Contax G: 35mm Planar vs 45 mm Planar

45

45

The Carl Zeiss Planar 45/2 G.

My guess is that you will never find someone saying the 35/2 is better than the 45/2.

The 45 on its own is still worth buying a Contax G body, even today that Kyocera has closed its photo dpt., and that virtually nobody can fix those cameras any longer in case they have a CPU problem.
 
The Zeiss G 45/2 is regarded as one of the top lenses made...for any camera, any brand. Having owned all of the G lenses (except the zoom), my kit now consists of the 21/2.8, 45/2, and the 90/2.8, the best of the bunch for me. The 35mm is a fine lens but not the equivalent of the 45mm, in my opinion. Photos...some from me on this site, and if you search, at www.pbase.com/charles_hess. Though web photos really can't be a decision-maker, you can also go to pbase's camera & lens section and to www.photosig.com to check out images from these lenses.

To Highway 61: keh.com repaired a G2 of mine awhile back and did a great job.
 
I though abt the price difference. 35 is twice or three times as much as 45. I would like to know why :)
 
photosig.com is a huge yet chaotic database, finding a photo shot with a Contax G lens there is like searching a needle in a grass field.

Rather go to : http://www.contaxg.com/

Keh.com may repair the Contax G, as well as other workshops (see the stickies above), yet I doubt getting a Contax G camera repaired if you live outside the US will be easy now.

Anyway, there are many G1's for sale around, best solution to have another camera to use the 45/2 Planar may be to get a cheap green sticker working G1 in case one's G body fails.

The 45/2 is so good that it's worth the camera body's sudden electronic failure risk IMO.
 
That's exactly what I've done. I bought a G1 for reasonable price just because I wanted to use 45 Planar and 90 sonnar not to spent a pile of money for CZ M analogues. It's price on keh is so sweet. But then came across this 35 and a strange price for it. That's why I asked :)
Thanks, gentlemen! I'm sure I did it right
 
Real world use results in a tie

Real world use results in a tie

I've shot with both the G mount 35mm & 45mm Planar for six years.

The 35mm is my standard lens that I seem to use 90% of the time. I prefer that field of view.

Optically, I cannot tell a real difference by looking at big prints. I know what all the charts say but I just can't see in real life use. Both are excellent lenses.

So the best lens between the two is the one with the FOV that fits your style the best. But your question was specific to "optically". So I'll give my answer two ways:

1) a dead heat from real world use
2) the 45mm wins by looking at published charts
 
I always found the negs I shot with the 35 to feel a bit flat compared to the 45. I used the 21, 28 45 & 90 a lot, the 35 just sat, and not because of FOV, I shoot an awful lot with the 35/2 ASPH these days.
 
Here's examples but you can tell no difference

Here's examples but you can tell no difference

Arvay said:
Some pictures will be a plus.
Click to expand...

This series http://bobmichaels.org/north-orange-county/index.html
was shot over several years with a ContaxG. Some of the photos on that page were shot with a 21mm, some with a 28, some with a 35, some with a 45mm and one with a Mamiya 7. You can pick out the 21 and most of the 28mm by the perspective. You can not tell the 35 from the 45mm.

Just to prove that looking at JPG's don't tell you anything, I would challenge you to pick out the one JPG there that was shot on a 6x7 neg.

I can assure that you cannot tell the difference between the 35 and 45mm images when you see the actual prints exhibited. You can pick out the few that were shot 6x7 from the prints however
 
Yes, I know, there is no reason to compare 800x600 pixels pics.
I explained that I was seriously puzzled with the price difference. That's why I thought such difference can be seen even in jpegs
 
For normal use, the 35mm is fine.

For normal use, the 35mm is fine.

Hi,

I have both lenses. For my use, which is to just have a camera nearby with a fast (enough) lens and to be able to scan the negs to post on the internet, the 35 does a nice job. The largest I ever print from it is 8 x 10 and then it's usually stopped down to f8.

I don't know why the price would be significantly higher.
 
Both lenses are for 99 % the same at f4.0 At f2.0 the 45mm is far better. Both are however very good.
 
Captain said:
LOL Why doesn't the rest of the world have the technical capability of repairing cameras?
Click to expand...
The Contax G aren't cameras that have to be repaired, they are cameras in which electronic dead components have to be replaced by working ones. This implies that there are spare parts in stock somewhere, and that the repairman that has to do the components swap not only has the part available but can know which one made it for a defective camera, and which one has to be taken off the camera shell in order to be replaced by a new one.
Just check by yourself - there are many countries in which nobody can service the Contax G cameras any longer already. LOL actually...
 
Thanks for this thread, I've always wondered about this too. I regretted selling a G2 with all three standard lenses (28, 45, 90), so recently bought a G1-no green label-with 45 for a sweet price. That 45 is insanely sharp and awesome, even at f2. If I buy another lens, it will be the 28.
 
Highway 61 said:
Just check by yourself - there are many countries in which nobody can service the Contax G cameras any longer already. LOL actually...
Click to expand...

How do you know? You traveled all these countries? For UK services check

http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/

I had my lenses with alpha last spring and they did a good job. I also know of people which had their G2 shutter assembly replaced at Alpha last year.
 
In the US, Tocad is the Contax repair depot and has all the spare parts that Kyrocera did previously. So the parts and repair situation was not impacted by Kyrocera exiting the camera business.

Never forget that cameras are emotional things for some people. They will "love" one and "dislike" another without regard to much logic. I just accept that. I'm one of those that just consider them only tools to make photographs with. If they work seamlessly, I like them. If they get in my way making photos, then I use something else.
 
Geez Bob, you sound so Spock/Vulcan like here! I don't give my cameras pet names or anything, but my emotional response to a camera is based partly on "objective" factors like function or quality, and partly on a subjective cool factor. To my mind, the Contax G cameras have a high cool factor, not unlike feeling a little self important when signing a document with an expensive pen.
 
Highway 61 said:
The Contax G aren't cameras that have to be repaired, they are cameras in which electronic dead components have to be replaced by working ones. This implies that there are spare parts in stock somewhere, and that the repairman that has to do the components swap not only has the part available but can know which one made it for a defective camera, and which one has to be taken off the camera shell in order to be replaced by a new one.
Just check by yourself - there are many countries in which nobody can service the Contax G cameras any longer already. LOL actually...
Click to expand...

In Europe they have enough spare parts and Kyocera has them in stock, too. Shipping from Japan to Europe isn't that hard :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top