CONTAX ZEISS: LIKE SUPERSPEEDS

[Nick Morrison]

so how can one distinguish between Contax lenses for 120 film (645) and those for FF 35mm film?

Michael, "Contax 645" lenses are almost always marked as such. To make sure you are getting FF35 Contax Lenses, make sure they say "C/Y" mount, which stands for CONTAX/YASHICA. Yashica was their Japanese manufacturing partner that helped them mass produce these FF35 lenses. The common mount also allowed Yashica to make more affordable lenses that helped budget conscious photographers mix and match Zeiss lenses with the more affordable Yashica glass to create a full set.

Also, is there a series of Contax zooms that you recommend? Ones that overlap or butt together to cover a nice full range. 17-35, 35-70, 70-700, etc....

Contax Zeiss has some great zooms. They only caveat is that unlike Leica R, the Contax Zooms are PUSH/PULL. Meaning you focus and zoom all at once on the barrel. Focusing and zooming aren't SEPARATED like they usually are. PUSH/PULL is great for run and gun, but makes it difficult to use a follow focus as the barrel is constantly in motion and never in one place.

Optically though, Contax Zeiss has some blisteringly good zooms. Our DP this weekend, Joe Victorine, texted me this after using my Contax 28-85 on the Ferry:

I just jizzed my pants over your Contax. I want!!!

He then added

Contrast and sharpness are insane. But still somehow soft.

When he came back to set, he checked the wave forms of the shots, and when compared to his Leica R's, the low-con Contax look was giving him about an extra stop on latitude, which he loved.

Optically, Contax has some great zooms. Here's a great starting point:


CONTAX 28-85 3.3-F4
--> This to me is the most USABLE Contax Zoom. It's very large, and very heavy, has great range, and has fantastic all manual focusing. The focus rotation is massive, easily btw 270 and 360 degrees. It's the lens Joe is talking about in his texts above. Zeiss in their literature on this lens state that they were trying to make this zoom essentially a variable prime, as the MTF ratings clearly show this lens being WICKED SHARP. At 28mm, it close focuses even better than the 28mm 2.8 prime.

This lens is FANTASTIC.


CONTAX 35-70 3.4
--> This is arguably Contax's most famous zoom. It's become something of a cult classic, because it's even more conservative and high performing than the 28-85. It's become quite popular with travel photographers, as stopped down it delivers massive resoltion for landscapes. Also, the MACRO function is between a 3:1 and 2:1 and is incredibly useful. The IQ on this lens is pretty insane. It's getting very, very hard to find, so get it now because in a year...it will be gone.

Also, the constant 3.4 aperture is very useful.

That being said, I still find the 28-85 more versatile for shooting.


CONTAX 80-200 F4
--> This lens is insanely cheap. You can get a perfectly clean one for $300. I'd argue it's one of the best $300 you'll ever spend on a lens or any piece of gear. It's not INSANELY sharp, the MTF charts place it just below the other zooms listed above, but the LOOK and IQ are through the roof. I use this lens ALL THE TIME. The focus rotation is like like the 28-85, from 270 to 360 degrees. Also it has a great Marco 4:1 function when you are at 200mm. Paired with the 28-85, this zoom is KILLER.


CONTAX 100-300 4.5-5.6
This is a very famous zoom. I've seen it referred to as "the 35-70 on steroids". Essentially, this zoom has MTF ratings that BLOW primes out of the water. It's quite slow, but the sharpness and IQ are supposed to be mind boggling. People like to pair it up with the 35-70 for a great one two punch. I've only used this zoom once, and I think it needed to be serviced, so I can't speak first hand about this one. But it's reputation precedes it. Priced usually way over $1000, if you can find one affordably, run don't walk to get it.


CONTAX N 17-35 2.8
WARNING!!! This is a Contax N lens. From Zeiss's very short lived AUTOFOCUS line. This zoom though is supposed to be AMAZING. It's frequently compared to the superb Nikon 17-35. The CONTAX N mount is extremely hard to adapt to ANYTHING. However, CONURUS in Vancouver (for $500) can completely replace the mount and make it EOS. If you find this lens affordably, I'd give it a shot.

Hope this helps!!!

[Timothy Jones]

Nick

Any of the awesome work you guys do on your site done with ziess contact?
You have sold me I bought a 50 and 85 1.4
yesterday. Now I have to wait for the leitex mounts to try them out.
Thanks
Tim

[Nick Morrison]

Nick

Any of the awesome work you guys do on your site done with ziess contact?
You have sold me I bought a 50 and 85 1.4
yesterday. Now I have to wait for the leitex mounts to try them out.
Thanks
Tim

All the "All You Can Eat" week stuf was shot on Zeiss Contax. As was a new pilot we have "Trouble with Charlie", but hasn't been posted. Some of the "Sundance Nutella" was shot on Contax, intermixed with Ultraprimes (believe it or not).

Yeah, start with the 50 and 85. See if you like em. The 35 1.4 is for when you're really serious. And again....these aren't everyone's cup of tea. I just happen to love them. That being said, Ive been working with Leica R's the past month as well, and those are doozies too.

[Nick Morrison]

Just a little note here to say that I helped Ryan De Franco participate in a little informal test recently, where we compared:

CONTAX ZEISS PRIMES to: SUPER SPEEDS and STANDARD PRIMES.

Much thanks to Steve Gall for helping out with this very informal, not highly scientific (but still 1/2 way serious) test.

Results? I'll let Ryan add his own 2 cents here, as it was really his test I was dropping in on, obvserving like a UN poll watcher, but here was the general "unscientific" first impressions:


1) The coatings for ALL OF THEM look REMARKABLY similar. We threw up some Cooke Speed Pancros for comparison, and the difference was shocking. The Contax, Supers and Standards are without a doubt PART OF THE SAME FAMILY. I brought a Hasselblad 50 2.8 (T* coating from same era) and same thing. SAME FAMILY.

The serial numbers for the Contax glass were all in the 6's. A mixture of AE and MM's. The STANDARDS serials were in the 69's (so very matching; the coating looked a BIT bluer, fyi, consistently on all the glass). These were MK IIs. The Supers were in the 79's (MK IIIs).

Flaring, etc was all VERY SIMILAR for these Zeisses.

Ryan went home and checked his R3D's and at 5.6 ALL THE LENSES LOOKED IDENTICAL at matching focal lengths. Except of course the Contax are worth a lot less...and cover 6K and beyond.


2) The Supers and Contax looked equally SOFT wide open.

3) The Standards were the sharpest wide open at T2. But have the smallest image circle. Pick your poison.

4) The Standards were a bit bluer than the Supers and Contax (makes sense, the coating looked bluer). I wonder if these Standards ever had their coating replaced. I'd like to check another set.

The Supers and Contax were warmer, with the Contax being a tad more so. Again, Ryan can speak more to this.


So the Contax glass did GREAT in this test. Lets not fool ourselves. They will never have the amazing markings and full blown cinema-mechanics of Zeiss MKII/MKIII Super Speeds or Standard Speeds. But if you cine-mod them properly they will get you alot of the way there, and cover 6K and beyond. They'll cover Dragon, and the sensor after that (assuming that one is 5D full frame).

So they are good buy if you LIKE the older Zeiss look. But you may not. You make like a modern, cleaner look that the ZF/ZE/CP2 family will give you. Which is a fine choice too. Their coatings are newer (more saturation, more contrast), and they have started to add some new designs (the 35f2, 50f2, etc that are all RAZOR SHARP; more designs are on the way). So this is not a question of what is better. Just a question of the options available.

Leica R's are amazing. Nikkor's are great. So MANY options. Contax are just one of them. As are Standards and Supers. If I had the cash, I'd probably buy a set of those too.

Hope this helps. Have fun shooting. Whatever glass you buy/like.

PS - please don't ask to see any R3D's as this was an informal test, and our incredibly generous model was there for 30mins quickly and was certainly not primed with makeup and hair in way she deserves if she's going to have a ton of people gawking at her test shots. One day, a real more scientific test will be done. This was just a quick, barebones test for our own edification...and now for yours.

[Lliam Worthington]

Thanks Nick (and Ryan) this has become a great source of information and terrific feel good thread for Contax owners. Great work guys.

Best

Lliam

[Christopher Mills]

My mark I standards (no test post yet) also have a matching bluish coating.. yet are very flattering to human skin.

[Nick Morrison]

My mark I standards (no test post yet) also have a matching bluish coating.. yet are very flattering to human skin.

Oh cool! So I guess that's how Standards are! Awesome! Thanks for the info Chris.

[Tom Greenberg]

Thanks Nick (and Ryan) this has become a great source of information and terrific feel good thread for Contax owners. Great work guys.

Best

Lliam

I agree, Liam...I have re-read this thread numerous times, and I get additional info each time. Thanks to all (especially Nick!!) who have willingly shared their knowledge of these great lenses. You've really helped me with the process of assembling my set!

[Nick Morrison]

I agree, Liam...I have re-read this thread numerous times, and I get additional info each time. Thanks to all (especially Nick!!) who have willingly shared their knowledge of these great lenses. You've really helped me with the process of assembling my set!

Tom your AE set is SICK!!! Those mods you are doing at RP lens look GREAT!!!!!

[Clayton Burkhart]

Even though many of the "Z" designs are directly inherited from Contax, the biggest difference in these new "Z" lenses was the coating. More modern and contrasty, the ZF/ZE line no loger had the "low con" look that was a signature of older Zeiss glass (think Standard Primes, etc).

Baloney. I have compared my 35/50/85 f1.4's against the ZF's and compact primes. They are all exactly the same in terms of sharpness and contrast. Wide open and stopped down. The only exception is the 50/1.4, which is actually worse on the more modern stuff.