Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[scott devitte]

Does anybody other than me ever use tilt and/or shift movements with these lenses?

I'm a still photographer, not a videographer -- sorry about that! -- and am using my four C/Y lenses with a Sony A7R / Cambo Actus mini-view camera outfit.

I photograph mostly architecture and architectural-related subjects, so I frequently use tilt-and-shift movements to carefully control DoF and correct geometric perspective as necessary, as well as to fine-tune my compositions in-camera.

I also photograph mostly at night, so mild vignetting and/or slightly soft corners aren't usually an issue for me because they're effectively invisible in most of my photos.

To my surprise, each of the MMJ lenses I own -- a 35/f2.8, 28/f2.8, 50/f1.7, and 45/f2.8 (I know, but I love the distinctive look of Tessar-type lenses, including this one!) -- projects an image circle that's sufficiently large to allow for between 6-10mm of shift movements on a 24x36 sensor (i.e., 25-40% of the short side's length) when stopped down to f8 and focused at or near infinity.

My success using these lenses over the past few months has caused me to wonder about the size of the image circles projected by some of the other C/Y prime lenses.

Unfortunately, this is an aspect of lens performance that gets very little attention, so my internet research has turned up very little useful information relative to the C/Y lenses.

In fact, it seems the only way to know for certain whether any C/Y lens will work for my purposes or not is to buy it and try it.

Alas, the C/Y lenses that interest me beyond these first four generally sell for quite a bit more money, so I'm not as keen to gamble and buy them to try them going forward.

Hence my question to this forum's C/Y lens brain trust: Does anybody here have any knowledge -- first-hand or at least on very good authority -- as to the size of the image circles projected by various other C/Y prime lenses? As well as whether they hard or soft vignette and how well sharpness and image quality hold up as the edge of the image circle is approached?

(Although the size of the image circles these lenses project is largely irrelevant for video use these days, as the size of sensors used in video cameras continues to increase, I believe this information will be handy to have in the future and I will happily compile a summary of my findings and share it here.)

FYI, the ones that interest me most are the 15/f3.5, 18/f4, 21/f2.8, 25/f2.8, 60/f2.8, 85/f2.8 and 135/f2.8, but information about any of the C/Y lenses will be much appreciated!

Thanks!

Have you tried the 2.8 35mm pc Distagon? I have it and it is a great lens. google Ming Thein for shots and reviews on it.

 

[Barry Reid]

Hi Jeff, this is very interesting as another still shooter who lurks on this forum. I use shift lenses on Canon to shoot Architecture. I also had an A7r which I used with my Canon 24TS-E and a good selection of C/Y lenses from 18 through to the 300/4. Of the ones you’d be looking at I’ve used all except the 15 & 21.

Gut feel is that the 18 & 25 won’t be up to the task on the A7r when shifted. Both have wonderful character but sharpness fall of into the extreme corners was quite strong on the A7r body, even without shift. I’m also doubtful about the 135/2.8 on the Sony for different reasons - that lens has a fair level of CA which doesn’t entirely go away, I’m not sure how much of an issue that would be in your work.

You are probably aware of this but it’s highly likely that the 60mm will work for you as the Contax macro system’s bellows has movements. indeed this may partly explain your success with some of the other lenses.

 

[Jeff Goggin]

I may testing a Monstro soon, lemme see what I can do.

Cool! I will look forward to reading about your results.

FYI, I also have six Contax N lenses, as well as six Contax 645 lenses, and recently spent a few weeks photographing with a half-dozen of a friend's Zeiss ZF and ZK lenses that he offered to sell me, so I can provide image circle data about these lenses, too (although except for the latter, I'm not sure how many people are using them with shift movements or on large sensors.)

JG

 

[Jeff Goggin]

Have you tried the 2.8 35mm pc Distagon? I have it and it is a great lens. google Ming Thein for shots and reviews on it.

I have not, although I am aware of its reputation. I actually don't need or use a lot of movement -- as I mentioned above, 6-10mm is usually enough for my purposes -- and the 35mm PC is a whale of a lens by comparison to the 35mm/f2.8 I have. Although its larger image circle would be nice, I'd prefer to avoid using shift lenses, because my Cambo Actus already has shift movements built in, so there's quite a bit of redundancy that results when using a shift lens on a view camera. And redundancy also means more weight for me to carry around, which isn't a pro, but a con.

Prior to purchasing the four C/Y lenses several months ago, I was using four Sigma Art lenses (24/f1.4, 35f/1.4, 50/f1.4, and 24-35/f2, all of which also project surprisingly large image circles) and was generally happy with their performance. But as my current project has me walking anywhere from two to six miles per outing -- with my dog on a leash accompanying me! -- I initially turned to the C/Y lenses as a way to lighten my load because they are so much smaller and lighter. After walking six miles with a 13.5 lb. camera-and-tripod over my shoulder, saving even a few ounces is appealing, let alone saving several pounds, which is what the C/Y lenses made possible. (For the curious, I've posted a photo of my rig below, complete with the external HDMI monitor I use, as well as the external battery pack I cobbled together.)

It was only after I started photographing with them that I remembered why I liked them so much back in the mid '80s, when I was photographing with a Contax RTSII outfit. To my eyes, they create a look that is noticeably different than my Contax N and Contax 645 lenses, but also one that seems to take the hard edges off the typical digial photo. As one who loved the look of film and adopted digital capture only very reluctantly, this is a huge plus for me and the reason why I'm motivated to potentially add a few more C/Y lenses to my quiver. :smile:

 

[Jeff Goggin]

Gut feel is that the 18 & 25 won’t be up to the task on the A7r when shifted. Both have wonderful character but sharpness fall of into the extreme corners was quite strong on the A7r body, even without shift. I’m also doubtful about the 135/2.8 on the Sony for different reasons - that lens has a fair level of CA which doesn’t entirely go away, I’m not sure how much of an issue that would be in your work.

My gut shares your gut's feel about those lenses, which is why I haven't already bought copies myself. If it comes to it, I will do so, because the 18mm and 25mm focal lengths are ones I would likely use often if I have them available. But I'm not holding my breath!

You are probably aware of this but it’s highly likely that the 60mm will work for you as the Contax macro system’s bellows has movements. indeed this may partly explain your success with some of the other lenses.

Yes, I am aware of it and again, I share your suspicions. But for the type of photography I do (https://audiidudii.aminus3.com/ if you're curious), even the 50/f1.7 lens is borderline too long. I estimate that 90+% of the photos I take are taken using a focal lenght of 35mm or shorter. <shrugs>

 

[Barry Reid]

Thanks for the Link Jeff, thats some really nice work.

I also agree that the appeal of the Zeiss CY lenses is that rounded look with more graduated colour and tone transitions compared to the sharper, but harsher, look of contemporary designs. Particularly the 28-85 zoom which gives amazingly subtle colour transitions - better than some of the primes (e.g. 50/1.7 or 35PC) and the best of any zoom I've yet used.

PS, I thought your name seemed familiar and now realise that I recognised it from T.O.P.

 

[Jeff Goggin]

Thanks for the Link Jeff, thats some really nice work.

Thanks for your kind words! <blushes>

I also agree that the appeal of the Zeiss CY lenses is that rounded look with more graduated colour and tone transitions compared to the sharper, but harsher, look of contemporary designs.

Precisely! I love sharpness and contrast as much as anyone and no doubt more than most, but for many situations, the harsh, dare I say sterile look created by many modern lenses -- even, to an extent, modern Zeiss designs! -- sometimes doesn't work as well and isn't as appealing as the softer, rounded (but every bit as detailed) look created by the best of the C/Y lenses. That they're also inexpensive (well, some of them, anyway) as well as physically small and light is merely a welcome bonus!

Particularly the 28-85 zoom which gives amazingly subtle colour transitions - better than some of the primes (e.g. 50/1.7 or 35PC) and the best of any zoom I've yet used.

For me, the trouble with this lens (as well as the other C/Y zoom lenses) is their slow apertures. While I seldom photograph with the aperture opened any wider than f5.6, I need faster apertures to help me see scenes well enough to compose and focus my photos. That was initially the reason I started using the Sigma Art lenses, because their F1.4 apertures made life so much easier for me. That said, I've been buying the slower, f2.8 versions of the 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses, because I will never, ever use them wide open and I've grown tired of carrying the extra weight around that faster lenses require. But f2.8 is as slow as I can get away with and even then, I sometimes have to compose and focus almost blindly, itteratively tweaking things by reviewing the photos I've taken on the LCD (and now 7" HDMI monitor.)

So as much as I would like to use the 28-85 or 35-70 zooms, they're non-starters for my purposes. (As an aside, the Contax N 24-85 zoom -- an otherwise lovely lens and one of my favorites -- projects an image circle that allows for, at most, 1-2 mm of camera movements. For any practical purpose, it rounds to zero. Whereas after 19 mm or so, the 17-35 zoom projects an image circle that provides for a lot of movement and, in fact, by 35mm, it will cover a 44 x 33, medium-format sensor ... who knew?!)

FYI, I still have my Sigma Art lenses and am certain I will use them again someday, but for my current photo project -- walking around my neighborhood late at night with my dog and taking photos as we go -- portability is paramount. That the look created by the C/Y lenses also serves this project very, very well is just another welcome bonus. :smile5:

 

[scott devitte]

Thanks for the Link Jeff, thats some really nice work.

I also agree that the appeal of the Zeiss CY lenses is that rounded look with more graduated colour and tone transitions compared to the sharper, but harsher, look of contemporary designs. Particularly the 28-85 zoom which gives amazingly subtle colour transitions - better than some of the primes (e.g. 50/1.7 or 35PC) and the best of any zoom I've yet used.

PS, I thought your name seemed familiar and now realise that I recognised it from T.O.P.

I really like my 28-85. Do you think that the 28-85 zoom excells because of the sonnar design? I find the 85 2.8 to be similar because of the sonnar design and much prefer it to the 85 1.4. Do you or anybody know of a prime wide angle sonnar design in cy or any other make?

 

[Jeff Goggin]

Do you or anybody know of a prime wide angle sonnar design in cy or any other make?

FYI, Sony uses a Zeiss-branded (and designed?) 35/f2 Sonnar lens on its RX1 series of cameras.

Alas, it's fixed to the body, so not interchangeable, but many people -- including me! -- believe it to be one of the finest 35mm lenses ever made for a 35mm format camera.

 

[Barry Reid]

The FE 35/2.8 is also designated as a Sonnar and it’s a very nice lens on a Sony A7 series body.

 

[Ilya O.]

Dear Mr.Morrison, may I please dare to steal a bit of your thread readers to the neighbouring, where I put Helios-44 2/58 vs Planar T* CY 1.4/50?

 

[William Long]

Dear Mr.Morrison, may I please dare to steal a bit of your thread readers to the neighbouring, where I put Helios-44 2/58 vs Planar T* CY 1.4/50?

Ilya, It is an amazing read! Your detail and energy are ... well, exhausting! Thanks for your incredible detail!

 

[Michel Domaine]

Ok ok ok,
I just read 100 pages of this thread, with the strong intention to don't loose a post, but now I just realized that there are 422 pages and if I will read everything I would be so old that I couldn't see the results of my future Contax!

I'm a new owner of a Red Epic MX and I really would like to begin to use it with some Contax lenses. It would be my first experience with vintage ones.
I would like to get first a set of zoom to work easily run and gun. (I would think to primes later).
I have three questions, espetially regarding your experience with video and Red (MX).
1. I want a fix stop zoom so I'm thinking to the 35-70, 70-210 and 80-200, but I always worked with 2.8 zooms and often WO. What about shooting with slower lenses like these?
2. I read here that 80-200 is better than 70-210. I was thinking to the second one, cause of the fact 80-200 is slower, but what do you think about?
3. Do you think that a 18-35 sigma 1.8 could be a good choice to complete the set on the wide side?

Thanks Contax lovers!

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

18-35 looks completely different

get the 35-70

its 3.5 and an incredibly useful range, not to mention a gem of a lens, crazy good optics

 

[Uli Plank]

Ilya, to me your link is very welcome, didn't notice that thread on Russian glass before!

Next to my collection of C/Ys and Minolta Rokkors there's only vintage Russian lenses I admire.

Got a Mir 37mm, a Helios, an Industar, Jupiter 50mm and 85mm and a Tair 135mm. (That Jupiter 85 is nearly my age)

Love them! Plus, I also found that untouched lenses from the early era were really well QC'd, the widespread problem is that many of those lenses have been f…ed with later on. IMHO, only the lenses from the last years of USSR had very bad QC out of factory.

But there was a reason why Soviet lenses excelled at Brussel's world fair even in the middle of cold war.

 

[William Long]

Ok ok ok,
I just read 100 pages of this thread, with the strong intention to don't loose a post, but now I just realized that there are 422 pages and if I will read everything I would be so old that I couldn't see the results of my future Contax!

I'm a new owner of a Red Epic MX and I really would like to begin to use it with some Contax lenses. It would be my first experience with vintage ones.
I would like to get first a set of zoom to work easily run and gun. (I would think to primes later).
I have three questions, espetially regarding your experience with video and Red (MX).
1. I want a fix stop zoom so I'm thinking to the 35-70, 70-210 and 80-200, but I always worked with 2.8 zooms and often WO. What about shooting with slower lenses like these?
2. I read here that 80-200 is better than 70-210. I was thinking to the second one, cause of the fact 80-200 is slower, but what do you think about?
3. Do you think that a 18-35 sigma 1.8 could be a good choice to complete the set on the wide side?

Thanks Contax lovers!

You should consider a 28-85mm but the 35-70mm and 80-200mm are brillant and shouldn't be too slow.
The Sigma won't match but you can always adjust in post if need be.

 

[Rick Griemink]

I am looking for some good 0.8 gears for my Contax set. I am currently using cool-lux gears, but I find them to narrow for a proper alignement with a follow focus and to wide around the lens (their even wider than my 80mm front ring).
Does anyone have experience with these; https://www.ebay.com/itm/Seamless-F...640508?hash=item3cdc83753c:g:km0AAOSwdIFXz-QF. Or any other good recommendations?! Thanks so much!

 

[Ben Scott]

I used Sean's gears since way before he had a fancy ebay page and to be honest his customer service is great, I've had as many misses as hits with his gears fitting. He'll happily send out another if it doesn't fit but we got up to v7 for my contax 501.7 and it was getting a bit silly.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Ok ok ok,
I just read 100 pages of this thread, with the strong intention to don't loose a post, but now I just realized that there are 422 pages and if I will read everything I would be so old that I couldn't see the results of my future Contax!

I'm a new owner of a Red Epic MX and I really would like to begin to use it with some Contax lenses. It would be my first experience with vintage ones.
I would like to get first a set of zoom to work easily run and gun. (I would think to primes later).
I have three questions, espetially regarding your experience with video and Red (MX).
1. I want a fix stop zoom so I'm thinking to the 35-70, 70-210 and 80-200, but I always worked with 2.8 zooms and often WO. What about shooting with slower lenses like these?
2. I read here that 80-200 is better than 70-210. I was thinking to the second one, cause of the fact 80-200 is slower, but what do you think about?
3. Do you think that a 18-35 sigma 1.8 could be a good choice to complete the set on the wide side?

Thanks Contax lovers!

Get the 35-70 and 80-200, trust me. They are both bionic glass. We tested them on Monstro and they crushed.

The 28-85 is great too, but the light loss btw 28 and 85 can be a pain when shooting video.

The 70-210 is MUCH OLDER, so proceed at your own risk with that one - it's also much more expensive.

The Sigma 18-35 is much cleaner/modern than Contax glass, but you can slap on some BPM to help it match.

Have fun!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Ilya, to me your link is very welcome, didn't notice that thread on Russian glass before!

Next to my collection of C/Ys and Minolta Rokkors there's only vintage Russian lenses I admire.

Got a Mir 37mm, a Helios, an Industar, Jupiter 50mm and 85mm and a Tair 135mm. (That Jupiter 85 is nearly my age)

Love them! Plus, I also found that untouched lenses from the early era were really well QC'd, the widespread problem is that many of those lenses have been f…ed with later on. IMHO, only the lenses from the last years of USSR had very bad QC out of factory.

But there was a reason why Soviet lenses excelled at Brussel's world fair even in the middle of cold war.

Uli we did a Monstro test recently, and we had time to slap on ONE Rokkor - the 21 2.8 and WOW...the flares were MIND BLOWING...looking forward to testing more!!