Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Samir Patel]

Dumb question but... which is the best still film camera to use these on? Thinking I should play around with one.

 

[Alex Bros]

Shot this last summer. Contax x Monstro. Really love this combo, and I'm thinking I'll get mine rehoused one day if i can find someone who'll do the 35mm 1.4. ( I love the coatings/look but they need better mechanics for serious motion work, and if possible I'd love an improved iris module with more/rounder blades.)
Mostly used the 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4, with some 28mm f2, 85 1.4 and 100mm f2.
A few DJI Mavic shots and a couple from A7s2 in a Nauticam housing.

 

[Uli Plank]

@ Samir
I can wholeheartedly recommend the Sony Alphas. I use both the A7S and the A7R II with my Contaxes and my Rokkors and love what I get.

 

[Samir Patel]

@ Samir
I can wholeheartedly recommend the Sony Alphas. I use both the A7S and the A7R II with my Contaxes and my Rokkors and love what I get.

Hi Uli, no I meant which old style 35mm film cameras do these lenses actually work with and maybe which one was the latest generation. Kinda lost. Thinking like a contax RTS or something? And A7R III also on my list for eventually but wanted to play around with some film since I have the lenses.

 

[Georgios Tryfonas]

and I'm thinking I'll get mine rehoused one day if i can find someone who'll do the 35mm 1.4.

Kimcamera in Seoul, South Korea does top quality rehousing on everything with whatever mount/scale you like. Precise work and very importantly without any branding/logos of his company all over the lens body (hate it when others do that). Price he gave me last time I asked was $1500/Contax Prime. You can search Kimcamera on Facebook he has plenty of examples including Contaxes and he replies on messages fast.

 

[Uli Plank]

Hi Uli, no I meant which old style 35mm film cameras do these lenses actually work with and maybe which one was the latest generation. Kinda lost. Thinking like a contax RTS or something? And A7R III also on my list for eventually but wanted to play around with some film since I have the lenses.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, the RTS bodies will fit, but unfortunately it isn't easy to find one in good working condition. The body was the Achilles heel of the system, they had quite a few problems. I got two of them as a 'collateral catch' with lenses and they are just decoration now. OTOH, my four Minolta SR bodies (also caught with lenses) just needed a new batttery to function again just like forty years ago!

 

[Georgios Tryfonas]

So just got this 35/1.4 MMJ which I ordered from a local store. Lens is in brand-new-looking and immaculate condition externally. Glass no scratches, really nice looking. If I was taking it out of a sealed box I would think it's brand new out of the factory. Tests including against strong lights have shown same contrast and color as the rest of my Contax lenses. But when I shine some light there is this floating between the elements - exaggerated with perfect angle in the photos below. This is under a very strong flashlight. You can't see any of this, or any dust or any kind of defect against normal house lamp. So, I contacted the shop owner and after showing the pictures he admitted the problem immediately - he explained when he imported the lenses from Japan it was perfectly fine but probably got this while in storage. He offered full refund or if I prefer giving it for professional service (at his own expense). Again this is from a professional camera store owner not random seller. The question here is do I trust that "fixing"? What are the dangers? I have opened a few Contaxes myself and I don't feel that uncomfortable with the idea but never for the purpose of cleaning defects like this. The lens operates perfectly optically and mechanically and it's rare to find this lens at this price and shape. Actually this was the only 35/1.4 MM in Korean shops and looking at the local used market (kind of like ebay) non even one was sold for the last many years - which means it's not likely to find another one tomorrow. There are plenty of AEs of course but the rest of my set is MM so yeah... The only reason I'm concerned about this is the resale value and the "why" having a less than perfect lens to begin with. This is a very expensive lens and looking at ebay right now the few 35/1.4 MMs go for $1500~$1700 (which are not even near the mint condition of this lens) which is certainly much more than I paid for this. What do you guys think?

 

[Josh Birch]

Looking at investing in the near future if anyone has a set for sale?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Tough call. It's hard to find an open box lens like this, so it's really up to you if you trust the shop owner to get it perfectly serviced.

If his lens tech is good, you should be fine.

So just got this 35/1.4 MMJ which I ordered from a local store. Lens is in brand-new-looking and immaculate condition externally. Glass no scratches, really nice looking. If I was taking it out of a sealed box I would think it's brand new out of the factory. Tests including against strong lights have shown same contrast and color as the rest of my Contax lenses. But when I shine some light there is this floating between the elements - exaggerated with perfect angle in the photos below. This is under a very strong flashlight. You can't see any of this, or any dust or any kind of defect against normal house lamp. So, I contacted the shop owner and after showing the pictures he admitted the problem immediately - he explained when he imported the lenses from Japan it was perfectly fine but probably got this while in storage. He offered full refund or if I prefer giving it for professional service (at his own expense). Again this is from a professional camera store owner not random seller. The question here is do I trust that "fixing"? What are the dangers? I have opened a few Contaxes myself and I don't feel that uncomfortable with the idea but never for the purpose of cleaning defects like this. The lens operates perfectly optically and mechanically and it's rare to find this lens at this price and shape. Actually this was the only 35/1.4 MM in Korean shops and looking at the local used market (kind of like ebay) non even one was sold for the last many years - which means it's not likely to find another one tomorrow. There are plenty of AEs of course but the rest of my set is MM so yeah... The only reason I'm concerned about this is the resale value and the "why" having a less than perfect lens to begin with. This is a very expensive lens and looking at ebay right now the few 35/1.4 MMs go for $1500~$1700 (which are not even near the mint condition of this lens) which is certainly much more than I paid for this. What do you guys think?

 

[Ilya O.]

not perfectly sure, bro, but this damn feels like a cement degradation to me:-(

if so, two scenarios possible, one is it remains the same with no influence on the image, the other is when optical glue degrades more resulting in complete white or semi-matte surface, with no or ghosty white image

I pray it is just the oily residue, though...

 

[Georgios Tryfonas]

Thank you Nick and Ilya for the replies. Unfortunately it was balsam separation and had to give up the lens getting a refund. These lenses are getting much harder to find in good shape these days. On the bright side I used some of that refund money to get a 28/2 AEG and 25/2.8MMJ so not bad at all. Still on hunt for a good 35/1.4 MM though.

 

[Austin Mulhern]

meg

Been loving my Contax Zeiss lenses and their ninja star bokeh

...not quite shot on a RED, but thought I'd share anyway haha. Thank you Nick and everyone else who contributed to this amazing thread!

 

[Nick Morrison]

meg

Been loving my Contax Zeiss lenses and their ninja star bokeh

...not quite shot on a RED, but thought I'd share anyway haha. Thank you Nick and everyone else who contributed to this amazing thread!

Looks AWESOME!

 

[Joe Cage]

What about the zeiss planar (ef) lenses, how do they compare with these yashica contax lenses?

 

[Nick Morrison]

What about the zeiss planar (ef) lenses, how do they compare with these yashica contax lenses?

Planar is as type of lens design, not a brand of lens - are you referring to the more modern Zeiss EF lenses?

As mentioned many times before, the modern lenses look...well...more modern.

There's nothing wrong with that. But it's not the vintage look of Contax.

 

[Joe Cage]

Planar is as type of lens design, not a brand of lens - are you referring to the more modern Zeiss EF lenses?

As mentioned many times before, the modern lenses look...well...more modern.

There's nothing wrong with that. But it's not the vintage look of Contax.

Ok thanks, yeah looking for a new set of leses.
- Own Leica summicrons (great character, wish them were faster though, tested the summilux, they are amazing, but the price tag is too much).
- Own Sigma ART lenses (dont have a lot of love for them, too much weight and lack of character)
- Own a bunch of Canon L lenses (also dont love the weight, perform pretty good though)
- Did own the contax zeiss 35mm 1.4, but sold it. maybe thinking in buying a contax zeiss lens set. (at the time I loved the summicrons more, but I am more in need of a faster stop most of the time).
- Also looking in the nikon AIS lenses, never owned any so far.

The vintage look is great, but gathering them is hell to get a good copy. So would love a lens set that you just can buy new that has manual aputure, and also has great character. Still on the lookout.

 

[Uli Plank]

I use the Sigma 18-35mm together with Contax lenses and IMHO they match quite nicely.

 

[Georgios Tryfonas]

Just an update on the dating of Contax Zeiss lenses for the ones that care.
The serials do not specifically mean anything; they can't be decoded to derive the date or model for example. They were given in series as the lenses were produced and they go on till today with Milvus lenses having an 8 digit serial 51xxxxxx for example. It is not necessary that the lenses were made exactly one after another. Serials for a specific batch might have been assigned and that batch could be completed later than another batch that its production decision was taken later for example. In general though those deviations should be within the one year timespan. Also many lenses might have been made a little while earlier than their release date especially when new products were introduced like the MM mount. I will ignore such deviations because it's impossible to know exactly.

Here are some clues
- I have serviced a couple of f2.8 MMJs with 79xxxxx serials and they had their manufacturing date inscribed inside the lens. They were both made in 1996. That gives us a solid and confirmed date for that serial.
- Contax G system was introduced in 1994 with the G1. The earliest Contax G lenses are in the 75xxxxx serials. That gives us another hint that the lenses from 75~79 serials were roughly made during 94~96.
- The 28/2 lens was only made in (West) Germany. The earliest serials I have seen for that lens is 58xxxxxx and the highest is 62xxxxx. That includes the MM version of this lens as well with serials of late 60 and up to 62xxxxx. There are even AE versions of this lens with higher serial number than the MM one. That is an oddity as somebody would generally expect MM lenses to be from 68xxxxx and onwards. The truth is that while the majority of MMs were produced with serials higher than 68xxxxx there were still copies produced before that but in a much smaller number as the system was just introduced and people still had AE cameras for years to come. The introduction of the MM system was done in 1984. For some lenses those MMs were the only batch every produced. Those 61xxxxx MMGs are actually some of the very first lenses produced with the new mount. That can safely put the serial 61xxxxx in 1984~5. That lens was never made again after those years. The datasheet of the lenses from Zeiss website shows an old scanned paper like they had trouble finding it; which is odd as the rest of the lenses have a much cleaner version. The "Classic" ZE/ZF.2 28/2 that came decades later has a new design. A similar situation also happened with the 135/2 lens with the MM versions having an 61xxxxx serial; there are also the 60th years limited edition version of that lenses though with a serial of 73xxxxx.
- Another thing that happened is the fall of the Berlin Wall and the unification of Germany. This is a historical event and therefore we can use it to date lenses. Germany was unified in Oct/1990. Lenses with 70xxxxx serial number have the "Made in West Germany" inscribed on them. As lenses manufacturing kept moving to Cosina in Japan, most lenses after that were not manufactured in Germany. Some lenses though like the 135/2 or 85/1.2 Limited Edition were made in Germany. Those have a 73xxxxx serial number and a "Made in Germany" inscription on them. It means that the 70xxxxx lenses were made before 90s and 73xxxxx lenses at least from 1991 or well roughly because I don't think Zeiss suddenly threw away all their iris rings and changed their process in a day.
- There is a list of when each of the lenses was firstly introduced. Using that data and searching for the earliest serial of that lens we can reach to some further conclusions but these are not the most accurate indications - still useful.

Using the clues above and speculation I have roughly filled in the production years. They are not exactly accurate in any way and except the facts I mentioned above everything else is speculation and approximation.

60 1983
61 1984
62 1985
63 1986
64 1987
65 1987
66 1988
67 1988
68 1989
69 1989
70 1990
71 1990
72 1991
73 1992
74 1993
75 1994
77 1995
79 1996
80 1997

 

[Ilya O.]

Wow!

What an incredible research!!! THANKS!!!

 

[Cristian Mihai]

I have a Contax 28-85mm on the way. I also have an SLR Magic Anamorphot 50 1.33 adapter. Does anyone know if they are working together. Tried the adapter on my Sony F3 with a Zeiss ZF2 28/2 and no vignette present. I strongly suspect the 25mm will also work but have that adapter on the zoom and working would be a dream. Anyone tried ?