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

William Long said:
Badluck. I think you should return it.
Maybe look for small micro details in the photos he supplied that prove it is the same lens? Normally there will be something.
You may need Ebay's intervention if he doesn't comply.
Click to expand...

Thanks William, I asked for a picture with serial number and the seller sent it to me.
I called Ebay, they say I will get my refund even the seller is trying to deny. Will ship it back tomorrow!
 
Well, regarding the 21mm, it all depends on the price, since this lens is really hard to find in perfect condition these days.
If you want it for everyday work, and not for collection, I'd not be too concerned about these marks. Could even be something to clean off with the right tools, I'm not sure these are scratches. It's easy to touch a wide's front lens…

But I think you'd first have to decide if you want keep it, before trying to clean them off. If you leave any new marks he could complain rightfully.

Regarding being the same lens: the seller might be referring to its condition and not the serial. What is his native language? It's so easy to call someone a scam when there is simple miscommunication.

Nick, what is your opinion?
 
Hi Uli,

I thought of keeping it as well. But later I realized there are small scrarches everywhere on the front element and a visible dust right in the rear element. So I had to return it. The seller should be receiving it today. My wife recorded the video of me putting the lens into the package and shipped while we were in usps. Just incase if he says I didn’t send back the same item.
 
Cziraki Vilmos said:
Thank you Georgios! I've got a 85mm 2.8 Sonnar MMG version with 84xxxxx serialnumber.
It was produced in 1999.
You can check this website: http://hasselbladhistorical.eu/HT/HTDating.aspx

And my 68xxxxxxxx MMJ 135.28 Sonnar was produced in 1986 according to this page.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the page it's really nice. I still don't see how all the 60~62xxxxx 28/2 MMGs were made in the late 70s though many many years before the introduction of the MM system. Perhaps the serials were preassigned? Or that site is wrong as it says it's also an approximation and they didn't take into account the 28/2 and 135/2 MMGs that can provide some additional insight. Another explanation would be that Zeiss never made exclusively 28/2 MMG from scratch. When the were about to introduce the MM system, they just took apart some of their AEG stock and converted it to MMs while keeping the original serials - that would explain all this situation.
 
Last edited:
First time poster here. Nick, thanks so much for your extensive work on this survival guide. It has really helped me in my 3 year eBay quest for my MM Contax kit. I've finally completed the kit, cinevised them, and I got a nice custom cut case for them as well. Really love these lenses and their sharp, but natural filmic rendering. My favorites are the 21 2.8, 28 2 & 100-300 4.5-5.6. Glad to be a part of the cool kids club!

My kit-
21 2.8 MMJ
28 2.0 MMG
35 1.4 MMG
50 1.4 MMJ
60 2.8 AEG
85 1.4 MMG
100-300 4.5-5.6 MMJ

47236667_10100836441840826_1563852215867670528_o.jpg
 
Shot a moody piece on the raven to see how far i could push it lowlight wise.
Mainly used the 35mm 1.4 mmj , some shots on the 50mm 1.4 and the 28mm 2.8.


 
Georgios Tryfonas said:
Thank you for the page it's really nice. I still don't see how all the 60~62xxxxx 28/2 MMGs were made in the late 70s though many many years before the introduction of the MM system. Perhaps the serials were preassigned? Or that site is wrong as it says it's also an approximation and they didn't take into account the 28/2 and 135/2 MMGs that can provide some additional insight. Another explanation would be that Zeiss never made exclusively 28/2 MMG from scratch. When the were about to introduce the MM system, they just took apart some of their AEG stock and converted it to MMs while keeping the original serials - that would explain all this situation.
Click to expand...


Georgios, you can write Zeiss at cine@zeiss.de and ask for the manufacturing dates for your lenses by serial number. They got back to me within a day with dates.
 
Brian McAllister said:
Georgios, you can write Zeiss at cine@zeiss.de and ask for the manufacturing dates for your lenses by serial number. They got back to me within a day with dates.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the info Brian! Would you mind letting us know your 28/2 MMG serial's first two digits and the manufacturing year that Zeiss gave you for it?
Thanks :)
 
Brian McAllister said:
Absolutely, my 28/2 MMG's serial number is 6158446, they said it was made around 1978.
Click to expand...

Thank you Brian. From my understanding the MM mount was introduced in 1984 and Contax 159MM produced in 1985 was the first camera to implement it.
Even with how slower things in development were back then, I find it very unlikely that such an amount of MM lenses were actually produced in 1978, 6 years before the system's introduction.
So here is what I think happened (speculation always but I don't see any other way).
I believe by the time the MM system was introduced, production for the 28/2 has already ceased (there is no 28/2 with a serial over 62x AE or MM and all MMs I have ever seen online are always in those serials).
They just wanted though to get some of their best lenses onto the MM system.
So the idea was to get glass that was previously inside unsold AE lenses (or stored in the factory and assigned for AE lenses) and re-purpose it for those odd early 60~62 serial 28/2 (and some 135/2 MMG actually).
Zeiss has also sold a lot of that 28/2 glass to Pentax for their SMC K 28mm f/2.0 although I believe that glass was sold non-coated and was coated by Pentax.
My suspicion for the 28/2 MMGs though is that the coatings match whatever other coatings were in the original AE lenses back in 1978 and around those serial numbers (60~62). A good reason why Zeiss has chosen to keep the serial of the original glass.
That would make the only (practical) difference of the AEG and MMG versions of the 28/2: a) the ninja star iris on the AEG b) the aperture control pin on the MMG.
 
Hello fellow camera people,

Long time follower here.

Have owned a set of Contax Zeiss for a while now and have always wondered just how similar to Zeiss Super Speeds they are. I was lucky to have some downtime the other day so I decided to take out a Flander's monitor and really put them to the test. I tested my set of Contax (35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.4) against the following Zeiss Super Speeds (35mm T1.3, 50mm, T1.3, 85mm T1.3). The results were pretty impressive to say the least.

You really need to pixel peep to see just how different they are. The coating are for sure the same as they flare exactly the same and have the same lower contrast look. I noticed the sharpness is very similar although I found the Contax to be a tad bit sharper.

However there were some differences (as there should be given the price differences):
-Contax glass breaths (ALOT) compared to the SS.
-The OOF areas on the Contax was more "busy"- definitely more organic and pleasing on the SS however that's not to say the Contax has ugly OOF areas.
-Contax glass looked to be a bit more saturated whereas the SS were a bit more neutral.
-Contax (at least mine which are all AE) have the ninja star bokeh whereas the SS do not. The SS bokeh shape is more round (I imagine they have more blades given that it's cine glass). Of course with the AE you can stop down 2 stops and the ninjas go away.
-Contax lenses tend to have a closer near focus mark then the SS counterpart.

The biggest difference I found was in the way the glass handles tungsten lighting and skin tones. It seems the Contax (at least my set) skews a bit magenta/red whereas the SS skewed more towards yellow. I think in daylight you would not be able to spot the difference but in tungsten lighting you'd definitely need to dial down the magenta on the Contax to be a perfect match.

I found adding 1/4 BPM mitigates the slight saturation and sharpness difference and really makes it almost impossible to tell the difference.

I definitely feel very confident in this glass, especially when you think about the price difference between both sets. For me it wouldn't be worth the price difference (I shoot smaller projects at the moment) but if I had a big project or client come in I would obviously choose to rent the SS.

I hope this information is helpful for those who are as curious as I was. Definitely happy with the results.

As a side note- for those that use Contax on bigger projects- is there a go to Cine Zoom that you guys use? I've tried to find an answer but no luck :/
 
Last edited:
Hi William! My pleasure :)

They were the 35mm t1.3, 50mm t1.3, 85mm t1.3 Zeiss Super speeds. They were all MK 2. I also tested the 18mm T1.3 as I wanted to see how well it would cut with my Contax set as I'm thinking of selling my 21mm f2.8 contax and "upgrading" to the 18mm SS.

William Long said:
Really interesting thank you. Which Super-speeds were you using?
Click to expand...
 
Hi guys! Just wrapped on a shoot last weekend.
The Contax Zeiss 25mm f2.8 AEG was the MVP! At least 90% of the film was shot with 25mm. Shot on Kinefinity Mavo

The 2 car shots were on Olympus 21mm f2. Rest are 25mm.
icwaXdf.jpg
JRTEXJp.jpg

QwVw3hi.jpg
gitPOaM.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top