Zeiss Contax questions

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

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!

[Lliam Worthington]

Hi Jeffrey,

http://photo.net/equipment/contax/shea-lenses
http://www.leitax.com/zeiss-contax-l...x-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

[Nick Morrison]

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.

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

Thanks guys!

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks guys!

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.

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

Which adapter rings do you guys like?

[Nick Morrison]

Which adapter rings do you guys like?

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....

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

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 :-)

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

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.

[Lliam Worthington]

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.

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