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

Thanks. It was all one-man band stuff over the other side of the country and back in a day with my gear on the train and very limited time so really had to rely on the Zeiss 'popping' rather than anything particularly creative from my side to get something usable.

I have been using Leica R glass on recent shoots but I felt something was missing the whole time and have found myself coming right back. They seem to work very well with the FS7, if not being quite as sexy as when I used to shoot with them on Red.

Nice to see the GH4 is capable of nice strong vivid images with them too. :)
 
Liam and Chris,

Those are some very nice images! It's a great side by side of real world doc style vs cinematic style and how it's pleasing in both worlds.
 
Nice screen grabs Chris! Looks awesome. And oh yeah the contax line is a good match with smaller sensors too. There's still plenty of character and richness even if its using a very small part of the lens. Which goes to show the quality of the glass I think.
 
I can also vouch for helicoptersean's focus gears. I only ever had one not fit and he sent a replacement right away.

On another note, I am having a hell of a time getting a leitax adapter on my 35 1.4. Acetone and a soldering iron did not keep me from stripping out all three screws. I'm taking it to a watch repairman to extract those puppies. This is by far the toughest lens to get the screws out that I've encountered.
 
Tom_Gaudet said:
Hi guys, FYI, these are exactly the same as the ones from RP Lens. Recommended.

Tom
Click to expand...

Yup, they look identical. They fit REALLY snug with the Cordvision 77mm step up rings too - nowhere near as "loose" as some of the other caps on the market.

Great pics everyone!!!! Love what everyone's doing!! Good to see how nice Contax glass plays on other formats too - GH4, FS7, etc.

best
 
Shot another event tonight, will post some stuff tomorrow evening.

I have a question now for those who are knowledgeable about these things (Nick ?)

So I wonder... just how different is the Contax Lineup than Cine lenses like "Cooke" and say Panavision lenses (non-anamorphic) - judging by what I've read in this thread, ZC's are pretty up there in terms of image quality, overall sharpness, they way they render... etc etc, but for way less than the 20, 30 thousand PER lens lenses out there...

I can understand that some of those more expensive lenses are super speeds and can go down really low in aperture therefore working with lesser lights...

but what am I missing, what else are you buying with those more expensive lenses besides speed if ZC's are pretty damn sharp? Somebody help me understand. This has got me curious today after my second shoot with ZC's
 
liam howlett said:
Shot another event tonight, will post some stuff tomorrow evening.

I have a question now for those who are knowledgeable about these things (Nick ?)

So I wonder... just how different is the Contax Lineup than Cine lenses like "Cooke" and say Panavision lenses (non-anamorphic) - judging by what I've read in this thread, ZC's are pretty up there in terms of image quality, overall sharpness, they way they render... etc etc, but for way less than the 20, 30 thousand PER lens lenses out there...

I can understand that some of those more expensive lenses are super speeds and can go down really low in aperture therefore working with lesser lights...

but what am I missing, what else are you buying with those more expensive lenses besides speed if ZC's are pretty damn sharp? Somebody help me understand. This has got me curious today after my second shoot with ZC's
Click to expand...

It depends, and it's a tough question to answer linearly. You get A LOT for the $10-20K you pay per cine lens - a lot of SMALL things that can SAVE A LOT OF TIME on a BIG SET (where costs are thousands or tens of thousands an hour).

But...lots of glass are sharp, or certainly "sharp enough". Contax glass have a great combo of sharpness and character. I personally own a vintage Standard Prime 16 T2 and 24 T2 (converted to EOS to mix in with our Contax) and can tell you firsthand...all our cine/stills glass mixes and matches seamlessly. So I agree, sometimes the differences/advantages can be subtle.

But there is a CONSISTENCY to a set of Cookes or Ultraprimes you just wont get on any set of stills glass (whether it be Contax, Leica R, etc).

Think about it - Ultraprimes are a T2 across these focal lengths:
10mm, 12mm, 14mm, 16mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 32mm, 40mm, 50mm, 65mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 180mm.

All with exact same gearing and mechanics, and exact same "look" and "contrast" at each T-Stop.

On a big feature, this kind of comfort/ease/speed can not be under-estimated - the AC's are happy, and the DP can light to a constant T-Stop across a vast array of focal lengths. How great is that? Great enough that many will happily spend 10-20K per lens.

Same for Master Primes (which are as sharp as many Contax lens....even WIDE OPEN at T1.3!!). Look how many MASTER PRIMES there are:
12mm, 14mm, 16mm, 18mm, 21mm, 25mm, 27mm, 32mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 65mm, 75mm, 100mm, 135mm, 150mm. All at T1.3!!!!

How awesome is that?? MP's have unprecedented speed and consistency, and many high end DP's, Producers and Directors are more than willing to absorb their cost - MP's could even save them money (faster work on set, maybe less big lights needed because of incredible high speed aperture).

So yes, Cine Glass can be VERY SHARP. And VERY CONSISTENT. And what you pay for is that performance and look across a WIDE ARRAY of focal lengths. All matching. All the time. That is worth a fortune to those lucky enough to work with that level of glass every day.

But if you don't need level of uncompromising consistency, then yes...Contax Glass (or Leica R's) can be a great way for INDIE filmmakers to get a similar tonality, across a similar range of focal lengths, for much less.

But we live with the inconsistencies. 18 is an F4. 21 is a 2.8. We are F2 from 28 to 135. Then 2.8 at 180. And F4 at 300.

That need for consistency is why we invested in those two EOS converted Standard Primes - so we could expand our Contax lineup and be T2 from 16 to 135 @ 5K HD Dragon. It's become important for us to have that constant T2 stop, esp as jobs have become more complicated/demanding.

However the Standards ironically don't have the Contax "coverage" - neither can hit 6K HD, and of course could never do 8K HD. So...in a funny way...Contax glass are becoming even more valuable as high end sensors (like Weapon) get larger. In an age of digital perfection, vintage glass with great sensor coverage (Contax, Leica, etc)...appear to be a wise investment.

I hope this helps!!
 
Last edited:
So which leads me to think, is the future with medium format lenses now then?
I was intrigued by the idea of putting together a Mamiya 645 set once.
Only did end up buying just one of them though. The Mamiya lenses have a very interesting character too, quite a different style from contax.

Also this particular damn contax lens is so hard to find. Went online to find every person who put up photos and tracked them down and emailed like 50 people. And they're all like 'NO WAY I'm SELLING THAT LENS' :(
 
Ben Scott said:
All the signs are that yes, medium format glass is going to be next 'full frame' glass everyone buys up for larger format cine use.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we built a Hasselbad kit last year, and had RP lens mod them - 50 2.8, 80 2.8, 110 f2, 120 F4 Makro, 150 2.8, 180 F4, 250 F4.

Been great for tilt shifting, but also should come in handy once sensor sizes get bigger. Match Contax glass very well - in fact, they appear to be their Medium Format "cousins/siblings".
 
Just used the 180 on set today, on Dragon. WOW...I sometimes forget how GOOD that lens is!! Breathtaking on faces/portraits!! Creamy fall off...and sharp...but also forgiving. So good for conveying HUMAN BEINGS!
 
I have a pretty nice beginners set of contax lenses now, 28, 35, 50 (f1.4), 135, all f2.8 and the 28-85 and 80-200.
over time i wil be replacing the standard speeds with the faster ones.

However i am lacking a bit on the wide end when shooting docu/ENG style, now i know the sigma zoom is the wide angle of choice to match the set however i find the lacking of a manual aperture ring a deal breaker and i do not have the funds for a cinemod version right now.
Would my best choice be to go for the 18mm contax or does anyone know of a good alternative with a manual aperture ring?

Thanks and sorry about starting the wide angle issue again ;)
 
I was trying quite a few other wides too, since I found the 21mm too damn pricey.

Finally settled on an Oly 21mm 3.5, which I got in pristine condition. It's really good and tiny when compared to the Contax, but you'll need to color match it in post.

I own the Zeiss C/Y 18mm f4 as well, I like it's really low distortion (for that focal length), especially how it avoids that medium area "bulging" I see on many other wides in that range when panning.

A cheap option in 17mm is the old manual Tokina. It's low-con and no match for any Contax glass, but quite sharp when you stop down a bit.
 
Got the screws removed and the Leitax mounted on my 35 1.4. If you get stuck with the screws on yours, I highly recommend finding a watch repairman. Cost $20.
FullSizeRender.jpg
 
Chad Stockfleth said:
Got the screws removed and the Leitax mounted on my 35 1.4. If you get stuck with the screws on yours, I highly recommend finding a watch repairman. Cost $20.
FullSizeRender.jpg
Click to expand...

@ Chad: Success!!

@ Sander: about wideangles....yes the 21 can be cost prohibitive. Theres a Jena 20 2.8 MC that could be good. The Sigma 18-35 is handy, but yeah the digital iris is a pain, agreed. And we've generally filtered it to match. FYI the 25 2.8 does feel a bit "wider" than a 28 on s35, thats worth a look too. I find a 28 to be subtle on s35...whereas at 24/25 you start to "feel" the "wide" more perceptably.

The 18mm is fun, but at f4 may be too slow for your needs. Also lack of filter thread needs to be considered.
 
So this is a Macro 60mm with sharpness all the way down and a relatively flat profile before I applied a LUT. 4K downsampled to 1080. The picture quality (obviously) is definitely better when shot 4K and downsampled on a GH4. Almost apples and oranges.

P.S. You might need to right-click and open in new tab to view this in 1080.

18947680766_9e30c6d21b_h.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top