Keith Evans
Newbie
I have two 35mm cameras that I use regularly: Minolta XD-11 and Canon EOS Elan 7N. I enjoy using them both but I use the Canon more, since I like autofocus, along with a Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens. However, the Canon does not spark that much of a joy when using it, even though it gets the job done.
For the last few weeks, I have been drooling over the Contax G2 on eBay. I am very close to convincing myself that I must have this camera, even though it costs upwards of two thousand dollars with one or two lenses. I am aware that the camera contains electronic parts that may not be repairable if it breaks, and that some find the viewfinder to be rather small. I am okay with that since I love how it looks and the fact that it's supposed to be able to take good pictures.
My question for the forum is this: Is the Contax G2, along with its supposedly sensational Zeiss glass, enough of an improvement over the Canon? Will pictures taken with a Zeiss lens look that much different from pictures taken with my 40mm f/2.8 Canon lens? I realize that the answers to these questions are probably very subjective, but I am interested in hearing what the forum members have to say about this.
For the last few weeks, I have been drooling over the Contax G2 on eBay. I am very close to convincing myself that I must have this camera, even though it costs upwards of two thousand dollars with one or two lenses. I am aware that the camera contains electronic parts that may not be repairable if it breaks, and that some find the viewfinder to be rather small. I am okay with that since I love how it looks and the fact that it's supposed to be able to take good pictures.
My question for the forum is this: Is the Contax G2, along with its supposedly sensational Zeiss glass, enough of an improvement over the Canon? Will pictures taken with a Zeiss lens look that much different from pictures taken with my 40mm f/2.8 Canon lens? I realize that the answers to these questions are probably very subjective, but I am interested in hearing what the forum members have to say about this.
bullterrier
Established
not sure really only you can judge that but the canon lens is really good, absolute no distortion whatsoever,I don't know about the zeiss,I have one example myself glued on a rebel g, but I don't shoot much film,I cannot afford it.
GLL
Member
I haven't owned a G2 but I have shot a few rolls on a friend's G1. The 45mm f2 Planar is an incredible lens - extremely sharp, with great contrast. How different is it from the 40mm 2.8? Probably not *that* different - maybe higher resolution in absolute terms, and likely sharper in the corners when wide open, but not night and day. I haven't used it, but from what I know about rangefinder lens design it's likely that the wider lenses are better again than the canon equivalents (except the 35mm, which is supposed to be not great). The autofocus on my Elan 7N is, however, much better than the G1 (I hear it's better on G2s), so that's something to consider too.
I think you will likely enjoy the form factor of the Contax (if it's not too small for you). They're beautiful cameras, and very neat in use compared to the larger and more substantial SLRs.
If money is an issue I would personally try and pick up a G1 with the 45mm and see how you like it. I often find better deals on facebook groups or classifieds than ebay, for what that's worth, and you'll likely be able to resell it without losing any money if you pick up a user body and not a shelf queen.
I think you will likely enjoy the form factor of the Contax (if it's not too small for you). They're beautiful cameras, and very neat in use compared to the larger and more substantial SLRs.
If money is an issue I would personally try and pick up a G1 with the 45mm and see how you like it. I often find better deals on facebook groups or classifieds than ebay, for what that's worth, and you'll likely be able to resell it without losing any money if you pick up a user body and not a shelf queen.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I have not used the other camera you listed but the Contax G2 has a wonderful set of lenses and only opinion rival Leica equivalents. I think the autofocus is passable and the prefocus button in the G2 certainly makes the camera more usable. Sure I would go for it if the price is attractive.
* just read GLL’s post above. It’s just my opinion but I would avoid the G1. For the difference of a few hundred bucks go for the G2. The G system is 20 years old and back then the AF hunts. The G2 added a prefocus button in the back and that helped tremendously
.
* just read GLL’s post above. It’s just my opinion but I would avoid the G1. For the difference of a few hundred bucks go for the G2. The G system is 20 years old and back then the AF hunts. The G2 added a prefocus button in the back and that helped tremendously
.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
If you can afford it, why not? It's only money...
If you seriously intend to fork out two Gs on a 20+ year old kit, go for it, buy it from a reputable camera dealer who will give you a warranty, ideally 90 days. Those now-ancient electronics plod along for a while but then go down quickly. I've had two G1s kick the bucket in a matter of days. The most common problems mine had were shutters and film winding/rewinding. LCD 'bleed' is also a common complaint but doesn't impact on much of anything. The metering system is spot-on accurate and usually robust, I've owned six G1s (and still have four) and the metering never let me down.
Why a G2? Is it only because you've found a G2 kit you want? Many G1s out there for sale, they are basically the same camera with fewer bells and whistles. Will you really use 1/4000 that often?
The lenses are superb. Zeiss glass is where the Contax Gs excel. Google Contax G technique for a long list of articles extolling their virtues.
If I were in your shoes with cash to burn, I would put my dosh on a G1 (from a good dealer) and invest in the lenses. I own the range from 21 to 90 (the 35-70 zoom works only on the G2 but apparently is a non-event, slow focusing and a blah range of 35-70). The 45/2 Planar is a legend. My two favorites are the 35/2 Planar and the 28/2.8 Biogon. The 21/2.8 Sonnar is okay but I rarely use mine. i own the 90/2.8 Sonnar but I dislike it - it's is the cheapest in the series and not without reasons, G-newbies who buy a 90 are almost always disappointed with it and usually blame the camera. For me, not worth the bother. The 16 Hologon costs a small mint and it's a dark horse.
For me, color slides with the G are super good, color negs are just so-so. My Nikons D700 and D800 produce far better colors. This said, B&W is where the Gs do their finest work, wonderful contrast, super mid-tones. Negatives are incredibly sharp, like small engravings.
As I'm not a Canon man, I'll not venture into comparisons. If you want visual inspiration, see the many fine G images posted on Flickr.
If you seriously intend to fork out two Gs on a 20+ year old kit, go for it, buy it from a reputable camera dealer who will give you a warranty, ideally 90 days. Those now-ancient electronics plod along for a while but then go down quickly. I've had two G1s kick the bucket in a matter of days. The most common problems mine had were shutters and film winding/rewinding. LCD 'bleed' is also a common complaint but doesn't impact on much of anything. The metering system is spot-on accurate and usually robust, I've owned six G1s (and still have four) and the metering never let me down.
Why a G2? Is it only because you've found a G2 kit you want? Many G1s out there for sale, they are basically the same camera with fewer bells and whistles. Will you really use 1/4000 that often?
The lenses are superb. Zeiss glass is where the Contax Gs excel. Google Contax G technique for a long list of articles extolling their virtues.
If I were in your shoes with cash to burn, I would put my dosh on a G1 (from a good dealer) and invest in the lenses. I own the range from 21 to 90 (the 35-70 zoom works only on the G2 but apparently is a non-event, slow focusing and a blah range of 35-70). The 45/2 Planar is a legend. My two favorites are the 35/2 Planar and the 28/2.8 Biogon. The 21/2.8 Sonnar is okay but I rarely use mine. i own the 90/2.8 Sonnar but I dislike it - it's is the cheapest in the series and not without reasons, G-newbies who buy a 90 are almost always disappointed with it and usually blame the camera. For me, not worth the bother. The 16 Hologon costs a small mint and it's a dark horse.
For me, color slides with the G are super good, color negs are just so-so. My Nikons D700 and D800 produce far better colors. This said, B&W is where the Gs do their finest work, wonderful contrast, super mid-tones. Negatives are incredibly sharp, like small engravings.
As I'm not a Canon man, I'll not venture into comparisons. If you want visual inspiration, see the many fine G images posted on Flickr.
Get a G1. Cheaper lighter and just as good.
I’ve had several of both, and prefer the G1. Focusing is a non issue if you actually use the feedback the camera provides. Many don’t; those are the ones that get frustrated and blame the camera.
Lenses are unbeaten and legendary.
The viewfinders of both aren’t great but they are usable. The trick is learning how to routinely place your eye into the cone of light of the vf exit pupil . If your eye isn’t lined up the periphery of the vf goes dark, as the exit pupil is narrow. Not ideal but the lenses more than make up for this, IMHO.
I’ve had several of both, and prefer the G1. Focusing is a non issue if you actually use the feedback the camera provides. Many don’t; those are the ones that get frustrated and blame the camera.
Lenses are unbeaten and legendary.
The viewfinders of both aren’t great but they are usable. The trick is learning how to routinely place your eye into the cone of light of the vf exit pupil . If your eye isn’t lined up the periphery of the vf goes dark, as the exit pupil is narrow. Not ideal but the lenses more than make up for this, IMHO.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
I shot the G system for a couple of years and really enjoyed it. It was one of the last film cameras I was using before I went digital. The lenses are superb. I miss them to this day. If you can afford it, a G2 with a couple of lenses is a great way to go.
froyd
Mentor
If you are getting a G because of the autofocus (vs a manual rangefinder), and if you are coming from a Canon AF SLR, you might be disappointed. It is several notches behind what AF SLR of the same vintage can do. Manual focus and zone focusing can both be attempted but the system is clearly designed from the ground up to be primarily used in AF modes (and in AE-priority).
I use mine regularly (usually for summer travel ---if you forgot what that is, just Google it), but it's mostly because it's a G1 so it makes for a very lightweight kit.
The lenses are indeed great, but the big question is what are you doing with the negatives? Scanning? printing at home? sending to labs? I don't think you'll see a huge difference between the Canon negs and the Contax if you are scanning on a basic rig or making small prints.
I use mine regularly (usually for summer travel ---if you forgot what that is, just Google it), but it's mostly because it's a G1 so it makes for a very lightweight kit.
The lenses are indeed great, but the big question is what are you doing with the negatives? Scanning? printing at home? sending to labs? I don't think you'll see a huge difference between the Canon negs and the Contax if you are scanning on a basic rig or making small prints.
Peter_S
Peter_S
The Contax G2 was my entry into serious photography, and no other 135 format system I have used could match or exceed its image quality. It is wonderful system, solid and quality built (in my opinion better than a Leica M6 or M7) and probably the peak as far as 135 format is concerned. I prefer the G2 to the G1, but maybe because my G2 was black?
But there are two problems.
1) as froyd pointed out...a basic scanner will not do the system justice. I have a few Flextight X1 scans, and there you start to see the difference.
2) As good as the system is, it is still 135 format, and the negative still relatively small. As much as I like the G system, I would put my money rather in medium format.
But hey, if you have a chance to shoot a while with a Contax G system, go for it. I seriously doubt you will regret it!
But there are two problems.
1) as froyd pointed out...a basic scanner will not do the system justice. I have a few Flextight X1 scans, and there you start to see the difference.
2) As good as the system is, it is still 135 format, and the negative still relatively small. As much as I like the G system, I would put my money rather in medium format.
But hey, if you have a chance to shoot a while with a Contax G system, go for it. I seriously doubt you will regret it!
FranZ
Established
I owned a G2 with the 21/2.8, the 28/2.8, the 45/2.0 and the 90/2.8. The 21 Biogon and the 45 Planar are sublime lenses, the 28 and 90 are good also. Compared to today's standards, the autofocus is basic and manual focus is almost not doable.
The viewfinder is small, but has a clever system to change magnification with the lenses (You hear, Fuji??)
Because Contax didn't provide a path to digital I sold this very nice set years ago but I sometimes drool over some adds for 2nd hand gear.
Over the years the Contax set has retained its value quite good.
On our Dutch ebay: "Marktplaats" there is an add for a black Contax G2 with the 16mm F8, 45mm F2, 28mm F2.8, 90mm F2.8 and the Vario 35-70 F3.5 black for € 2400.
Good luck with your choice.
The viewfinder is small, but has a clever system to change magnification with the lenses (You hear, Fuji??)
Because Contax didn't provide a path to digital I sold this very nice set years ago but I sometimes drool over some adds for 2nd hand gear.
Over the years the Contax set has retained its value quite good.
On our Dutch ebay: "Marktplaats" there is an add for a black Contax G2 with the 16mm F8, 45mm F2, 28mm F2.8, 90mm F2.8 and the Vario 35-70 F3.5 black for € 2400.
Good luck with your choice.
valdas
Mentor
I really loved G2 with 45mm lens, but it had an issue - shutter would fail from time to time resulting in blank frames (sometimes 4-5 frames of a film were waisted, sometimes none). I googled the issue - unfortunately I was not alone with this problem, there were people even on this forum complaining about the same issue. Any services I contacted in Europe would not fix it saying they have no spare parts. So - if you go for it, test it well and preferably buy with the warranty. But at the end of the day there will always be a probability electronics will fail in those old cameras.
AlexBG
Well-known
Why not get some L glass for your canon? I loved my eos 33 (elan 7 in UK) but understand where you are coming from, it's a tool to take photos rather than a love affair you could have with the G2.
If you want a G2 get it, try it and if you don't love it you will be able to sell it for more than what you paid for it. Prices just go up and up.
If you want a G2 get it, try it and if you don't love it you will be able to sell it for more than what you paid for it. Prices just go up and up.
gavinlg
Mentor
I had a G1 with the 28/35/45. The lenses are pretty spectacular, especially the 28 and 45. I see the camera as a pinnacle point and shoot basically. AF is fine if you're not expecting it to track people etc and if you use it within its parameters. The lenses alone are worth the system - I still haven't really found a normal (45-50mm) that's as good as the planar 45mm.
Kai-san
Filmwaster
I too prefer the G2, mostly because I find the controls more user friendly. And I found the autofocus to be slightly better than the G1. What irritated me about the G1 was that it was much noisier than the G2. It's possible that it had seen some heavy use, although it looked very nice. I gave it to my youngest kid together with the 35mm, so now I'm left with the 21, 28, 45 and 90mm. I don't think you'll regret buying the G2.
narsuitus
Well-known
I use 21, 28, 45, and 90mm Zeiss lenses on my Contax G1.
I was so impressed with the Zeiss glass that I bought a 35mm Zeiss lens for my Leica rangefinder.
35mm Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr
I was so impressed with the Zeiss glass that I bought a 35mm Zeiss lens for my Leica rangefinder.
35mm Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr