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 :)

Zeiss Contax questions

Jeffrey T. Morgan

Jeffrey T. Morgan

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
750
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Michigan
Does anyone know the approximate focus throw on the Zeiss lenses for Contax?

Anyone know where samples / data base style info can be found on these?

Thanks!
 
Hi Jeffrey,

http://photo.net/equipment/contax/shea-lenses
http://www.leitax.com/zeiss-contax-lens-for-pentax-cameras.html
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_db.html

I have some other lens spec documents but I can't remember where i found them. If your appetites not whetted, PM me your email if you like and I can send those across too.

As to the throw. It varies. Smallest throw is on my 28 - probably around 130 degrees. My 21 - 35 - 50 - 85 - 100 are more like 200 degrees. Bigger lenses like the 180 - about 300 degrees. The others I own are the 60 macro and 35-70 zoom - both have big throws.
Don't own the 135 - Nick or Ryan or someone else might be bale to chime in.

Certainly easy to rack focus and build quality of these lenses is excellent. Not to mention the glass :))

Best

Lliam
 
Focus throw on the 135 F2 and 2.8 is way over 180 degress.

"Look" wise, they are the predecessors of the ZF/ZE line...so there should be no surprises...all Contax lenses have that specific Zeiss look...but its a Zeiss look from a certain era...from the 70's through the 90's....think Hasselblad, think Super Speeds...all this glass was being made by Zeiss at the same time as Contax...and a lot of the lens designs were being swapped and borrowed from one line to another.

For example...Contax has a 100 3.5 Sonnar. So does Hasselbad. I'll bet you $10 its pretty much the same optical formula (both lenses, as it turns out, are renowned for being "unsually" sharp).

The 28 f2 is known as the "Hollywood", becaused it borrowed from a cinema design, etc.

And that's the beauty of Contax, really. There are so many lenses to choose from, as Zeiss experimented and played with many more designs than the currently do in the ZF/ZE line...which is a pick of the cream of the litter of the Contax designs.

So it's easy to build a really unique, interesting set of glass. I have the 85 1.4 Planar, which exists in the ZE/ZF line...but I also have the 85 2.8 Sonnar, based on a much older, classic 50's design that Zeiss carried over from it's rangefinders. I LOVE having that connection to Zeiss's past, and having this classic lens in my kit. It just looks different than the Planar. It's just as sharp at 2.8, and has it's own charachter.

I may be going off the reservation here, but that's kind of a primer on Contax glass.

Across the board, these lenses are wicked sharp. And...they have a slightly "unique" look, that a lot of us love. I chalk it up to the fact that these lenses were made for film, as opposed to digital.

Hope this helps.
 
Thanks guys!
 
Jeffrey T. Morgan said:
Thanks guys!
Click to expand...

No problem. Basically: Contax are the Zeiss equivalent to Leica R's. Both lens lines competed head to head for 30 years. And both were discontinued over the past 7 (Contax in 2005, and Leica in 2009).

Both have perfect cinema mechanics.

The only difference is that Zeiss brought Contax designs back to life in the ZE/ZF line...but customized them to fit the Nikon and Canon systems...Which is why the ZF's focus the wrong way (like all Nikons)...and the ZE's have no aperture ring (like all EOS lenses).

Contax glass on the other hand have perfect cinema mechanics...and are ideally suited for HDSLR film-making.

And they are 1/2 or 1/3 the price of Leica R's - and are just as sharp or sharper.


BUT....Leica's have that Leica "look", like Cooke have theirs, and that's certainly what you are paying for. Contax has their own look too, and its certainly more in the Super Speed/Hasselblad territory.
 
Yeah, I am interested because I like the classic ZEISS look, and find it to be very flexible in post. I have a few canon lenses if I want warm, but I want some contax to make movies :-)
 
Which adapter rings do you guys like?
 
Jeffrey T. Morgan said:
Which adapter rings do you guys like?
Click to expand...

Regular Fotodiox adapters work fine. You can also PERMENANTLY make them Canon EOS mount by using screwing in Leitax adapters.

WARNING THOUGH! - its much easier to Leitax Contax "MM" lenses than "AE" lenses.

Both can be done, but the "MM"s are super straight forward, whereas the AE's require you to dismantle more of the lens first.


Basically - "MM" and "AE" are two slight variations to the CY lineup. The mount is the same, but the AE's are older, and the MM's newer and were modernized for more "auto" functionality. Also the "MM"s are a bit easier to Leitax.

Also...ALL AE's have a Ninja-Star bokeh. Not sure if you know what that is...its a very signature crazy bokeh where you don't get a hexagon...but it looks like a ninja-star....you'll notice this effect most dramatically on wider barrelled lenses, like the 35 1.4, 85 1.4, and 135 f2. On smaller thread lenses (many Contax are 55mm) you notice it much less.

But on the MM's, this Ninja Star dissapears, and the bokeh becomes more "round" and perfect.

I think the Ninja Star has tons of character, so its not bad...but you should know about this too....
 
Last edited:
Nick,

Thanks for the info! I had come across the ninja-star info but not that the adaptation of AE was harder. I was planning to go with the newer MM anyway, just hoping that they would have less mileage and maybe a bit more sharpness. I think I will try the Fotodiox first to make sure I like the lenses, then if I decide to make them permanent, go to Leitax.

Last question I have, and it's more academic and subjective than anything else:

What about the Contax vs Leica discussion? I already want to go Contax for price and look. But I have heard a few people say the $500 Contax lenses stand up to the 3+ times more expensive Leicas. just a few, but it's a fun question to float.
 
Well everybody has their idea of what lenses look good to them. I have a stack of Zeiss Contax lenses and like the look. I also fancy the older Cooke Speed Panchro look, as well as the Leica look. It's all subjective.
 
Jeffrey T. Morgan said:
Last question I have, and it's more academic and subjective than anything else:

What about the Contax vs Leica discussion? I already want to go Contax for price and look. But I have heard a few people say the $500 Contax lenses stand up to the 3+ times more expensive Leicas. just a few, but it's a fun question to float.
Click to expand...

David's right of course, but besides subjectivity, a key thing is also that it differs from lens to lens. So it isn't even simply a case of Leica R vs Contax. They are all are quality, but each definitely has their star performers. So more directly to your question... yes there are certainly Contax lenses if you talk charts rather than subjective tastes of creamy bokeh vs micro contrast and pop that do indeed go head to head with their Leica R counterparts for currently a lot less money.

The retired photographer/collector/camera shop owner for 26 years that I bought a few of my favourite Contax from, was simply amazed by the fact now that the Leica R's are now considered superior at all, let alone by the amount they are priced apart. In their hey day in his shop, these were the two heavyweights exchanging punches lens for lens and each landed their fare share of blows I think. And for what it's worth, subjective as it may be. He decided he was a Zeiss man. So yes, they certainly can stand up.

It's funny you know, I love my Contax set, but before I started researching in depth and shooting them I really had this preconceived notion that they were just a poor mans Leica at best. I think most people do. While Leica has some truly killer lenses, much to my joy I discovered that this was really not actually the case and a pretty grave injustice. But don't go telling all the ebay gougers that! As when it comes to price/value Contax is a great option if you want a more cine style build quality and throw.

If your planning to tray a few and test. I'd say try the 21 2.8, 35 1.4 and 85 1.4. If you don't like those. You don't like Contax.

Actually scrap the 21 it's the one Contax lens that really costs a lot right now. I could sell mine and make a grand. Cheaper to buy a brand new 21 ZE. Is a lovely lens.

Nick, if you happen back this way. Did you see my post on your "Hollywood" regarding have you used it much in cars - and if so how useful you found the 10 inch minimum focus? Also wondered if you've ever tried declicking yourself as I had begun tinkering :)

Best

Lliam
 
Awesome feedback, thanks again!

50 1.7 or 1.4? I am leaning 1.4
 
Jeffrey T. Morgan said:
Nick,

Thanks for the info! I had come across the ninja-star info but not that the adaptation of AE was harder. I was planning to go with the newer MM anyway, just hoping that they would have less mileage and maybe a bit more sharpness. I think I will try the Fotodiox first to make sure I like the lenses, then if I decide to make them permanent, go to Leitax.

Last question I have, and it's more academic and subjective than anything else:

What about the Contax vs Leica discussion? I already want to go Contax for price and look. But I have heard a few people say the $500 Contax lenses stand up to the 3+ times more expensive Leicas. just a few, but it's a fun question to float.
Click to expand...

Couple of things

1) MM lenses are NOT sharper than AE. This is a fallacy. They are all the same optical designs, only the bayonet mount changed SLIGHTLY.

Only three lenses were CONFIRMED by Zeiss to have been modified when they switched to MM: the 25 2.8, the 28 2.8, and the 135 2.8.

In the case of the 135, the "improved" MM got sharper, but lost some of the fantastic "3D" effect that made the AE model so popular. So...you win some...you lose some.

The 25 2.8 MM gained some edge sharpness...but other people prefer the 25 AE 2.8 because it's a much more "classic" design that is a legacy lens going back to the 50's. It has a certain "look" that people like.


2) It's hard to say if Leica R's are "better" or "worse" than Zeiss Contax...because it's rather like comparing Picasso to Mattisse, or any great "master" to another. At a certain point, it becomes more of a question of "style" than "substance". That being said, here are some known differences for you to consider:

LOOK: If one wanted to be sweeping and vague, you could say Leica tries hard to make things look beautiful. From their lens designs, bokeh, fall off, and coatings....everything about them has a certain delicate, gorgeous look that is very unique. They are renowned for their "impressionist" colors, and their unbelievable skin tones. There is a luxurious sheen to them that is unique, and special.

Contax Zeiss is a little more "real" - Zeiss is more concerned about rendering life as it really is, so the colors...while bold...are not as saturated and beautiful. But the images are more contrasty, with a bit more edge. And philosophically, Zeiss has always been about micro contrast and trying to create a 3D separation in the frame. That's what their "contrast" does...it creates edges and separates elements from foreground and background in ways that are exciting, and unexpected. When a Zeiss lens does this well, its a wonder to behold. That's why Contax glass is frequently judged by how much "3D pop" it has...because that's the greatest Zeiss trait to look for.

SHARPNESS: Leica glass is very sharp, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say Contax is sharper. In the many MTF charts and numbers I've seen, Contax glass was routinely sharper than the Leica equivalents....but not by much. Again, both German manufacturers were making some of the best lenses in the world...they are all great....However, as a school of thought, Zeiss is frequently more concerned with sharpness than Leica. Leica appears willing (in the R line at least) to sacrifice some resolution in order to get that "look" they are so famous for.


FINAL THOUGHTS: If you are going to go for some Contax glass, be aware that there are some TRUE duds. Most of the glass is great, but Contax did try to appeal at times to a more pro-sumer customer, so some of THESE lenses suck, and some other designs are SO OLD/LEGACY that they aren't worth it. Some to avoid are:

28-70 Zoom - a pro-sumer zoom, probably "OK" compared to other zooms...but no where NEAR the quality of the 35-70 and 28-85 that have MTF ratings that rival primes.

70-210 Zoom - an old and VERY EXPENSIVE lens...it's arguably not worth the price ($1500). For $300 you are better served getting the much loved (but not insanely sharp) 80-200 F4 (this tiny zoom..has shit tons of 3D and is probably one of the best zoom buys of all time).

200 3.5 - People like it, but for the price you may as well get the 180 2.8.
 
Jeffrey T. Morgan said:
Awesome feedback, thanks again!

50 1.7 or 1.4? I am leaning 1.4
Click to expand...

Tough call. Again, a question of taste.

In many regards, the 50 1.4 is "better". It's a half-stop faster, its a more classic design. The bokeh is very classic and beautiful. It's built like a tank, all metal elements. However...wide open...its a bit soft...which for portraits is fantastic. The 85 1.4 does something similar.

The 50 1.7 does something interesting though...wide open...its SHARPER then the 50 1.4...and has more contrast. So it has THAT going for it. That's why I own both :) (plus a second 1.4 to boot, but that's my own brand of crazy!).

The bokeh on the 1.7 is also different - its more busy and fun, almost "brighter", and less classic, and gorgeous. Another reason why I have it...wide open at an F2 it can give a different "look" than the two 1.4's I've been shooting narrative scenes with.

However, as this was the budget nifty-fifty, it is made with more plastic elements (on the body...the optics are all glass obv)...

Hope this helps....!
 
Lliam Worthington said:
Nick, if you happen back this way. Did you see my post on your "Hollywood" regarding have you used it much in cars - and if so how useful you found the 10 inch minimum focus? Also wondered if you've ever tried declicking yourself as I had begun tinkering :)

Best

Lliam
Click to expand...

Hey Liam, no I haven't seen that post of yours, my bad. Nope...haven't used the 28 in a car yet...Just on a portait interview shoot about 6 weeks ago. The minimum focus is awesome...It creates the most INSANE pebbly bokeh I've ever seen. You can see it HERE in action at the top of this piece:


Its kinda like the younger brother of the 35 1.4, in that both have the same floating element idea going on at the top of the lens...so you can close focus and create totally insane bokeh's. The difference is....on S35 the 28 starts to give you that great "wide angle" feel on a portait when you really push in...not as much as a 25..which does that better...but the 25 doesn't give you that sick Bokeh wide open!

It's my new fave lens....to be honest.
 
Last edited:
Lliam Worthington said:
Also wondered if you've ever tried declicking yourself as I had begun tinkering :)
Click to expand...

Haha. No way. I'm terrified. I think I'm gunna let Matthew Duclos handle that. I see that you got the 21 BTW...that's CRAZY!

But I do plan on getting these all MODDED...and soon...its getting silly...I keep buying more and more glass....
 
Aha damn you Nick!! I really may have to expand now :) Thanks mate for the vid that illustrates it really well. I know it's not for all peoples tatstes or all occasions but those wide angle CU's can work really well at times I think and I have some character's CU's coming up that I think it will be perfect for. Looks great at the opening for the street exterior. Is that it again at 32 secs and 40? Re the same floating design element as the 35. Boy they really nailed something a bit special with that didn't they. The 35 is the lens I have been using for exactly the purposed discussed to date. Blows me away at times. Very happy with it, but just wanted to be able to look a little more extreme at times too. And currently if it's between my 28 2.8 and the 35 1.4 I just can't seen to put the 28 on the camera over it :)) This I think would change if I had the hollywood and open up this length more to me.

On the 50 1.7, I almost went the 1.7 over the 1.4 Jeffrey myself (not because of price) but exactly because of that little bit of extra micro contrast/pop Nick referenced that I had seen in some samples and shots. But at the end of the day, the better build quality and even size of the 1.4 (1.7 is pretty tiny) is more easily suited for cine work and was what swayed it for me - and of course the half stop was nice too. The 50 1.4 is a really lovely lens and both are just incredible bargains I think. I could make a film with this lens quite happily. Though if I could only choose one Contax to do so, it would be the 35 - I find it very versatile.

And fwiw, when I have the spare funds I still intend to add the 1.7 to my collection one day, just as Nick for that little difference as it really can be had for such a bargain.
I'd take the Contax 50 1.7 over a canon nifty fifty anyday.

Good luck Jeffrey, look forward to hearing how you go.

Thanks again Nick.

Best

Lliam
 
Nick Morrison said:
Haha. No way. I'm terrified. I think I'm gunna let Matthew Duclos handle that. I see that you got the 21 BTW...that's CRAZY!

But I do plan on getting these all MODDED...and soon...its getting silly...I keep buying more and more glass....
Click to expand...

Ha! Yes I was going to send mine to Mr Duclos or RP lens too are excellent I believe - but ended up spending the money on ...erm more lenses instead. Had a little tinker. But thinking about getting a couple of uglies off KEH and having an all out play though. I don't need 80 mm fronts and the zip tie gears I've put on them all i'm really happy with. So it's just declicking I'd really like to get done now... and if I was based in the US, getting them down with Duclos or RP would be a no brainer. But looking forward to tinkering/learning in any regard.

Oh yes, the 21 is beautiful. Shot some nice stuff with it. But I really feel like it's the kind of lens I need to get out into the wilderness with for at least a few weeks with and shoot lots of vistas and landscapes. But work/life is not currently permitting.
 
Last edited:
Envious of those with Contax lenses. Had a kit years back when I started working at a pro lab. First roll of trannie I put through, the guys from E6 came in to ask me what I was shooting on! Hundreds of rolls whizzing past them every day, they saw mine and went, "WHOA! What's that?". Very cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top