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

DAVID BARKAN said:
Thanks for the feedback Uli, I asked Nick because I think he might own one. For its price and description it seems like a good copy, he claims it was taken to service recently for "cleaning" whatever that means. I need a wide angle prime and Contax is impossible to find around here. M42 is my best choice since I can adapt it to Contax mount and use it with the speed booster for my GH4.

Any other suggestions? =/
Click to expand...

I have the older Zeiss 20mm F4 Flektagon (the zebra), and honestly not a fan. The distortion is pretty pronounced. The coatings are much older and different than Contax too - not going to intercut easily at all.

Not sure about the later Flektagon 20mm 2.8, it supposed to be better however (and certainly more modern).

Personally, I'm not sure Zeiss Jena and Zeiss Contax have too much in common optically - though they do share the same Zeiss ancestry, for sure! I have an entire collection of Zeiss Jena glass and they physically and optically look quite different than Contax. Remember, Zeiss Jena inherited Zeiss PRE-WAR designs (ie 1936 and earlier), and kept manufacturing these for decades. While Zeiss Contax were brand new formulas in the mid 70's and then 80's and 90's. Granted some Contax designs are "based" on older fabled formulas (the 25 2.8 and 180 2.8 come to mind), but they were still modern evolutions of these formulas. Whereas Zeiss Jena appear to have remained much more stuck in the past.

It's almost like Zeiss Jena glass (esp the Zebras) are Contax's ancient cousins. There is an ancient DNA that links them for sure. But a lot of evolution appears to have happened in inbetween. At least from what I can tell!

Personally David, I would pass on that Flektagon. You may be better off getting a Tokina 11-16 with a 1/8 Black Promist, or perhaps a Sigma 18-35 with similar filtration.

Hope this helps!
 
Last edited:
Nick Morrison said:
I have the older Zeiss 20mm F4 Flektagon (the zebra), and honestly not a fan. The distortion is pretty pronounced. The coatings are much older and different than Contax too - not going to intercut easily at all.

Not sure about the later Flektagon 20mm 2.8, it supposed to be better however (and certainly more modern).

Personally, I'm not sure Zeiss Jena and Zeiss Contax have too much in common optically - though they do share the same Zeiss ancestry, for sure! I have an entire collection of Zeiss Jena glass and they physically and optically look quite different than Contax. Remember, Zeiss Jena inherited Zeiss PRE-WAR designs (ie 1936 and earlier), and kept manufacturing these for decades. While Zeiss Contax were brand new formulas in the mid 70's and then 80's and 90's. Granted some Contax designs are "based" on older fabled formulas (the 25 2.8 and 180 2.8 come to mind), but they were still modern evolutions of these formulas. Whereas Zeiss Jena appear to have remained much more stuck in the past.

It's almost like Zeiss Jena glass (esp the Zebras) are Contax's ancient cousins. There is an ancient DNA that links them for sure. But a lot of evolution appears to have happened in inbetween. At least from what I can tell!

Personally David, I would pass on that Flektagon. You may be better off getting a Tokina 11-16 with a 1/8 Black Promist, or perhaps a Sigma 18-35 with similar filtration.

Hope this helps!
Click to expand...

Thanks Nick, I'll put some thought into it. There's a 58mm f/2 Biotar going for a reasonable price, I may get it just for that swirly bokeh, may be interesting for the portraiture work I've been shooting lately.

Anyway, we had a beautiful sunset down south here, so I thought I'd share this:
sunset by David Barkan, on Flickr
Panasonic GH4 with Contax 135mm f/2.8 with Speedbooster C/Y-MFT adapter.

Talk about a sharp lens, check out the tower in 100%, and you can even spot the landing gear on that private jet. =)

Cheers.
 
DAVID BARKAN said:
Thanks Nick, I'll put some thought into it. There's a 58mm f/2 Biotar going for a reasonable price, I may get it just for that swirly bokeh, may be interesting for the portraiture work I've been shooting lately.
Click to expand...

No problem! The Helios 44-2 (ie Biotar 58/2) is a very fun lens, yes! I def recommend!

DAVID BARKAN said:
Panasonic GH4 with Contax 135mm f/2.8 with Speedbooster C/Y-MFT adapter.

Talk about a sharp lens, check out the tower in 100%, and you can even spot the landing gear on that private jet. =)

Cheers.
Click to expand...

Great pic! And yes, the 135 2.8 is VERY SHARP! Love that lens!!
 
Chris McKechnie already knows this (he' a MoVi wizard!), but we too are finding that the Contax "Standard Speeds" are ideal for gimbal work! They're ALL almost the same size and weight! Ideal for avoiding having to rebalance at each lens change!

Here are the Contax lenses that seem VERY similar in size and weight:

18 F4
28 2.8
35 2.8
50 1.4
85 2.8

The Contax GIMBAL primes!

best
 
Sounds good! We don't have the money for a MoVi, but we hope for a Ronin – and I got all of these lenses.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Chris McKechnie already knows this (he' a MoVi wizard!), but we too are finding that the Contax "Standard Speeds" are ideal for gimbal work! They're ALL almost the same size and weight! Ideal for avoiding having to rebalance at each lens change!

Here are the Contax lenses that seem VERY similar in size and weight:

18 F4
28 2.8
35 2.8
50 1.4
85 2.8

The Contax GIMBAL primes!

best
Click to expand...

Shhhh...if more people realize this, prices will go up. Hehe

seriously though, they are PERFECT not only for gimbal work, but for every job I'm on, they are my lenses of choice.
 
Hey guys, I'm working on the footage for post production of a short-film I shot, and talking to the editor she's complaining a lot about the focus breathing, especially on shots that I used the 25mm and 35mm. It's quite pronounced, but I tend to ignore it. The director didn't notice until she pointed out. How do you guys feel about it? Has anyone ever complained about it? Should I completely avoid big focus pulls?
 
No reason to change your shots because of that. Have the editor key frame it out.
 
Greg McDonald said:
No reason to change your shots because of that. Have the editor key frame it out.
Click to expand...

I did just that. But should I be bothered? Should I worry a bit more? I generally tend to avoid big focus pulls already as is... but I never had a client complain to me.

I was wondering if you guys every had anyone complain or even mention it in a conversation.
 
I don't worry about it. I've always keyed it out on any shots that need it and have never had any complaints from a client after doing that.

If your editor is complaining about the fact she needs to take a minute to do that, then that's a different story.
 
All you need to do is join the 'edit suite stories' group on Facebook and spend 5mins enjoying the rants and realise it's just edit suite venting. It doesn't mean anything. A shame that they've done it to a point where your Director is actually concerned about it, but on the plus side at least you can explain why on the next shoot you'll need him to rent you a set of master primes :)
 
I've never had client complain about breathing, all though we generally don't do big focus pulls. But as others have said, lenses that don't breathe are generally only elite PL glass.

Contax glass are great for many things - but yes, like the majority of still glass, they can breathe a little.

Luckily this can be addressed in post if need be!
 
Shooting Red I'd not be concerned about it – I would if I had Alexa resolution ;-)

And, yes, still glass breathes, have a look at Leica-R !
 
I shoot this music video a while back, using my set of contax glass.
Starting to like my set of lenses very very much.


I have been looking into buying the 18mm lens as well, what are your experince with that lens?
Is the loss of sharpness to the sides at f4 a problem?
 
That's more of an aesthetical than a technical question.
Yes, there corners are soft at f4, but since you normally have a lot of detail in such a wide shot and a deep DOF, it can even help to draw the viewer's attention to the center.

Plus, now that I had mine for a while, I really appreciate the way it distorts very naturally, it doesn't show that "near fisheye", bulging look other very wide lenses have. Might even distort less than the 21mm (which I don't own).
 
Uli Plank said:
Plus, now that I had mine for a while, I really appreciate the way it distorts very naturally, it doesn't show that "near fisheye", bulging look other very wide lenses have. Might even distort less than the 21mm (which I don't own).
Click to expand...

Hey Uli, the 18 does indeed distort less than the 21, at least proportionally. According to the MTF charts, both the 18 and 21 have similar levels of distortion, however when factoring the 18 is a wider lens, you really start to appreciate how controlled the 18 can be.

We use the 18 handhed/gimbal quite a lot, and it's one of our recent faves.

That said - we used the 25mm AE handheld the past two days and it's jaw-droppingly pretty. The flares and retro bokeh/look are stunning at times. Definitely a favorite of ours too!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top