which is better; a contax or ZF prime???

[jordan levy]

what do people think are the main differences, pros and cons, sharpest wide open, etc, of the contax primes versus the zeiss ZF primes?
specifically the speeds, like say the 85mm 1.4? id love to hear thoughts...also open to thoughts on nikons 1.4's but mainly the zeiss since they are so similar. thank you!

 

[Christopher Mills]

I think that they flare differently.. and have slightly different color rendition..
the coatings look different to me.

 

[Nick Morrison]

what do people think are the main differences, pros and cons, sharpest wide open, etc, of the contax primes versus the zeiss ZF primes?
specifically the speeds, like say the 85mm 1.4? id love to hear thoughts...also open to thoughts on nikons 1.4's but mainly the zeiss since they are so similar. thank you!

I wrote up most of the differences in the CONTAX SURVIVAL GUIDE

But to recap: The Contax primes are the antecedants to the ZE/ZF's, and many of the designs are very similar (if not identical). Wide Open the ZF/ZE appear to have been tweaked to be possibly a bit sharper wide open. However there's some anecdotal evidence that the ZF 50 1.4 may have actually taken a step backward and may not be as sharp WO as the Contax 1.4. Regardless, the Contax 1.7 is certainly sharper WO than both of them.

Even though a number of the lens designs are very similar, the ZF/ZE's have new primes you won't find in the Contax lineup - 25 f2, 35 f2, 50 f2, etc...these new designs are very good, and very sharp.

Visually, the biggest difference between ZF/ZE and Contax can be seen in the coatings. The ZF/ZE's render cleaner, contrastier, and flare less. The Contax older T* coating is more akin to the Super Speed/Standard Speed era coatings, and as such are lower-contrast, more prone to flare, and certainly have a more "organic" look to them. They have character, for sure. The AE's also have the ninja-star, for added personality if you like that.

The Contax 1.4's are all great lenses. They are my go to set.

Hope this helps.

 

[jordan levy]

Thank you so much for taking the time to write that Nick, help a lot!
so if i was making a set of nice lenses, maybe the contax, if i wanted a few to compliment the L series glass then maybe the ZF's.
too bad about the 50mm 1.4, i guess thats why it's the cheapest one.
so do the AE lenses have less iris blades then the MMs?
are any of those zooms you mention not push pull?

 

[Shervin Mandgaryan]

Jordan,

L glass has a different feel and colour rendering than the Contax or ZF/ZE set, primarily due to the coatings as Nick explained above. Not to say they wouldn't match, but you'd have to grade out the differences in post. The only L series zoom I'm fond of that plays nicely with the Contax set is the 80-200 F2.8 L nicknamed the "Magic Drainpipe". I've written up a small post about it in the Lens Tests forums and I'm starting to gather examples that shows off how incredibly close it performs to the Contax lenses.

Basically, if you do decide to get a set of Contax, keep it all from the same era and same manufacturer. Same goes for the ZE/ZF's.

 

[Nick Morrison]

so do the AE lenses have less iris blades then the MMs?

AE's and MM's generally all have 6-bladed irises (although some of the bigger barreled lenses I think can have more); it's just that the AE's have a crooked "ninja star" hook to them that creates a buzz-saw like aperture "shape" at the 2nd and 3rd iris positions.

 

[jordan levy]

still cant decide; ZFs sharper wide open but focus goes backwards, Contax softer wide open, focus is correct, cheaper.
hmmm, maybe i should look at lieca's? how do they compare wide open?

 

[jordan levy]

nope, Leicas are way too pricey, might as well buy standard cine primes at that point, i wonder how the rokinons test out?

 

[Nick Morrison]

still cant decide; ZFs sharper wide open but focus goes backwards, Contax softer wide open, focus is correct, cheaper.
hmmm, maybe i should look at lieca's? how do they compare wide open?

Dude if you are going to dismiss Contax glass because you think they are soft wide open then you aren't really looking at them carefully.

I said the ZF's were maybe a bit sharper wide open.

That doesn't mean that all Contax glass is SOFT wide open!!!!!!

All the 2.8 glass is RAZOR SHARP wide open.

And some of the faster glass is very sharp wide open: the Contax 50 1.7 runs circles around the ZF/ZE 50 1.4 WO.

Good luck on your lens excursion.

 

[jordan levy]

yeah, you make great points! thank you very much. I'm really into Russian lenses right now for their looks, but i want to have something that compliments when i get into a canon L series zoom situation, so im even looking into those rokinons for that. i just want a few primes that can be faster for low light situations but be easy for a camera assistant to pull focus.

 

[Christopher Mills]

Low light=tougher for camera assistant to pull focus with all the lenses I know about.
potentially further handicapped by the mechanical condition of the lens. Consider that to hedge your bet.. get any used lens mechanically serviced prior to demanding use.

 

[Nick Morrison]

yeah, you make great points! thank you very much. I'm really into Russian lenses right now for their looks, but i want to have something that compliments when i get into a canon L series zoom situation, so im even looking into those rokinons for that. i just want a few primes that can be faster for low light situations but be easy for a camera assistant to pull focus.

If you need to match Canon L zooms, then I would NOT recommend Contax Zeiss lenses. They look different. Get more modern glass like those Rokinon's. Even Zeiss ZF's with their cleaner coating will probably get you closer to what you need.

Good luck.

 

[Mike S. M.]

I'm really into Russian lenses right now for their looks,

What kind of Russian glass, Lomos?
I use the newer Lomos and they really are nice. The glass quality leaves nothing to be desired when compared to Zeiss of the same era. When compared to Contax and other still lenses they have the advantage of being real cine lenses.
I've been hearing good things about the Rokinon cines too. For that price it's hard to go wrong.

 

[Nick Morrison]

What kind of Russian glass, Lomos?
I use the newer Lomos and they really are nice. The glass quality leaves nothing to be desired when compared to Zeiss of the same era. When compared to Contax and other still lenses they have the advantage of being real cine lenses.
I've been hearing good things about the Rokinon cines too. For that price it's hard to go wrong.

I think when he means Russian, he may be referring to Soviet stills glass (Helios, etc). He seems like a stills guy....

 

[jordan levy]

yes mike, Lomos, which ones have you had luck with,(the newer?) i like how many iris blades they have in their lenses, still looking for a place in the USA that will deal with changing mounts over to PL's though, but also as nick mentioned, ive successfully been using some russian stills glass for motion on ef mount cameras. my favorite being the tair 11, its actually a more substantial lens then some of my zeiss standard speeds! oh but no, im not into stills at all, unless its for plate or element shots on one of my commercial shoots.

 

[Nick Morrison]

yes mike, Lomos, which ones have you had luck with,(the newer?) i like how many iris blades they have in their lenses, still looking for a place in the USA that will deal with changing mounts over to PL's though, but also as nick mentioned, ive successfully been using some russian stills glass for motion on ef mount cameras. my favorite being the tair 11, its actually a more substantial lens then some of my zeiss standard speeds! oh but no, im not into stills at all, unless its for plate or element shots on one of my commercial shoots.

Yeah that Tair 11 is fucking huge. Probably one of the biggest 135's you'll ever find.

 

[jordan levy]

nice thing about that tair is that the focus throw is about 170 degrees, ive seen some housed as cine lenses too.

 

[jordan levy]

thanks mike, which lomos do you prefer? oks(?) and what mounts do you have on them? for use with ef or pl mounts?

 

[jordan levy]

and sorry everyone, i know this thread started out as a zeiss comparison, which Nick more than answered for me, but now i have mikes attention, id love to know about his lomo experience, since there is such a wide variety and mostly you have to wait a month before you receive one lens from russia.
thanks guys!

 

[Mike S. M.]

Mine are OKC. They are all OCT-19 mount. I don't feel the need to convert them to PL. Not to mention OCT-19 is actually a stronger mount.