Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Uli Plank]

@ David B.

The Canon 35 to 135 is not in the class of Contax', but it's no slouch either.

Bu on the short end there is the Minolta 35-70 (the one with constant aperture), I tested it agains it's Contax counterpart and they were head to head.
Have a look at my Minolta Rokkor thread here at reduser. Unfortunately, I don't know of nothing longer in two-touch for a decent price.

 

[Josh K]

It's such a shame certain focal lengths like the 180 can't be Leitax'd to Nikon!!

I'm pretty sure if you send a 180 to Peter at RP Lens he can Nikon Leitax it for you. I've certainly sent him much weirder requests!

David Llado told me it could not be done. So I'm guessing if can be done, it's only through non-reversible modifications/surgery (which since I buy and sell a lot of lenses, I don't consider an option).

 

[Daniel Pearson]

Sorry if this is spam but I'm selling a Contax 50mm 1.4 AEJ and a 35-70mm MMJ if anybody is looking http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?123242-Contax-Zeiss-35-70-and-50-1-4-AEJ

Both in great condition, 50 is near mint with original box and paperwork, 35-70 is in great condition optically with just a few signs of wear on the exterior - full details and pictures in the thread.

 

[Nick Morrison]

So I'm guessing if can be done, it's only through non-reversible modifications/surgery (which since I buy and sell a lot of lenses, I don't consider an option).

Yeah sorry, it would almost certainly need non-reversible surgery to work!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Bu on the short end there is the Minolta 35-70 (the one with constant aperture), I tested it agains it's Contax counterpart and they were head to head.
Have a look at my Minolta Rokkor thread here at reduser. Unfortunately, I don't know of nothing longer in two-touch for a decent price.

I have the Rokkor 35-70 modded to EOS, and can confirm it's great, yes. Haven't compared it head to head with the Contax, but I certainly like the look and feel of the Rokkor, for sure. Very similar to the Contax in many ways. Uli didn't you have a theory these two lenses were "cousins" - ie shared some common pedigree? If so, that wouldn't surprise me at all...

 

[Piotr Renes]

Do you think it's a good idea to buy Zeiss Mutar III 1.4x T* teleconverter for Sonnar 135/2.8 (I have one MMJ) to save a weight instead of buying Sonnar 180/2.8 (MMJ) which is aprox. 815g? Will Sonnar 135/2.8 + Mutar III combo give me same IQ than Sonnar 180/2.8 itself?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Do you think it's a good idea to buy Zeiss Mutar III 1.4x T* teleconverter for Sonnar 135/2.8 (I have one MMJ) to save a weight instead of buying Sonnar 180/2.8 (MMJ) which is aprox. 815g? Will Sonnar 135/2.8 + Mutar III combo give me same IQ than Sonnar 180/2.8 itself?

If you're planning on saving weight/size, then I think this is a wise option! The 135 2.8 is very sharp, esp stopped down, and I'm sure the IQ won't suffer too much with the 1.4 Mutar!

The 180 2.8 is a great lens, but it's derived from a very old design - which looks great, but isn't as high resolution as say the 135 2.8. Which is why I think the mutar solution will probably be fine.

All you'd be missing is a stop of light (your 135 plus III Mutar would put you at roughly 200mm F4), and also the 180 2.8 has a floating element for improved/shorter close focusing (distortion is also better controlled at these min distances)

But for a travel option? Mutar III sounds pretty smart! Have to imagine it was designed for solutions just like this!

best

 

[Uli Plank]

@Piotr: I can post a test of both options tomorrow.

@Nick:
No, the Rokkor is quite different from the Zeiss Contax, but it is the same as the early 35-70mm Leica zoom. Minolta made them for Leica, who were not yet that much into zooms at all.

 

[Nick Morrison]

@Nick:
No, the Rokkor is quite different from the Zeiss Contax, but it is the same as the early 35-70mm Leica zoom. Minolta made them for Leica, who were not yet that much into zooms at all.

PS I have to say I've been falling in love with the MC Rokkors recently. The coatings are SO lowcon. These lenses are from 1966 onwards, so some maybe 10 years older than even Contax AE's!

I actually have an old Rokkor 100 f2 that I believe is from 1962. Super vintage!

 

[Piotr Renes]

If you're planning on saving weight/size, then I think this is a wise option! The 135 2.8 is very sharp, esp stopped down, and I'm sure the IQ won't suffer too much with the 1.4 Mutar!

The 180 2.8 is a great lens, but it's derived from a very old design - which looks great, but isn't as high resolution as say the 135 2.8. Which is why I think the mutar solution will probably be fine.

All you'd be missing is a stop of light (your 135 plus III Mutar would put you at roughly 200mm F4), and also the 180 2.8 has a floating element for improved/shorter close focusing (distortion is also better controlled at these min distances)

But for a travel option? Mutar III sounds pretty smart! Have to imagine it was designed for solutions just like this!

best

Thanks Nick. I will probably buy Mutar III 1.4x. I use tele lens mosty wide open, here it's interesting note made at slrlensreview about Sonnar 180/2.8:

"One other interesting observation you might have already made, is that all these f/2.8 shots are not particularly sharp. That seems to be the trait with the lens and it looks like the design was optimized for performance at or close to infinity. There was a noticeable difference in image quality at these extreme ends of the focusing range - the lens performs very strongly across the frame and all apertures when shot at infinity. Not so much when shot at closer distances - images seem to carry a little bit less contrast and a little bit less resolution".

http://slrlensreview.com/web/review...rl-zeiss-sonnar-180mm-f28-cy?showall=&start=1

 

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks Nick. I will probably buy Mutar III 1.4x. I use tele lens mosty wide open, here it's interesting note made at slrlensreview about Sonnar 180/2.8:

"One other interesting observation you might have already made, is that all these f/2.8 shots are not particularly sharp. That seems to be the trait with the lens and it looks like the design was optimized for performance at or close to infinity. There was a noticeable difference in image quality at these extreme ends of the focusing range - the lens performs very strongly across the frame and all apertures when shot at infinity. Not so much when shot at closer distances - images seem to carry a little bit less contrast and a little bit less resolution".

http://slrlensreview.com/web/review...rl-zeiss-sonnar-180mm-f28-cy?showall=&start=1

That review is fascinating, and goes to show that MTF's don't show you everything. It needs also be mentioned that in it's day, the 180 was EXPENSIVE. It was certainly not affordable, was a premium lens. However the MTFs are not superb on this, even though reviews like this (and personal experience) say otherwise - that this lens is great.

And the soft close focusing is also perplexing. I have a very rare "Contax" book from 1996, printed by Zeiss themselves (in English and Japanese), where they specifically go into the floating element of the 180, and how it was added to improve this lens' close focusing (it can focus down to 1.4 meters, even closer than the 1.6meters of the 135 2.8, even though the latter is a shorter lens). The MTF chart of the 180 itself mentions the "aberration correction for close range by floating element."

The floating element appears to have enabled CLOSER focusing (more shallow, more intimate shots) and reduced "aberrations", but perhaps was unable to compensate for a design optimized for infinity? Nevertheless, that "softness" is probably an asset for some portraits! We did a big shoot this year and used a Nikkor 200 F2 on some shots, and it was SO sharp that it was borderline problematic when it came time to grade. Who knows - maybe Zeiss had that in mind? Fantastic infinity performance for landscape? A more natural softness for portraits?

Thanks for sharing review! Digging deeper into these lenses is always fascinsting!

 

[Uli Plank]

Interesting theory for sure!

Minolta had one 85mm (the f1.7) that was designed with a double purpose in mind. WO it is soft for vintage look portrait style, but stop it down only one step or two and it get's very sharp.
Not all photographers really understood this concept, so they made two lenses: the Varisoft 85mm and the newer 85mm 2.0, which is sharp from the start.

@Piotr

Weather was horrible until now, but it cleared up bit. So, here you go, all shot at 36 mpx on a Sony A7R. Juts JPEGs, no corrections.

180mm center-crop WO:

180mm corner-crop WO:

Now the 135mm with a Mutar II, since I don't have the Mutar III. It should only be better with it's more moderate conversion.

135mm w Mutar II WO, center-crop:

dito, corner-crop:

Since there is some minor softness her, another one at f4 (effectively f8):

I'd say you are on the safe side with the Mutar III and the 135mm. It's a Contax !

 

[Piotr Renes]

Thanks Uli for comparison! I just bought Mutar III 1.4 for $200, should have it in 10 days, it is said it's the best from 3 Mutars, so I am sure it will work fine with Sonnar 135/2.8. There are two lenses left that I want to have - it's C/Y Makro-Planar 100/2.8 and 18mm, but not sure yet if I will go for Distagon or for much expensive Super-Elmar M 18/3.8.

Interesting theory for sure!

Minolta had one 85mm (the f1.7) that was designed with a double purpose in mind. WO it is soft for vintage look portrait style, but stop it down only one step or two and it get's very sharp.
Not all photographers really understood this concept, so they made two lenses: the Varisoft 85mm and the newer 85mm 2.0, which is sharp from the start.

@Piotr

Weather was horrible until now, but it cleared up bit. So, here you go, all shot at 36 mpx on a Sony A7R. Juts JPEGs, no corrections.

180mm center-crop WO:

180mm corner-crop WO:

Now the 135mm with a Mutar II, since I don't have the Mutar III. It should only be better with it's more moderate conversion.

135mm w Mutar II WO, center-crop:

dito, corner-crop:

Since there is some minor softness her, another one at f4 (effectively f8):

I'd say you are on the safe side with the Mutar III and the 135mm. It's a Contax !

 

[Janis Huber]

Has any of you made experience with shooting contax lenses in cold weather?

I'm planning a snowboard shoot!

Thanks for sharing.

 

[liam howlett]

I'm passionate about Contax, and passionate about RED cameras, let's just leave it at that!

Nevertheless...congrats on getting the 60 2.8 Macro! One of my favorite Contax lenses EVER!

I hope you make some movie magic with it!!

That's fair. Anyway, I was looking at your earlier post in the beginning of the thread where you've listed the most "worth it" Contax glass to get - and I am curious about one lens in particular that wasn't in the list - the 180 2.8. You have also praised this lens for its sharpness - but how come you did not include it in that list of "most worth it" lenses?

 

[Nick Morrison]

That's fair. Anyway, I was looking at your earlier post in the beginning of the thread where you've listed the most "worth it" Contax glass to get - and I am curious about one lens in particular that wasn't in the list - the 180 2.8. You have also praised this lens for its sharpness - but how come you did not include it in that list of "most worth it" lenses?

The 180 2.8 is certainy worth getting yes!! It was a VERY expensive lens back in the day (worth almost as much as the 35 1.4), and reasonably affordable now (worth 5x less than the 35 1.4 used). The 180 is a very compelling lens!

About that list - I've actually started to write a new set of reviews that I hope may be even more informative than that original list. Its been over a year, and I'd like to think I could maybe do better. There's always room for improvement!

Best

 

[Uli Plank]

I second this, the 180mm is one of my favorites for photography, actually. I didn't even know it was so expensive in it's day when I bought it in perfect condition for a decent price …

The 18mm is growing on me for it's low distortion when filming, in particular when panning, where so many other wides show this 'bulging' effect.

 

[Chris McKechnie]

Grabs

Grabs

Here are some compressed grabs from 5K WS motion files. These lenses blow me away every time.

For the first time ever, I had a director say - "Man those are tiny lenses...are they going to be sharp enough?" Once I had a 1080 wireless stream going to his monitor he said - "Holy Cow...what lenses are these and why haven't I ever seen them before, they render an amazing image."

I then proceeded to tell him - I think these are some of the most undervalued lenses out there today.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Looking great Chris! Always love that you rock the classic 85 Sonnar too - LOVE that lens!!!

best

 

[Nick Morrison]

Thought it would be fun to take a step back in time, and remember just how long Contax has been in the biz! Here are a smattering of pics, ads, and shots highlighting Contax rangefinders from the 30's - which competed directly with the Leicas.


The Contax III - 1939:





Old Contax Advertisements:

Sample pic taken on a Contax III, from 1939:

All elements were found on Flickr.