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

So, I've struggled with investing in Contax Zeiss lenses. I really like the character and feel of these lenses. I purchased a 50mm F1.4 MMJ, used it, got tired of the CA problems I was having, and sold it. This all happened over a year. I'm not sure if I got a bad lens or if it was a result of using it through more glass than I needed to. It was Lens -> Metal ring adapter (EF) -> Metabones Ultra 0.71x Speedbooster (EF/M43 -> GH4.

I hadn't really seen anyone else complain of CA issues with their 50mm 1.4 MMJ. In all fairness, I used it at F1.4 a lot. While the image was sharp, I still had issues with that fringing. No other lenses had this effect on camera for me through that speedbooster. If I closed down the aperture, it would improve slightly.

I have since upgraded to a BM Ursa Mini Pro. Now that I have a native EF mount, I'm tempted to try the Contax Zeiss lenses again since I love their character. So, the question is, are there certain Contax lenses that perform better than others in regard to CA? I'm sure this is subjective based on the mount/camera system, but with a native EF mount and Leitax adapter, what should I expect from these lenses? What would you suggest as a base set with minimal CA and good IQ? I'd really love to have a Hollywood (MM?), 50mm 1.4 (MM), and 85mm 1.4 (MM).

Thanks!
 
RJ_Ortiz said:
So, I've struggled with investing in Contax Zeiss lenses. I really like the character and feel of these lenses. I purchased a 50mm F1.4 MMJ, used it, got tired of the CA problems I was having, and sold it. This all happened over a year. I'm not sure if I got a bad lens or if it was a result of using it through more glass than I needed to. It was Lens -> Metal ring adapter (EF) -> Metabones Ultra 0.71x Speedbooster (EF/M43 -> GH4.

I hadn't really seen anyone else complain of CA issues with their 50mm 1.4 MMJ. In all fairness, I used it at F1.4 a lot. While the image was sharp, I still had issues with that fringing. No other lenses had this effect on camera for me through that speedbooster. If I closed down the aperture, it would improve slightly.

I have since upgraded to a BM Ursa Mini Pro. Now that I have a native EF mount, I'm tempted to try the Contax Zeiss lenses again since I love their character. So, the question is, are there certain Contax lenses that perform better than others in regard to CA? I'm sure this is subjective based on the mount/camera system, but with a native EF mount and Leitax adapter, what should I expect from these lenses? What would you suggest as a base set with minimal CA and good IQ? I'd really love to have a Hollywood (MM?), 50mm 1.4 (MM), and 85mm 1.4 (MM).

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I think you would have to post an image for us to see how much CA you are seeing. It wouldn't be too odd to find some WO on the 50mm 1.4 but I would be surprised to see an ample amount of it, especially as you stopped down. That lens should be fairly awesome at F2-5.6.
 
RJ_Ortiz said:
So, I've struggled with investing in Contax Zeiss lenses. I really like the character and feel of these lenses. I purchased a 50mm F1.4 MMJ, used it, got tired of the CA problems I was having, and sold it. This all happened over a year. I'm not sure if I got a bad lens or if it was a result of using it through more glass than I needed to. It was Lens -> Metal ring adapter (EF) -> Metabones Ultra 0.71x Speedbooster (EF/M43 -> GH4.

I hadn't really seen anyone else complain of CA issues with their 50mm 1.4 MMJ. In all fairness, I used it at F1.4 a lot. While the image was sharp, I still had issues with that fringing. No other lenses had this effect on camera for me through that speedbooster. If I closed down the aperture, it would improve slightly.

I have since upgraded to a BM Ursa Mini Pro. Now that I have a native EF mount, I'm tempted to try the Contax Zeiss lenses again since I love their character. So, the question is, are there certain Contax lenses that perform better than others in regard to CA? I'm sure this is subjective based on the mount/camera system, but with a native EF mount and Leitax adapter, what should I expect from these lenses? What would you suggest as a base set with minimal CA and good IQ? I'd really love to have a Hollywood (MM?), 50mm 1.4 (MM), and 85mm 1.4 (MM).

Thanks!
Click to expand...

These are old lenses. Wide open,1.4's will have CA. Just like actual Arri Super Speeds.

Part of using older, vintage glass designed in the 70's and 80's is a natural trade off.

1) You get an analog, filmic feel.

2) You will also get some aberrations, whether they be anomalies at the edges wide open, some CA at fast apertures, etc.

When you are dealing with lenses that were not hyper corrected by world class computers you have to account for the human element. If you don't want CA on the 50mm 1.4, you should probably consider shooting at a 2.8.

If you don't want CA at all, consider shooting on very modern glass, with the latest designs, like the Zeiss OTUS line, etc. However these will give you a different feel altogether.

Wish I could give you a more complete answer, but this is just the bare truth.

Vintage glass are imperfect. That's their charm, and their compromise.

Contax Glass shine stopped down. They can be used wide open, you just have to be aware of how to work around the CA, as with any older glass (this isn't simply about Contax, it's about vintage glass period).

Hope this helps.
 
Nick Morrison said:
These are old lenses. Wide open,1.4's will have CA. Just like actual Arri Super Speeds.

Part of using older, vintage glass designed in the 70's and 80's is a natural trade off.

1) You get an analog, filmic feel.

2) You will also get some aberrations, whether they be anomalies at the edges wide open, some CA at fast apertures, etc.

When you are dealing with lenses that were not hyper corrected by world class computers you have to account for the human element. If you don't want CA on the 50mm 1.4, you should probably consider shooting at a 2.8.

If you don't want CA at all, consider shooting on very modern glass, with the latest designs, like the Zeiss OTUS line, etc. However these will give you a different feel altogether.

Wish I could give you a more complete answer, but this is just the bare truth.

Vintage glass are imperfect. That's their charm, and their compromise.

Contax Glass shine stopped down. They can be used wide open, you just have to be aware of how to work around the CA, as with any older glass (this isn't simply about Contax, it's about vintage glass period).

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...


This definitely helps. I may bite the bullet and jump back into these lenses again. I have more modern glass (Sigma Art) and while I do like it from a technical standpoint, it just doesn't have the character I want for some projects. I'll probably need to adapt to using these at 2.8 and beyond and light/frame accordingly if I need to open it up. I definitely did notice the CA most when there was a contrast between very bright and very dark areas. Thanks for taking the time to give me some input.
 
Last edited:
RJ_Ortiz said:
This definitely helps. I may bite the bullet and jump back into these lenses again. I have more modern glass (Sigma Art) and while I do like it from a technical standpoint, it just doesn't have the character I want for some projects. I'll probably need to adapter to using these at 2.8 and beyond and light/frame accordingly if I need to open it up. I definitely did notice the CA most when there was a contrast between very bright and very dark areas. Thanks for taking the time to give me some input.
Click to expand...
I find that shooting wide open on most lenses is a very specific kind of look. Often when lighting budgets are minimal then lenses open up, not necessarily for artistic intent but for necessity. The problems such as CA, focus issues, etc become more problematic. The example you point out where there is extreme contrast between light and dark areas is classic case where you would see this artifact. I have found that if I shoot these lenses between 2.8 and 5.6 they really shine for most things. And I'll open up wider for specific reasons and that can be beautiful too. They are lenses with a whole lot of character and a look I really enjoy, especially on my old Red One.
 
Just a disclaimer, it's just photos, no video, I'm the lost photographer here because of Nick ;)

Just back from a short trip to the US, and for the first time in years and years, my main lens was a zoom, the little 35-70mm. While I was really upset not to have the 28-85mm to have a wider end, the results are really impressive for a zoom. I didn't switch to primes often.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/smooth-bokeh/34093242605/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/smooth-bokeh/33969218931/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/smooth-bokeh/33290269323/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/smooth-bokeh/33972538231/in/photostream/


Nothing ultra spectacular, but you can download the full resolution versions on flickr, and pixel peep, most are in the 35-40MP range (ouch, a lot of lenses would struggle there !), and there is nothing to throw out ! Sharp corner to corner, RAW editing is really easy, there is plenty of contrast and nuances to play with. A great match for the Sony sensor. The light wasn't that great for those photos, yet I can really get a very decent results despite my average Raw editing skills.

Now if someone is selling a 28-85mm, I would be very tempted to see how good it is...
 
Ah ah ah. Thank you Ben, but I think I might try to find a non broken one first ;)
How did you break it ? And how broken is it ? Just curious.
 
Should be a simple fix. I removed the top of aperture pin that sticks out and is of no use to digital cameras but at the same time I dislodged the thing that engages the iris ring so someone with more knowledge than me needs to sort it out.

Might just take it to a lens tech at some point, but they might charge me the cost of a new lens just to look at it.
 
How much are you asking for it ? I surely don't know how to fix a lens, even if I opened my Canon 17-40mm to fix a lose ring, and managed to succeed without breaking anything. But that should not make me too confident ;)
 
Francois T. said:
Just received my 100-300mm from Tommaso, in a really mint condition. Can't wait to try it and compare with my 80-200mm. But it looks so new that I'm hesitating to simply unbox it ;)

The package was terrific, it was a pleasure to deal with him. If you want to purchase anything from him, don't hesitate folks ! Worry free transaction !
Click to expand...

Ah thanks François!

Same can be said for you!

Worry free transaction indeed!

I have a Zeiss 21 2.8 in the same conditions (mint / new old stock) if someone is interested before I'll put it on eBay!

I'm regretfully selling since I need more media, so a trade with MiniMag(s) is welcomed! ;)
 
@ Francois: My A7RII is on the other side of the globe with my wife and the 28-85 is here, so I can't post a test…

@ RJ Ortiz: I got a BM Ursa Mini Pro here for testing and the whole range of Contax glass (minus the 21mm). So, give me a day or two and I can get you some CA tests.
 
Made it today, DNG stills on the Ursa Mini Pro:

– The 28mm f2 (aka Hollywood) shows CA WO, still some at f4. The 28mm f2.8 WO shows minor CA.
– The 35mm f1.4 shows some CA WO, minor at f4.
– The 35mm f2.8 shows extreme sharpness and still a little bit of CA WO.
– The 50mm f1.4 shows some CA WO and next to none at f4.
– The 50mm f1.7 shows minimal CA WO and still a tiny bit at f2.8 (but that beast is sharp as a knife).
– The 85mm f1.4 shows minimal CA WO which is pretty much gone at f4 (better than a modern Canon, I can confirm that).
– The 85mm f2.8 show some CA at f2.8 but is razor sharp into the corners.

This was all under very critical conditions, trees (some still bare) against the sky and ETTR, corrected only for exposure. They were pretty much using all the DR there is in the BM. I'd say if you are not into pixel peeping but into nice vintage lenses without too extreme "character", go for them. If you need absolute sharpness without any CA, go for modern glass.

Hope this helps.
 
Uli Plank said:
Made it today, DNG stills on the Ursa Mini Pro:

– The 28mm f2 (aka Hollywood) shows CA WO, still some at f4. The 28mm f2.8 WO shows minor CA.
– The 35mm f1.4 shows some CA WO, minor at f4.
– The 35mm f2.8 shows extreme sharpness and still a little bit of CA WO.
– The 50mm f1.4 shows some CA WO and next to none at f4.
– The 50mm f1.7 shows minimal CA WO and still a tiny bit at f2.8 (but that beast is sharp as a knife).
– The 85mm f1.4 shows minimal CA WO which is pretty much gone at f4 (better than a modern Canon, I can confirm that).
– The 85mm f2.8 show some CA at f2.8 but is razor sharp into the corners.

This was all under very critical conditions, trees (some still bare) against the sky and ETTR, corrected only for exposure. They were pretty much using all the DR there is in the BM. I'd say if you are not into pixel peeping but into nice vintage lenses without too extreme "character", go for them. If you need absolute sharpness without any CA, go for modern glass.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Thanks Uli!!
 
I just added the 21 and 35 to my collection, 35 for interviews as per Nick's recommendation, the 21 for underwater work, character is unmistakeable. The folks mentioning CA here might want to try the Canon 11-24, crisp and clean, but without the emotional response, if one may say that.
 
Just to add, it is the 35 1.4, obtained from a Japanese source new in box, very rare find, just cinevised by Peter at RP.

As mentioned on other threads, in the age of digital capture, glass is the new film stock. Nick has this one nailed!
 
Tom Hamilton said:
Just to add, it is the 35 1.4, obtained from a Japanese source new in box, very rare find, just cinevised by Peter at RP.

As mentioned on other threads, in the age of digital capture, glass is the new film stock. Nick has this one nailed!
Click to expand...

The 35 1.4 is great! As is Peter at RP!

Congrats!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top