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

I am now a proud owner of two ZC lenses thanks to this thread. First purchase was the Planar 60mm, and now I've got a Near Mint 28 2.8 AEJ that shipped from Japan (quite fast too, should be here today according to the tracking number info) Will find out manufacturing dates as well on my lenses thanks to Paul's awesome discovery.

Any suggestions on what my next purchase should be? I've been looking out for AEG's mostly, but couldn't find the 28 2.8 so mine is from Japan and according to earlier posts in the thread they should still match ok (I'm building an AEG set)
 
Nick,

Yessir, wide open. 4 Mole 2k's bounced back thru an 8x of Full Grid, shot wide open and still had to go up to 1000iso on a few of the shots :)
 
Dear Liam,

I'd go for a 135 next and then start to fill in. But no worries about AEG vs AEJ, they mix and match beautifully.
 
@liam 50 1.4 is my most used lens. Love it. With it, the 28 f2 and the 85 1.4 I could do 95% of most shoots.
 
Got the 28. Jesus that lens is small! My first one was Planar 60mm - so I wasn't too surprised about the size and build, but damn. This 28 is tiny!

Uli Plank said:
Dear Liam,

I'd go for a 135 next and then start to fill in. But no worries about AEG vs AEJ, they mix and match beautifully.
Click to expand...

That lens is on the list, along with 180! I'm kind of addicted now so I feel like I need both of these on the Tele range. Huge long lens fan.

Chad Stockfleth said:
@liam 50 1.4 is my most used lens. Love it. With it, the 28 f2 and the 85 1.4 I could do 95% of most shoots.
Click to expand...

That one is also on the list. And 85. Man, I feel like I'm gonna get all these lenses. I can't make up my mind, or feed the addiction. The glutton in me.

--

Also, got an email back from Zeiss about manufacturing dates

6164876 (Planar 60mm 2.8) = 1978
6135250 (Distagon 28mm 2.8) = around 1978

nice, got me some uber vintage glass.
 
Last edited:
liam howlett said:
Any suggestions on what my next purchase should be? I've been looking out for AEG's mostly, but couldn't find the 28 2.8 so mine is from Japan and according to earlier posts in the thread they should still match ok (I'm building an AEG set)
Click to expand...
There never was a 21 AEG, only the MM. But it's a damn fine lens. I'm absolutely positive that my Contax 21mm is sharper than the new Zeiss Canon mount version that it replaced.

50 1.4 is my most used lens. Love it. With it, the 28 f2 and the 85 1.4 I could do 95% of most shoots.
Click to expand...
Wait until you get the 35mm f1.4
 
Last edited:
@ Liam:
When they are from the same year, you can expect the coating to be identical – very nice. I think it's more important to get AEs from a period that is close enough than AEG vs. AEJ. It's nothing else but a myth that AEGs are any better than AEJs – even as a German I can't subscribe to that. Their cooperation was based on very strict quality controls. The most important point – if you care for matching colors – is the coating. The agreement was about sharing formulas for the coating, and while Zeiss silently improved T* coating over the years, any advances were passed to Japan by contract. There is more of a difference in color between lenses from Zeiss and Rollei which shared the optical formula but not the coating.

If you like really small lenses, the 100mm 3.5 is a very fine short tele. The 180mm is fantastic, but a serious chunk of glass and metal.
 
Paul Russell said:
There never was a 21 AEG, only the MM. But it's a damn fine lens. I'm absolutely positive that my Contax 21mm is sharper than the new Zeiss Canon mount version that it replaced.


Wait until you get the 35mm f1.4
Click to expand...

Oh yeah the 35 1.4 is on the list but I'm buying that one last.

As for 21, I was talking about the 28 2.8!

Uli Plank said:
@ Liam:
When they are from the same year, you can expect the coating to be identical – very nice. I think it's more important to get AEs from a period that is close enough than AEG vs. AEJ. It's nothing else but a myth that AEGs are any better than AEJs – even as a German I can't subscribe to that. Their cooperation was based on very strict quality controls. The most important point – if you care for matching colors – is the coating. The agreement was about sharing formulas for the coating, and while Zeiss silently improved T* coating over the years, any advances were passed to Japan by contract. There is more of a difference in color between lenses from Zeiss and Rollei which shared the optical formula but not the coating.

If you like really small lenses, the 100mm 3.5 is a very fine short tele. The 180mm is fantastic, but a serious chunk of glass and metal.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing this up - I was actually about to ask if I should just look for lenses close to a certain manufacturing date. And now I'll do just that.
 
I've got a 50 1.4 and a 28 2.8, both MM, i love them, they are small and feel solid. I compared the contax 28mm and the sigma 18-35 @28, and I'm very surprised. The contax is breathing like crazy, totally distorting the sides. Almost no breathing on the sigma, not much difference in color, and the sharpness is the same to my eyes, . There is a tiny bit more craziness in the contax out of focus, giving it its character i guess. Anyone else did some comparison between contax lenses and the sigma? What result did you get?
 
Paul Russell said:
There never was a 21 AEG, only the MM. But it's a damn fine lens. I'm absolutely positive that my Contax 21mm is sharper than the new Zeiss Canon mount version that it replaced.


Wait until you get the 35mm f1.4
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 35 is great, I'm gonna have to pick one up soon. That and a 21 and I may be done.
 
sam karr said:
I've got a 50 1.4 and a 28 2.8, both MM, i love them, they are small and feel solid. I compared the contax 28mm and the sigma 18-35 @28, and I'm very surprised. The contax is breathing like crazy, totally distorting the sides. Almost no breathing on the sigma, not much difference in color, and the sharpness is the same to my eyes, . There is a tiny bit more craziness in the contax out of focus, giving it its character i guess. Anyone else did some comparison between contax lenses and the sigma? What result did you get?
Click to expand...

My DP won't shoot with the Sigma any more. Bothers him how contrasty and modern/clinical it is - feels like we lose the latitude and gentleness were accustomed to with our Contax and other vintage glass. I personally like how flexible the Sigma is, especially for lowlight - only drawback is remembering to add a HBM to match our Contax better.

From what I remember, the Sigma's distortion is pretty negligible in the middle of the zoom range, so at 28mm it's probably very well corrected yes!
 
As promised, after the adapter arrived, I tested the Rollei/Mamiya 21mm f4 today:

Not too bad either, but a bit weaker than the Olympus 21mm f3.5 in most categories: A tad softer in the corners, more vignetting, a bit more distortion and a tiny bit less wide.
Worst point though: T stop seems to be much weaker (or they are lying about f-stop): wide open @3.5 the Olympus is a full stop faster than the Rollei/Mamiya at f4!

So, if you are looking for a much cheaper, much smaller and much lighter vintage alternative to Zeiss C/Y in 21mm, focusing down to 20cm, the Olympus is it! I

t's only fault is the red ring that can show up on rare occasions with heavy backlight. Check this site: http://www.stefanrohloff.de/20_olyspecial.php?en=1

I was able to reproduce it at certain apertures, but then I've seen something like this on wide RPPs and Uniqoptics cine lenses too.
 
Cristian Mihai said:
About 35-70mm zoom :

http://16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_test.html

I am very curious to find photos, footage with the bigger brother 70-210mm.
Click to expand...

Hey Cristian, the 70-210 is perhaps better viewed as the bigger brother to the 40-80.

Lemme explain.

AE ZOOMS:
The 40-80 F4 and 70-210 are both classic AE Zooms from the dawn of Contax. Both were eventually discontinued and improved upon with newer MM zooms.

MM ZOOMS
35-70 3.4
28-85 3.3-F4
80-200 F4
100-300 4.5 - 5.6

All of these MM zooms are marvels.

As for the AE's, the 40-80 was vastly improved upon by the 35-70. The 40-80 suffered from tremendous distortion, and was outclassed by the 35-70's now iconic design in almost every way.

The 70-210 was presumably exceedingly expensive back in the day, as it's still very expensive now used (over $1000). However, the MTF's suggest it's outperformed by the far more affordable (and wonderful) 80-200. And outclassed by the tremendous 100-300.

The 100-300 is what's often considered the "big brother" to the 35-70, as it has a similar iconic reputation for optical excellence.

That said, the AE zooms can be found with VERY OLD serials (ie late 5s) and "Made in West Germany", so I wouldn't be surprised if they have plenty of personality and character!
 
Last edited:
I own the 70-210mm 3.5 with serial # 62xxxxx. IQ and colour is excellent. Ninja blade bokeh at F4 throught to F8 which then become octagon in shape. Excellent macro resolution to 1:2 magnification as well. This lens can focus down to a couple of centimeters in front of the lens.

The only downside of the lens is flares. Compared to my Canon 70-200 F4 IS modern coating really cuts through lens flare. I'm really looking forward to try the 70-210 3.5 on a Sony A7II since this lens is very heavy.

Sample photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bo-lu/10698568143/
 
Last edited:
Bo Lu said:
I own the 70-210mm 3.5 with serial # 62xxxxx. IQ and colour is excellent. Ninja blade bokeh at F4 throught to F8 which then become octagon in shape. Excellent macro resolution to 1:2 magnification as well. This lens can focus down to a couple of centimeters in front of the lens.

Sample photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bo-lu/10698568143/
Click to expand...

WOW - didn't realize it could close focus THAT well! That's awesome! The 80-200 also has great close focusing (3 feet?) and macro at 200, but now I'd love to try the 70-210 and compare!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top