the same yes...except I believe a number of Rollei's have the same oddball three blade iris found commonly in B Speeds.

The bigger issue however is THE MOUNT. The Rollei mount and flange length I believe make them much harder to adapt to EOS, so to prep these for EPIC/SCARLET could cost a considerable amount at a tech such as RP lens, Duclos, etc. That said, those prices are not bad!!

 

[Uli Plank]

@ Phil:
Yes, thanks I saw that. I didn't intend to go for the 100-300mm anyway.

@ Phil and Nick:
As you may know, my hometown is the home of Rollei too. Even if the company is gone (as a producer of photographic lenses, that is) we still have a few excellent technicians around who should have deeper knowledge of these. So, if you have further questions, ask me and I'll pass them along.

 

[Nick Morrison]

@ Phil:
Yes, thanks I saw that. I didn't intend to go for the 100-300mm anyway.

@ Phil and Nick:
As you may know, my hometown is the home of Rollei too. Even if the company is gone (as a producer of photographic lenses, that is) we still have a few excellent technicians around who should have deeper knowledge of these. So, if you have further questions, ask me and I'll pass them along.

Thanks Uli, great to know!!!

 

[Jason Kattides]

Hey everyone, thanks for all the info this thread has provided. I've been following this thread for a few months, and finally decided to jump on board with Contax glass. Just picked up this 85mm F1.4 MMG from keh in EX condition, and it looks awesome. Got 4 Leitax adapters on the way to cover this lens, and the next 3 lenses on my radar: 50mm F1.4 MM, 35mm F1.4 MM, and 28mm F2 MM. I'm not a RED user, so these lenses will be mainly used on the cameras I get to use on jobs like the FS700 (Speedbooster) and C300 - Although I may pick up a Sony A7S when that becomes available which should work nicely with these lenses.

Also, in an effort to give back, I did ask David at Leitax for the mount sizing for most of the main MM lenses - perhaps this may be useful to somebody if it has not already been posted.

15mm F3.5 MM --------- Wide
18mm F4 MM ------------ Narrow
21mm F2.8 MM ---------- Narrow
25mm F2.8 MM --------- Narrow
28mm F2 MM ----------- Narrow
35mm F1.4 MM --------- Wide
50mm F1.4 MM --------- Narrow
85mm F1.4 MM --------- Wide
135mm F2 MM ----------- Wide
28-85 F3.3-F4 MM ------ Narrow
35-70 F3.4 MM ---------- Narrow
80-200 F4 MM --------- Narrow