CONTAX ZEISS: LIKE SUPERSPEEDS

[Paul Schneider]

Yep. Nice revisions. I know enough to be dangerous. ;-)
Loving my Contax's. All are the perfect size and sharpness for most of what I need to do with the Scarlet/Epic.

I prefer the faster versions on the wider end. It depends on what you're doing, but generally speaking those are gonna be the lenses you end up stuck in a tight, dark room with so 1.4 (or even the rare 1.2's) are quite lovely.

I can also definitely confirm the sharpness of the 135 2.8...damn sharp that lens. The 85 1.4 also resolves incredibly well.

[Ben Scott]

Any thoughts on the 85 f2.8?

[Nick Morrison]

Any thoughts on the 85 f2.8?

The 85 2.8 is great.

Very sharp and contrasty even wide open. The AE flares A LOT (I love it). The MM is supposed to control flares much better.

This Sonnar 2.8 design is reportedly one of Zeiss's more venerated, legacy designs. My Hasselblad C 80 2.8 looks pretty much IDENTICAL (I've compared them both, and couldn't believe how exact they lined up).

I wouldn't be be surprised if even older, rangefinder Zeiss lenses also used a variant.

The Sonnar's generaly have much more even performance across apertures (there's less glass elements, and the more conservative design generally results in robust, contrasty and sharp resolution across the iris). Whereas the more modern and faster "Planars", by having more glass, tend to have more fluctuations in performance (less resolution and contrast wide open...etc).

I think Zeiss is bringing this design back for Sony, as an affordable prime.

Hope this helps.


PS - the 100 3.5 Sonnar is even more conservative and sharp. It's slower, but frequently talked about as one of the sharpest Contax lenses in the lineup. Till 5.6...it's said to be SHARPER even than it's big brother, the well known 100mm f2. I have own the 3.5, and yes...it IS very sharp.

[Ben Scott]

Thanks for the reply. I may well have to take the plunge then. :)

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks for the reply. I may well have to take the plunge then. :)

Haha, it's a good lens. I went a bit of the rails there describing it there :). Get the MM if you want to avoid the flaring and "ninja-star" aperture. But if you like flare and a slightly lower contrast coating, the AE is great. Enjoy.

[Nick Morrison]

Just found this amazing post from Mitch Gross, from 2004.

Zeiss repackaged their Superspeeds and sold them as still lenses for the Contax SLR still camera. Someone in England realized that they could replace the Contax mount with an Aaton mount and the depth would just barely fit for the Aaton camera.

BOOM!

Ive been HEARING for 2 years that the Contax 35, 50 and 85 1.4 were just re-packaged Super Speeds, but could never find a RELIABLE source. Unti now! Mitch Gross is certainly a source I find inspiring.

He's since sold his set, but I know back in the day he would would use his Contax "Super Speeds" in conjunction wth S16 Distagons.

[Nick Morrison]

And...if that's the case, then I think it's safe to say that these two "Standard Speed" telephotos were probably re-packaged for Contax as well: the 135 T2, and the 180 T3.

I think it's a good bet these are the same as the Contax 135 F2, and the Contax 180 2.8.

[Jeff Wong]

The Super Speeds open up to a T1.3, or closer to f1.2, so they're probably not exactly the same. I'd love to try the Contax versions, but the Super Speeds are hit and miss for me. They flare like crazy, and on one shoot I was asked to shoot T1.3 in overcast broad daylight by an inexperienced DP - needless to say the images weren't very good. Stopped down they can be pretty sharp, but bokeh is kinda busy - on things like foliage it can be a bit distracting. This is part of the Zeiss 'pop' though, and comes with the package. Definitely nice flares. Vintage lenses in general take the edge off of digital sensors, which I think is a nice combination. At the end of the day I feel like they are still more of a 'rent' set of lenses because of how specialized they are (they're also the cheapest cinema lenses to rent!), so even if the Contax 'set' is much cheaper, I don't know if I could drop 10k on such a specialized look...

[Nick Morrison]

So even if the Contax 'set' is much cheaper, I don't know if I could drop 10k on such a specialized look...

Not sure it would cost you that much, depends on what you were getting. The 18 f4, 28 f2, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, and 135 f2 can be had for 5K. Add a trip to Duclos and make it 6.5k.

[Paul Schneider]

Not sure it would cost you that much, depends on what you were getting. The 18 f4, 28 f2, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, and 135 f2 can be had for 5K. Add a trip to Duclos and make it 6.5k.

I recently put together a very clean set 21 f2.8, 28 f2. 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4, and 135 f2.8
Was very picky to get the dates as close as possible and the glass/housings in good shape. The price including the leitax mounts and duclos conversions was about to 8K. I'm sure a bit of luck and more searching could've knocked about $500-800 off the overall price, but think that number is pretty close to the standard now. Unfortunately for those searching the prices have risen lately...so an 8K budget going in is prob a safe bet. Any savings from that would just be a nice bonus.