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

Hey gang just wrapped up a History Channel shoot...Epic + Contax!! Came out great. Will post samples soon as I can!

@Brice - love your Paris and musician pics!! The 35-70 is great yes! Need to use mine more. The 28-85 comes out so often these days.

@Ben - great pics as always!!!

Uli Plank said:
Seconded. The 60mm Macro is another killer lens. I use it for portrait more than for macro.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. The 60 Macro has killed for us as a portrait lens too. A fantastic, fantastic lens. The 100 rarely gets used. Almost always the 60 comes out!

Justen Nguyen said:
Also quick question for you guys. I'm thinking about buying the 18mm to round out my set. I have 80mm fronts for all my other lenses. I'm a bit confused at the 70mm to 86mm screw in ring thread I keep reading about for the 18mm. Is there any feasible way to put an 80mm front on the 18mm or is it to difficult? Or would it not matter either way as the angle would be too wide and the hood/front be in frame?
Click to expand...
Justen, the 18mm is a fun lens, but yes...the 80mm front issue can be tricky. Basically, here's the answer. The 70-86 step up hood isn't practical, as then you need to STEP DOWN to 77mm (at least I did). The whole thing ends up being bulky, and with only a filter or two ours vignetted at 4K MX. Seemed silly that our FF 18mm was vignetting at 4K...

So...I had RP lens help me out. Peter basically used DELRIN to create an 80OD front for me. We use the Cavision hood/clamps to then clamp on filtration to the 18. Make sense?

Jake Wilganowski said:
Just picked up a 35-70 from KEH, nice to be joining the club. Should arrive around the same time as my epic dragon. Fun!
Click to expand...
Wow. Contax 35-70 on Dragon. Jealous!!!

Jake Wilganowski said:
Does anyone make gears for the 35-70 that cover the push pull range?
Click to expand...
Great question. I'd considered having Peter at RP lens do this for me. I'd reach out to him.

DAVID BARKAN said:
Speaking of the 28-85mm zoom, how loose the zoom is supposed to be? I think mine is a bit too much, I wish it was a bit harder. How much can you guys pan up or down without it moving?
Click to expand...
David, much like Ben, we rarely tilt up or down on ours too much...+ so far that hasn't been an issue, but I could see your concern. One thing you could do is add a GEAR RING to the focus barrel, and then lock the focal length in by attaching your follow focus to the gear (if that makes sense!). Our 28-85 has a focus gear on it (for this very reason!), but to be honest...I find we rarely even consider using it...but for what you need..could be useful!
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking of getting an A7S.

my c/y collection is currently...

2,8/28
2,8/35
1,4/50
1,4/85
2,8/135
3,5/200

Will I be disappointed with the results compared to modern Zeiss (or Sony) lenses?

All info greatly appreciated.
 
No. I'm not disappointed on my A7R, and that has three times the resolution.

The 50 and 85 might look a t bit soft WO, but who needs 1.4 on an A7S?
 
Thanks for the a7 feedback. Nice.

Great pics Ben.

Uli, good to hear they're up to the a7r too.

Anyway, I see soft wide open as a feature. Lol. I'm not likely to own an Otus any time soon.
 
How much lighter is the 35-70 compared to the 28-85? I'm about to shoot a bunch of small interviews, one man band type of thing with the GH4, so I want something light and compact... I don't want to go obvious and get a 12-35mm, I really want to stay "in the family", the Contax family I mean... =)
 
DAVID BARKAN said:
How much lighter is the 35-70 compared to the 28-85? I'm about to shoot a bunch of small interviews, one man band type of thing with the GH4, so I want something light and compact... I don't want to go obvious and get a 12-35mm, I really want to stay "in the family", the Contax family I mean... =)
Click to expand...

It's considerably smaller. Not 1/2 as small, but almost. On a lighter camera, I think you'd certainly notice the weight/size difference. The 28-85 is one of my heaviest Contax lenses (suppose it's all the glass in there!), but the 35-70 weighs more like a standard prime, and extends much shorter.

The size and compactness of the 35-70 (on top of its SUPERB performance stopped down on Full Frame) has frequently been one of it's major selling points to travel and landscape photographers.

Hope this helps!!
 
I just found a photo of the below set online. The rehousing on these look great (Im looking for a set of PL glass for my new Dragon). Was wondering whether any of you have experience with this rehoused set of Contax lenses. I'm always a bit nervous buying any optical products from someone who's quality isn't known. Interested in the mechanics on these.

24vjt5u.jpg
 
My personal thoughts are they could be the greatest rehouses ever, and you'd have removed all the reasons to own Contax zeiss glass without quite having the benefits of cine glass.

Tiny, lightweight and 'relatively' inexpensive but with the classic Zeiss look, sharpness and contrast. I don't believe any rehouse is going to alleviate the issues that are inherent in using stills glass other than the solid gearing you could get elsewhere. For the price of a lens and a rehouse, I'd probably buy a Schneider Xenon FF or similar genuine cine lens and keep my modded but not rehoused Contax ones for where their benefits outweigh the negatives.
 
Ben Scott said:
My personal thoughts are they could be the greatest rehouses ever, and you'd have removed all the reasons to own Contax zeiss glass without quite having the benefits of cine glass.

Tiny, lightweight and 'relatively' inexpensive but with the classic Zeiss look, sharpness and contrast. I don't believe any rehouse is going to alleviate the issues that are inherent in using stills glass other than the solid gearing you could get elsewhere. For the price of a lens and a rehouse, I'd probably buy a Schneider Xenon FF or similar genuine cine lens and keep my modded but not rehoused Contax ones for where their benefits outweigh the negatives.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. Can't you go with Leitax and EF mount?
 
Nick Morrison said:
It's considerably smaller. Not 1/2 as small, but almost. On a lighter camera, I think you'd certainly notice the weight/size difference. The 28-85 is one of my heaviest Contax lenses (suppose it's all the glass in there!), but the 35-70 weighs more like a standard prime, and extends much shorter.

The size and compactness of the 35-70 (on top of its SUPERB performance stopped down on Full Frame) has frequently been one of it's major selling points to travel and landscape photographers.

Hope this helps!!
Click to expand...

Thanks Nick! Looking at the spec sheets from Zeiss, it seems like it's lighter then my 35mm 1.4, but only a tad larger. It's a clear winner. =)

Just gotta find a decent one to purchase now.
 
Ben Scott said:
My personal thoughts are they could be the greatest rehouses ever, and you'd have removed all the reasons to own Contax zeiss glass without quite having the benefits of cine glass.

Tiny, lightweight and 'relatively' inexpensive but with the classic Zeiss look, sharpness and contrast. I don't believe any rehouse is going to alleviate the issues that are inherent in using stills glass other than the solid gearing you could get elsewhere. For the price of a lens and a rehouse, I'd probably buy a Schneider Xenon FF or similar genuine cine lens and keep my modded but not rehoused Contax ones for where their benefits outweigh the negatives.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree. Also I relay on 77mm threads so much. However at some point having GL optics mod some of my fave primes (while maintaining a 77mm thread, which he's suggested is possible)...may one day be in the cards.

Also, most wireless focus units now extend focus throws, which is quite useful...
 
Phil Arntz said:
I just found a photo of the below set online. The rehousing on these look great (Im looking for a set of PL glass for my new Dragon). Was wondering whether any of you have experience with this rehoused set of Contax lenses. I'm always a bit nervous buying any optical products from someone who's quality isn't known. Interested in the mechanics on these.

24vjt5u.jpg
Click to expand...


Who does the rehouse? where did you find these?
 
 
Got me a 28-85 C/Y now!
Paid 340,- € by offer to well-reputed dealer in the bay here in Germany. The lens arrived the other day, and it's in very good condition. Minor cosmetic signs of use, the rest is just perfect with some of the usual dust of a pumping zoom. I don't know if you'll find a good one these days for less. No, it doesn't vignette at 28mm on the A7R, but it shows darker corners WO (like many wide primes from the era do).

You know I'm a Minolta SR fan, so I did some pixel peeping with charts against my Minolta 28-85 f3.5-4.5, just like I did quite a while ago with the Zeiss C/Y 35-70 against it's Minolta counterpart (at that time, they were head to head and I sold the Zeiss). That Minolta was made for Leica too, and it's a famous little zoom. The 28-85 is a sleeper, you can still find it for less than 100,- even if Antony from Rokkorfiles tested it against some of the finest Minolta primes at 35mm and it was very good. Both are two-touch, which I like too much for filming. Here are my results:

@28mm:
Minolta is a tad wider @28mm, shows a bit more distortion (both complex barrel with a hint of mustache). Both very good contrast and sharpness in the center even WO. Zeiss a bit sharper in the corner, both mild CA. Zeiss a bit more shading in the corners. One stop closed the shading in the corners is at similar level (mild), the Zeiss stays ahead in sharpness. Closing down further get's them very similar, Minolta softer by very small margin in the corners.

@35mm:
The mild barrel distortion is quite on par. WO the Zeiss is sharper – actually very sharp – in the center, but the Minolta not far behind. Corners are softer on both, CA is reduced from 28 and shading is nearly gone. One stop down both are biting sharp in the center and the Minolta is about to catch up in the corners, but there seems some coma left and even at f8 it doesn't fully catch up in the corners.

@50mm:
Around 50mm both become distortion free and have nearly no shading. But the Minolta get's softer in the center when WO, the Zeiss is simply sharp. Corners are pretty good on both, with minor smearing in the Minolta, CA is nearly gone for both. Even at f8 the Minolta stays softer in the center and doesn't catch up any more in the corners due to smearing (coma?). This Zeiss is definitely as sharp as a prime at 50mm f8!

@85mm:
Both have the same image size, with nearly no distortion in the Zeiss and quite some pincushion in the Minolta. Center sharpness of the Minolta is considerably lower than the Zeiss. The Zeiss, OTOH shows some darkening of the corners at this length again. Resolution in the corners is similar (already good) on both, with nearly no CA, but the Zeiss has better contrast. One stop down the Zeiss is biting sharp and the mild shading is gone, the Minolta stays softer in the center. Now the Minolta shows even a tad more resolution in the corners (but smears a bit). Looks as if the Minolta has some field curvature at 85mm. Even at f8 the Minolta stays softer in the center and is pretty sharp in the corners. Both very fine in the corners, but better contrast with the Zeiss and some coma with the Minolta.

At all angles the Zeiss has a better T-stop by about 1/3 to 2/3 stops, maybe resulting from the bigger glass, the Minolta has the usual 55mm front thread and weighs under 500 grams, the Zeiss (as you know) has 82mm and weighs over 800 grams. So, the Minolta is no slouch at all, but if I want to resolve my A7R, I'll have to carry the weight in the future, while I'll keep the Minolta for filming, when I don't have that pixel count and don't use the extreme corners.

Bokeh is always a bit softer with the Zeiss, the Minolta has some harshness and a bit of color fringing at the wider angles (where it's sharper than at the long end). Above 40-50mm both are creamy, but the Zeiss has the nicer transition and the famous 3D. This time the Zeiss wins, but that little Minolta, which wouldn't get me much money anyway, is a keeper.

Two more things: When you keep the zoom steady, the Zeiss has quite low focus breathing for a photographic zoom. The zoom creep is there, I'd say if I hold it up or down beyond 75-80 degrees, it will begin to slip.

Hope this is useful to some of you.
 
 
Ben Scott said:
Thanks guys. Am now in Ho Chi Mnh with a 80-200, a 28-85 and a 50 1.7. If I don't get killed by a thousand crazy scooter divers I should have some good stuff soon. :)
Click to expand...

Have a great trip Ben!!! Awesome pics! Can't wait to see more! Just used both those zooms on a recent travel job, and they looked great!!!
 
great stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top