Benjamin Marks
Mentor
Each of us probably has a brand of lens or camera in which they wanted to indulge, but which for practical reasons they never did. In my case, it was the Contax line of SLRs and the associated lenses. Remember the RTS III with its vacuum back? In my late 20's that was what I thought stood between me and artistic fulfillment. More likely it is just a tip of the hat to the Contax marketing folks, as my Nikon, Leica, and Hassie equipment produced no shortage of in-focus images. Still, the grass is always greener, and for one reason or another I never went down that particular rabbit hole.
However, the current crop of mirrorless cameras has opened up all sorts of possibilities . . . (This is how, against my better judgment, I have wound up with a pretty good collection of Konica AR and Pentax screw-mount lenses). Which brings me back to Contax.
Have any of you tried the older C/Y mount lenses on your current digital sensors? On-line reviews of current Contax glass (e.g. the Nikon F-mount Planars and Distagons made by Cosina) make them sound sharp, but prone to CA at their wider apertures. Any reason to think that the versions of these lenses designed for film wouldn't be the same?
Practical experience with photos valued over speculation and MTF analysis in your replies.
However, the current crop of mirrorless cameras has opened up all sorts of possibilities . . . (This is how, against my better judgment, I have wound up with a pretty good collection of Konica AR and Pentax screw-mount lenses). Which brings me back to Contax.
Have any of you tried the older C/Y mount lenses on your current digital sensors? On-line reviews of current Contax glass (e.g. the Nikon F-mount Planars and Distagons made by Cosina) make them sound sharp, but prone to CA at their wider apertures. Any reason to think that the versions of these lenses designed for film wouldn't be the same?
Practical experience with photos valued over speculation and MTF analysis in your replies.
Oh yes!
I have been greatly enjoying this c/y lineup, I like to think of the Z cameras as the digital resurrection of the film Contaxes.
28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.7, 60/2.8 C, 85/2.8, 135/2.8, 35-70/3.4, 80-200/4. The 60 and the zooms are MM, the rest are AEG or AEJ.
I haven't had my Z long enough to do a full array of subject matter, but so far haven't had to deal with CA yet. I'll post a few pics later.
Perhaps the exotics like the 28/2, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2 would be more prone to CA wide-open.
I have been greatly enjoying this c/y lineup, I like to think of the Z cameras as the digital resurrection of the film Contaxes.
28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.7, 60/2.8 C, 85/2.8, 135/2.8, 35-70/3.4, 80-200/4. The 60 and the zooms are MM, the rest are AEG or AEJ.
I haven't had my Z long enough to do a full array of subject matter, but so far haven't had to deal with CA yet. I'll post a few pics later.
Perhaps the exotics like the 28/2, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2 would be more prone to CA wide-open.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I had a Contax briefly in the early/middle '80s, only had the 50 and 90 mm lenses for it. I loved the look those lenses gave but was heavily invested in Nikon gear at the time and decided not to pursue Contax further. I can't imagine that those lenses would not perform nicely on a modern mirrorless but you never really know how well they do until you test.
I treated first my Sony A7 and then my Leica SL as the resurrection of Leica R bodies in and around 2015. The A7 did okay with most R lenses, 50mm and up; the SL did brilliantly with all to my eye, as did the CL, M-P240 and, now, M10-M/-R.
G
I treated first my Sony A7 and then my Leica SL as the resurrection of Leica R bodies in and around 2015. The A7 did okay with most R lenses, 50mm and up; the SL did brilliantly with all to my eye, as did the CL, M-P240 and, now, M10-M/-R.
G
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
I have to ask: did you dabble in the Yashica versions of these lenses or were you a purist in these pursuits? From what I can turn up on the Interwebs, the Yashica lenses performed in a manner similar to, but not the same as, their Contax counterparts. Block diagrams look different too. . .
I have two Yashicas currently, 35/2.8 and 135/2.8. The 135 is good but my eye prefers the c/y, the 35 needs work so haven’t been able to compare that one.
I pretty much de-test doing lens tests 😉 so I just go with initial reactions wide-open or a stop down, no pixel peeping.
I pretty much de-test doing lens tests 😉 so I just go with initial reactions wide-open or a stop down, no pixel peeping.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
^^^Fair enough. I peep at pixels when there are no other photographic pleasures to be had. But I get that it ain't art. Your helpful replies are much appreciated.
Z6 with Megadap AF adapter and 28/2.8 Distagon.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't love testing, but to me it's an essential part of understanding what my equipment does. I can do either rigorous or casual lens tests, depending on my mood; casual lens tests happen as a part of my usual walking photographic sessions. Sometimes I get some lovely photos doing casual lens tests!
G
85/2.8 Sonnar AEG on Z6, this was manual focus, using zoom focus assist. Had a pretty decent hit rate for focusing on the eye! Although the hit rate is better now with the AF adapter and no need for zoom. Of course a native Nikkor Z 85/1.8 would be far more accurate and speedy.
Last edited:
Referring to Contax G? As the 90mm Sonnar was for G1, G2. But they didn't come out til the mid 90s...
Archiver
Mentor
Not yet, but in the planning stages. @Freakscene has close ties with Zeiss 😄 and advises that the Contax lenses are excellent. While I wait for some affordable lenses to appear, I am getting into Yashica lenses, the first being the 28mm f2.8 ML. It performs very well on the Panasonic S5, no chromatic aberration wide open, sharp in the centre, and with a good sense of 3D pop without being overly saturated.
As I intend to build a set of lenses for work, I'm considering whether to get Contax lenses, or the Zeiss Classics in EF mount which are largely based on the Contax designs, but with electronic coupling and better construction. The age and use of Contax lenses makes them more prone to issues like haze, balsam separation and fungus, whereas the newer Zeiss Classics are less likely to have these problems. Also, I think I prefer the Zeiss Classic aperture blades, which make for more pleasant / less distinctive bokeh.
As I intend to build a set of lenses for work, I'm considering whether to get Contax lenses, or the Zeiss Classics in EF mount which are largely based on the Contax designs, but with electronic coupling and better construction. The age and use of Contax lenses makes them more prone to issues like haze, balsam separation and fungus, whereas the newer Zeiss Classics are less likely to have these problems. Also, I think I prefer the Zeiss Classic aperture blades, which make for more pleasant / less distinctive bokeh.
Freakscene
Obscure member
@Archiver is right - I am a Contaxaholic, so I’m trying to let Biogons be Biogons, but yes, the Contax-Yashica Zeiss lenses are great.
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
I have a late serial number (8xxx, xxx) Contax 50/1.7 inbound. Thinking about a 28-50-60-100 set overall.
Which 100? There are three.
I have the 100/2.8 Makro arriving tomorrow and had the other two in the past.
The MTF of the 100/2.8 seems to be nearly identical to the 100/2, but it’s about half the cost.
Probably will offload the 60 Makro-C.
I have the 100/2.8 Makro arriving tomorrow and had the other two in the past.
The MTF of the 100/2.8 seems to be nearly identical to the 100/2, but it’s about half the cost.
Probably will offload the 60 Makro-C.
I’m going to send off my ML 35/2.8 for service, it appears to be rather uncommon. The few reports I’ve come across are positive.
In the past I had a full set of MM glass to get the updated aperture blades. Most AE lenses have the so-called ‘ninja’ blades, which can appear a stop or so down.
On my recent quest for c/y which began two years ago I decided to ignore AE vs MM and just snag the best/cheapest copy regardless. Been very happy with that choice as I’ve been fortunate to get some real bargains.
I’ve had two ZF lenses in the past, the 25/2.8 and the 50/2 Makro, enjoyed both but they are bigger/heavier than their c/y counterparts.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
The 100 I have been looking at is the AEJ version, just because they seem plentiful at the moment. But I'd be open to an MM version if one came up at the right price. Most of the portraiture I do doesn't have a light source in the background, so I don't know that the "Ninja blades" would matter all that much to me.Which 100? There are three.
Those portraits you posted above with the 85 are wonderful. It is very much the kind of emotional moment that I look for in my own work.
Thank you, that was the first time I had used the Z6 in that situation and I was a bit apprehensive due to a new camera and learning to use the manual focus tools. Was very pleased with the number of keepers.
With regards to the 100mm, are you referring to the 100/2 Planar? There is also the 100/3.5 Sonnar and the 100/2.8 Makro Planar. The latter wasn’t made in MM version. The others were both AE and MM.
With regards to the 100mm, are you referring to the 100/2 Planar? There is also the 100/3.5 Sonnar and the 100/2.8 Makro Planar. The latter wasn’t made in MM version. The others were both AE and MM.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
Thanks for that clarification. Yes, the Makro-Planar. I have one for my Hassie that is almost too sharp. Amazing design, although I'll admit that I don't have a sense of how the 35mm and 6x6 versions compare. Maybe I will get a Hassie-to_Z adapter and run some comparison shots. LOL.
Nice! Just got a notification that my copy of the same lens is out for delivery. Now I’m curious if the Hassy and Contax share identical optical design…off I go to Zeiss.com… 😀
Bill Jones
Contax Lens User
Benjamin,
The Contax Makro-Planar 100mm f2.8 is a very different animal than the Hassy/Rollei Makro-Planar 120m f4.
The Contax focuses to 1*1 The Hassy to 1:2.5 so a higher mag on the Contax.
Contax is f 2.8 vs Hassy f4
Contax is 7 elements in 7 groups vs Hassy 6 elements in 4 groups
They are both very satisfactory in my experience. The Contax is useable hand held on my Sony A7 RM4.
If you're really after macro I would opt for the Contax S-Planar 100mm f4 bellows lens, but this is a specialist lens.
Taken with a Contax 100mm f2.8 Makro-Planar iso 400 1250s at f 8 hand held. Camera Sony A7R M2.
