Mixing Zeiss Rollei/Contax/Z/Milvus/Otus/645/Sony/etc.

[Zack Birlew]

Hey, everybody, I know we have the awesome Contax Zeiss Survival Guide but looking at building a set of Zeiss lenses myself from bargain finds and fixer uppers I've collected, I wondered what anybody's experiences might have been with mixing Zeiss lineups together? For example, I know the Contax 28mm f2 "Hollywood" and Contax 21mm 2.8 are both ridiculously priced on the used market at this point compared to the other lenses in the line but how close do the Z 28mm f2 and 21mm 2.8 compare to the Contax and what about the Milvus 28mm 1.4 and 21mm 2.8? Granted there are some optical design changes along the way but some like the 21mm 2.8 have been pretty much the same. At this point, would there be much practical difference mixing Contax with newer lenses and filling in sets with additional focal lengths from the newer lines?

As it is, I currently have a Contax 50mm 1.4 MMJ, 35mm 2.8 AE, Yashica 28mm 2.8 (very close to Distagon 28), Zeiss Jena 20mm 2.8, Sony SAM 85mm 2.8, and Rollei HFT 135mm. I haven't tested them all together as of yet but could this be a workable set without too much notice? Ideally, I would have a mostly Contax MMJ set with the ZF.2 28mm f2, 35mm 1.4, and Milvus 21mm 2.8 but I never know what deals could pop up in my travels so that's what gave me thought to mixing things up rather than trying to have my wallet face a full Milvus set or wrestle the auction sites for a decent collector lens or two in the lines. Thoughts? Advice?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Hey, everybody, I know we have the awesome Contax Zeiss Survival Guide but looking at building a set of Zeiss lenses myself from bargain finds and fixer uppers I've collected, I wondered what anybody's experiences might have been with mixing Zeiss lineups together? For example, I know the Contax 28mm f2 "Hollywood" and Contax 21mm 2.8 are both ridiculously priced on the used market at this point compared to the other lenses in the line but how close do the Z 28mm f2 and 21mm 2.8 compare to the Contax and what about the Milvus 28mm 1.4 and 21mm 2.8? Granted there are some optical design changes along the way but some like the 21mm 2.8 have been pretty much the same. At this point, would there be much practical difference mixing Contax with newer lenses and filling in sets with additional focal lengths from the newer lines?

As it is, I currently have a Contax 50mm 1.4 MMJ, 35mm 2.8 AE, Yashica 28mm 2.8 (very close to Distagon 28), Zeiss Jena 20mm 2.8, Sony SAM 85mm 2.8, and Rollei HFT 135mm. I haven't tested them all together as of yet but could this be a workable set without too much notice? Ideally, I would have a mostly Contax MMJ set with the ZF.2 28mm f2, 35mm 1.4, and Milvus 21mm 2.8 but I never know what deals could pop up in my travels so that's what gave me thought to mixing things up rather than trying to have my wallet face a full Milvus set or wrestle the auction sites for a decent collector lens or two in the lines. Thoughts? Advice?

Hey Zack, basically think of all your lenses as having just different levels of contrast. Older lenses will be lower contrast and flare more. Newer lenses will be higher contrast and flare less.

This is true of lenses in general, not just Contax vs Milvus, etc.

Any lens that's 40 years old will have lower contrast coatings than a modern lens - lens designs have a come a long way.

But in truth, I think your overthinking things a bit. You basically have a very diverse set of lenses, with a wide range of coatings. Yashica, Jena, Contax, Rollei, Sony - these all have different coatings, and each will have their own unique signature. None will match exactly, but honestly - who cares? These are all good lenses, and just enjoy them.

 

[Zack Birlew]

See, that's how I feel, definitely not 100% matching but close enough in look to not be too out of balance. I know third party lines like Vivitar and Soligor lenses really have wild shifts between certain lenses so you have to watch which models you get for designing a set and I wondered if Zeiss has similar issues now that there are more lens lines and updated or completely redesigned lenses in the mix. Any more feedback would be really interesting to hear from Zeiss lens users new and old as they seem pretty plentiful and often traded on the used market.

 

[Matt W.]

Even among "matching sets" like Contax and nFD I have noticed shifts in contrast and flare color depending on manufacture date. Even with the same lens, I suspect, it changes over time.

The earlier nFDs have lower contrast (but color-wise look prettier) coatings than the newer ones. I would know – I own a (somewhat mis-matched) set on nFD Ls.

I think it's more the coatings than the lens designs. Or maybe haze that builds up over time. The lenses that match best for me were those manufactured around the same time – generally less popular options only manufactured briefly (SSC Aspherical sets instead of nFD; Rollei QBM Zeiss; though you could rely on serial number too and probably get a good fit).

But the thing is – if it's not making a big difference to you, will it make a big difference to your audience? Maybe, but even then pretty low priority imo. And you can maybe grade out the difference. I think maybe the best thing to do is try it.

But even comparing my 80-200mm Contax, 28mm f2.0 Contax, and 50mm f1.7 Contax (all of which I've sold) – there's a difference in contrast imo. With my old Rollei Zeiss set, there wasn't. I settled on an nFD set that has a difference in contrast but is faster and has better ergonomics for me (smoother focus rings, etc.).