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

And just found this, the 1932 Contax I - the first Contax camera, the one that started it all:


5568916727_ae7993f400_z.jpg
 
Warning: This is not about a Contax – but , if you are like me, it might be useful information about other 21mm vintage primes.

Having most of the beautiful Contax lenses, I could never really decide to spend the massive $$$$ for the 21mm Distagon. I might have gone for it if it wasn't so heavy and bulky too and it seems it's distortion is even more than the 18mm. I think nobody denies that it took the crown in 21mm in it's time, and most others in that range didn't even get near. Nevertheless, there are a few other mothers with beautiful daughters.

So, what about alternatives in vintage glass?
Recently, I tested two other famed ones side-by-side on my Sony A7R, the Minolta MC W. Rokkor 21mm f2.8 and the tiny Olympus Zuiko 21mm f3.5 (the later multicoated version). They can both be bought for a fraction of the C/Y Distagon.

Both are floating element designs, the Rokkor is focusing down to 25cm and the Olympus to 20cm, and both have a front thread that doesn't rotate. My Rokkor is in good, used condition and the Zuiko is a limited edition version and like new, a true collector's item.

Observations: stopped down the Rokkor has the lead in corner sharpness, both are sharp from the start in the center. Remember, this is pixel peeping on photo FF with 36 mpx, you may have difficulties to see a difference even on a Dragon. Distortion is complex mustache for both, but a bit less with the Zuiko. CA is visible in the corners on both, but manageable. WO, the Rokkor has more vignetting, at f8 both are excellent. The colors are warmer with the Rokkor.

Conclusion: You can't go wrong with these, they are head-to-head, choosing one is more about personal preferences. I like the colors of the Rokkor better, but it's heavier, built like a tank. The Zuiko ist tiny for it's performance.

I'll have a Rolleinar 21mm coming too. While many Rollei lenses were built by Zeiss and just had a different coating, they never gave their 21mm design away. The 21mm is identical (apart from the mount) to the Mamiya Sekor, so let's see. I'll report.
 
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon MC 20mm 2.8 is also an option. Priced around 300-350 euros. Mount option M42 opens the door for a lot of mounting options. I am in the same position. I bought the Zeiss ZF.2 21mm/2.8 for less than this Contax. Contax 21mm is not worth the money. People who really need a good wide lens have other options available. The sellers can stay with their over rated babies for sale forever. Who is gonna pay 2000 dollars for a good condition one ? I prefer to buy a used cinema lens for this money.
 
Uli Plank said:
Warning: This is not about a Contax – but , if you are like me, it might be useful information about other 21mm vintage primes.

Having most of the beautiful Contax lenses, I could never really decide to spend the massive $$$$ for the 21mm Distagon. I might have gone for it if it wasn't so heavy and bulky too and it seems it's distortion is even more than the 18mm. I think nobody denies that it took the crown in 21mm in it's time, and most others in that range didn't even get near. Nevertheless, there are a few other mothers with beautiful daughters.

So, what about alternatives in vintage glass?
Recently, I tested two other famed ones side-by-side on my Sony A7R, the Minolta MC W. Rokkor 21mm f2.8 and the tiny Olympus Zuiko 21mm f3.5 (the later multicoated version). They can both be bought for a fraction of the C/Y Distagon.

Both are floating element designs, the Rokkor is focusing down to 25cm and the Olympus to 20cm, and both have a front thread that doesn't rotate. My Rokkor is in good, used condition and the Zuiko is a limited edition version and like new, a true collector's item.

Observations: stopped down the Rokkor has the lead in corner sharpness, both are sharp from the start in the center. Remember, this is pixel peeping on photo FF with 36 mpx, you may have difficulties to see a difference even on a Dragon. Distortion is complex mustache for both, but a bit less with the Zuiko. CA is visible in the corners on both, but manageable. WO, the Rokkor has more vignetting, at f8 both are excellent. The colors are warmer with the Rokkor.

Conclusion: You can't go wrong with these, they are head-to-head, choosing one is more about personal preferences. I like the colors of the Rokkor better, but it's heavier, built like a tank. The Zuiko ist tiny for it's performance.

I'll have a Rolleinar 21mm coming too. While many Rollei lenses were built by Zeiss and just had a different coating, they never gave their 21mm design away. The 21mm is identical (apart from the mount) to the Mamiya Sekor, so let's see. I'll report.
Click to expand...

Uli on your (and my Dad's) advice I went and tracked down an MC Rokkor 21 2.8. Looking forward to working with it (and all the MCs). One thing I just realized is the MC Rokkors are a full 10 years older even than Contax AEG glass, debuting in 1966 and on market till 1973. Its a marvel many of these designs remain world class, and also explains why so many are even more lowcon than my AEGs!

To me, the Rokkor MCs look even more distincty "vintage" than even AEGs, both in terms of bokeh, flare and older coatings. I think this makes them quite special. The MDs with the plastic builds are not quite as compelling, for me.

In terms of the 21s, my Dad agrees with you! He used to own a photo store in Madrid in the 70s, and remembers a photo magazine review that ranked the Distagon #1 amongst 21s, and the Rokkor just on its heels! Both are indeed great, but for the price...the Rokkor is certainly a stand out too!
 
@ Cristian:
Correct. I just didn't mention the "Flek" because sample variation is so massive that any comparison of a single one might be misleading.

@ Nick:
One more thing I like about the MC Rokkors: Their threads are aluminum on brass, which is the best paring for smooth motion (Leica uses that as well). All the newer MDs are aluminum on aluminum and no grease in the world will make their focusing as smooth as the older ones.
 
Uli Plank said:
@ Nick:
One more thing I like about the MC Rokkors: Their threads are aluminum on brass, which is the best paring for smooth motion (Leica uses that as well). All the newer MDs are aluminum on aluminum and no grease in the world will make their focusing as smooth as the older ones.
Click to expand...

Yup love the build quality of the MCs. Many appear as sturdy as Contax! Very impressive considering they were presumably more affordable!
 
Nick. I saw you have/had ? the Zeiss zoom 10-100mm T 1.8 MK II. Converted or not i would like to know how this lens stands against the Contax primes on its focal lengts. I will have it easily converted to Super 16 and before conversion i want to know if is worth it !

Best regards
 
@Cristian

Sorry to act faster than Nick, and I'm looking forward to his answer too, but:
I tested two Zeiss zooms and one Canon zoom for S-16 with such long ranges and I was very disappointed with all of them compared to primes of the era. Modern zooms seem to profit of technological advances much more than primes. We have to keep in mind that these were made for film or TV with less resolution than modern sensors and that the main focus of construction was versatility in documentary situations.

In my test the main problems were massive distortions in most zoom positions and soft corners when reasonably open, plus massive CA. The best ones were Angenieux' with lower zoom range, BTW, but these had less contrast (like the 20-80mm). A very nice one was the Schneider Varigon 18-90mm, but I think it only exists for C-mount.
 
Uli Plank said:
@Cristian

Sorry to act faster than Nick, and I'm looking forward to his answer too, but:
I tested two Zeiss zooms and one Canon zoom for S-16 with such long ranges and I was very disappointed with all of them compared to primes of the era. Modern zooms seem to profit of technological advances much more than primes. We have to keep in mind that these were made for film or TV with less resolution than modern sensors and that the main focus of construction was versatility in documentary situations.

In my test the main problems were massive distortions in most zoom positions and soft corners when reasonably open, plus massive CA. The best ones were Angenieux' with lower zoom range, BTW, but these had less contrast (like the 20-80mm). A very nice one was the Schneider Varigon 18-90mm, but I think it only exists for C-mount.
Click to expand...

Nothing to be sorry about! I just hope that Nick will say : MK II 10-100 / 1.8 is the best of all together with 11-110 which basically is the same lens with modified rear lens to cover super16. Some people report that the modified 12-120 has no vigneting and also keeps the macro function. Lets see what Nick have to say since i know for sure he had it in his hands .....
 
Cristian Mihai said:
Nothing to be sorry about! I just hope that Nick will say : MK II 10-100 / 1.8 is the best of all together with 11-110 which basically is the same lens with modified rear lens to cover super16. Some people report that the modified 12-120 has no vigneting and also keeps the macro function. Lets see what Nick have to say since i know for sure he had it in his hands .....
Click to expand...

I do have the 10-100 1.8 yes...a MKI (the MKII has an 87mm thread). Honestly, for what I needed it for - a portable, Zeiss 10x zoom that matched my Contax glass well enough, was fast (an F 1.8!) had a 77mm thread to boot - it fit the bill. It's not that much bigger than a Contax 180. I had mine serviced, and apparently it's in mint condition, so optically its quite sound.

Technically, I wasn't too worried about sharpness, as I assumed it would be "sharp enough". I have an infatuation with "trick" lenses, optics that can give me a interesting look quickly, and this certainly does that. Being able to "pull back" on a 10x zoom is a cool effect, which we did here on this History Xmas spot last winter. Considering its shot 2K on a Scarlet wide open (and has HBM 1/2 and a Star Filter on it), I think it holds up OK!


This lens is being Leitaxed to Canon mount now. And I'm trying to use a Contax Mutar 1.4 to blow up its image circle to cover 3K or 4K Dragon.

Again - I'd probably never do an entire shoot on this lens, ever. But for a pickup shot or a one off, absoutely. I kind of love it.
 
Last edited:
I just found out today that you can enquire directly with Carl Zeiss for the manufacturing date of your lens here
http://www.zeiss.com/corporate/en_de/website/forms/inquiry.html

I asked about 3 of my lenses today and got a full response within ten hours in this format

"8093653 1996

6820723 around 1989

7070003 1993"

Brief but (apart from one lens) informative enough.
 
Here is a studio shot from a thing we are working on for a local University. Scarlet Dragon with AEG 85 1.4 Love this lens and loving the skin tones on the Dragon sensor. I haven't gotten to play with it as much as I'd like since receiving it in Dec. Being new to the sensor, I made the seemingly universal mistake of underexposing, but with A.D.D. and D.E.B. it cleans up pretty well. This is the STHL OLPF by the way. It was also shot through one of those Eyedirect mirror systems so that killed a stop and added another piece of glass. Jpeg knocks it down a notch as well, but overall, I'm pretty pleased. This is not really corrected, just touched the levels a little.

ScarletContax.jpg
 
Paul Russell said:
I just found out today that you can enquire directly with Carl Zeiss for the manufacturing date of your lens here
http://www.zeiss.com/corporate/en_de/website/forms/inquiry.html

I asked about 3 of my lenses today and got a full response within ten hours in this format

"8093653 1996

6820723 around 1989

7070003 1993"

Brief but (apart from one lens) informative enough.
Click to expand...

@ Paul - WOW - awesome!!!! Nice find!!!

@ Chad - nice! Is that WO on the 85? Looking good!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top