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

Small question concerning the Leitax mount on a Scarlet-W?
Does anybody add the Dandelion chip? Does it work at all? If so, is it useful?
I come from PL land and have only ever manually focused.

Contax beginner with learner plates! :))

Thanks again for a fantastic thread.
 
I would put the zoom lens on a GH5, so a m4/3 mount.

I would like to use the 20-80 range also in conference rooms, so at a radius of 7-20m: which adapter gives me the best focals (wide shots to (medium) close up) with that sensor (in 4k) ?

1) Should I buy a normal m4/3-C/Y like this:
http://www.ebay.it/itm/Contax-Yashi...131773?hash=item3a77177f3d:g:X4gAAOSwyQtVi~LL

or a speedbooster m4/3 to C/Y (0.71x):
http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPCY-m43-BM3

2) Or is it even possible to get a Leitax EF adapter and put the lens over a speedbooster m4/3-EF (that I already have)?
 
Vincenzo Ferreri said:
I'm sorry, I dig more and discovered the 24-85, 28-80, 35-70 different, were for Contax N or G...

So the list updates:
I found used:
70-210/3.5

Nick listed in the first post:
35-70/3.3 (but in 2015 he says 3.4)
70-210/3.3

In this article:
https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/...contax-catalog
I found:
28-70mm f/3.5-4.5
70-210mm f/3.5


So my questions:

1) the 70-210 was 3.5 or 3.3? (I find only 3.5) Or they made both versions equally good?

2) 28-70 is good like 28-85 and 35-70?
Click to expand...

The 35-70 is a 3.4 - and an AMAZING lens.

The 70-210 is a 3.5 - and not worth the expense, IMHO, when the 80-200 is so fantastic, and so affordable.

The 28-70 is painfully mediocre, and I don't recommend it. It's not a real Zeiss lens, it's just a third party kit lens that was thrown in with some cameras. Leica rebadged the exact same zoom.
 
Miwashi Lee said:
hi all
I have a problem with my contax 50mm 1.4. At 1.4 it's fine, and same for f16. But some stops between appear to be stuck. When i change from 1.4 to 2 and 2.8, it gets smaller. But around the 5.6 mark the aperture size stops getting smaller - it appears that 5.6, 8, 16 are all the same and set at the smallest hole size.

I'm interested in opening the lens to see what's wrong. I managed to remove the first rear ring. But after removing the next set of screws, the rear element just won't budge
Is there a lens assembly manual anywhere, or can anyone help?
Click to expand...

Sounds like the iris blades have oil on them that gets gummed up in the mid stops. My advice would be to send to a lens tech nearby if there is one?
 
William Long said:
Small question concerning the Leitax mount on a Scarlet-W?
Does anybody add the Dandelion chip? Does it work at all? If so, is it useful?
I come from PL land and have only ever manually focused.

Contax beginner with learner plates! :))

Thanks again for a fantastic thread.
Click to expand...

We've Leitaxed about 40 lenses, and none have the dandelion (that I know of).

Early on when we used screw on adapters, some had dandelion chips, which would work on a 7D by causing the camera to "beep" when it hit focus, but thought of that sound on set sounds pretty annoying to be honest.

Not sure if RED has a dandelion integration either.

That said, with lenses, we like to keep everything manual if we can. That way we're impervious to the whims of electronics, and it's several less things to worry about.
 
Vincenzo Ferreri said:
Thank you Nick.
I could find a 80-200 for about 300€ and a 70-210 for 700€: is it still too much, not worth it for the 70-210?
Click to expand...

I don't think the 70-210 is worth it. The 80-200 fantastic - and according to the MTF's, also superior.
 
Ok.
One last thing:
I could get the Zeiss 80-200/4 or for a bit more price the Canon 70-200/4 L USM.
Is there some comparison pics between the two? Or even with the 70-200/2.8... Did anyone try these?
I'd be curious to see the differences on images.
 
Last edited:
I just compared in a very unscientific manner the 100mm F2, 135mm F2.8, 80-200mm F4 and 100-300mm F4. Tripod shots, from the window, with the corner not being at the same distance (still quite far away, but with a big aperture, maybe it's not the best test ever). Still giving some nice info : the 135mm is good, not stellar wide open, but solid for the price. The 100mm is already good wide open, and really great when you close it a bit. The 80-200mm is quite soft wide open compared to the primes, getting better until F8/F11 where it's good corner to corner more or less. As expected, it's noticeably less good than the two primes, especially at the biggest apertures. Then finally, the 100-300mm, really impressive, matching if not beating the primes most of the time. There is a significant margin with the 80-200mm, at least with my copy. Of course I did test only one sample of each lens. I will publish all the cropped photos (center, border, corner) when I have some time, from a Sony A7RII, so it's really not a forgiving sensor. When I'm saying that a lens is "soft", it's often not looking bad at all when looking at the whole picture.

Next test, the 35mm F1.4, F2.8, 50mm F1.7, F1.4, 35-70mm F3.4, to see how this little zoom is doing against the primes. If anybody wants to lend me a 28-85mm to test against them and the 28mm F2.8 and 85mm F2.8, I would be delighted to compare them. Of course, dozens of people already did that, but sometimes you want to confirm how your own copy is doing, right ? (especially when it's doing good, then you can brag about !)
 
Thank you Francois! I hope you post the pics soon: I'm waiting them! Especially for the 80-200.
So, you suggest to buy a 100-300 vs the 80-200?
I have to buy a 80-200, but now I think I could go with the 100-300...

EDIT:
maybe not...:
It costs double.
It is 4.5-5.6 vs 4.
I think I'll stick with the 80-200 for now.
 
Last edited:
If money is not a problem and you are fine with the smaller aperture, yes i would advise that from my samples (and apparently it's more or less the same results from other testers).

But as you said, the price is really different, and if the 80-200 is good enough for your needs, no need to spend much more. Wide open it's a tad soft, lacking a bit of contrast. But I'm talking about pixel peeping on 42MP photos, it's important to scale that to your own needs. My photos taken with the 80-200mm looks pretty good in my eyes already !
 
Francois T. said:
Wide open it's a tad soft, lacking a bit of contrast. But I'm talking about pixel peeping on 42MP photos, it's important to scale that to your own needs. My photos taken with the 80-200mm looks pretty good in my eyes already !
Click to expand...
That!
I'll use at max 4k for video... so I think I'm ok with that.

The only "concern" could be a comparison with the similar price Canon 70-200/4 non IS, that's the reason I asked for some pics comparison between the two. But I'm confident the Zeiss will be good.
 
I will publish my photos, you can compare. I don't think the Zeiss can match the IS version of the 70-200, especially wide open. But the non IS version, it must be much closer.
 
There is also the different versions: the 70-200/2.8 IS II is superior than the 70-200/2.8 IS I.
But here I'm talking/comparing of the other one the 70-200/4 that should be also a bit inferior than the 2.8.
This for sharpness.
But the Zeiss should have also a better global "cine" look, I think! Apart also the large manual focus...
 
True, there is more to a lens than the sharpness. The 70-200mm F4 IS is really really good. Better than the F2.8 I. And better than the F4 non IS. The Zeiss should not be as good, but it's much cheaper also (I paid mine something like 120€, such a bargain !). Nice Zeiss colors, good minimal focus distance, decent size & weight. Long distance focus is quite precise though, I'm struggling when shooting hand held !
 
Yes, I was almost ashamed to win the auction on Ebay at this price ! Especially as the lens looks REALLY great. I paid something like 6 times more for the 100-300... No need to say that it's not 6 times better ! I may sell the 80-200mm though, I won't keep both, it would be stupid. It could be interesting for you Vincenzo, always nice to sell to people making the most of a lens !
 
Thank you for your offer, but I'm already treating with one, here in my country.
More, I've received another offer from Greece.
So, if neither of the two above will go well, I will consider your offer :smile:
 
Vincenzo Ferreri said:
Ok.
One last thing:
I could get the Zeiss 80-200/4 or for a bit more price the Canon 70-200/4 L USM.
Is there some comparison pics between the two? Or even with the 70-200/2.8... Did anyone try these?
I'd be curious to see the differences on images.
Click to expand...

For filmmaking, I find all manual glass like the 80-200 far superior, everything else being equal (or close to).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top