froyd
Veteran
Question for those of you who had a Contax G system and sold it: what lenses did you buy to replace your G glass? Did the new lenses meet the high standards set by the planar, sonnar and biogon?
I'm in a love/hate relationship with the system, and I'm now in a hate phase
so I'm considering options. If I let go of the G lenses will I be able to live without those wonderful colors and crisp rendering? Do the ZM lenses come close? That's probably all I would have money for, not modern Leica glass.
I'm in a love/hate relationship with the system, and I'm now in a hate phase
so I'm considering options. If I let go of the G lenses will I be able to live without those wonderful colors and crisp rendering? Do the ZM lenses come close? That's probably all I would have money for, not modern Leica glass.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I shot with the ContaxG system (21mm, 28, 35, 45 & 90mm lenses) for about 7 years. Nothing wrong with the cameras and, yes, the lenses are superb.
I now shoot with mostly Zeiss Ikon 28mm and 35mm M-mount lenses. They are as good optically as the ContaxG lenses.
However I will also add that I cannot see an appreciable difference between those and the CV, Hexanon, and Leica glass that I have owned.
I now shoot with mostly Zeiss Ikon 28mm and 35mm M-mount lenses. They are as good optically as the ContaxG lenses.
However I will also add that I cannot see an appreciable difference between those and the CV, Hexanon, and Leica glass that I have owned.
froyd
Veteran
Good to hear you say that Bob.
I know you have a long experience with the Contax G system, so your input carries a lot of weight in my book. Still, I'm surprised by the fact that you noticed little difference between the G lenses and those from other manufacturers.
I only had CV and Nikon lenses before the G, and I still remember the WOW factor of looking at the pictures from my first roll shot on the Contax. It was a color film and the saturation, contrast, sharpness etc combined to give me an eye wallop I never experienced again... that is, until I saw the first roll come out of my Rolleiflex!
I know you have a long experience with the Contax G system, so your input carries a lot of weight in my book. Still, I'm surprised by the fact that you noticed little difference between the G lenses and those from other manufacturers.
I only had CV and Nikon lenses before the G, and I still remember the WOW factor of looking at the pictures from my first roll shot on the Contax. It was a color film and the saturation, contrast, sharpness etc combined to give me an eye wallop I never experienced again... that is, until I saw the first roll come out of my Rolleiflex!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I ran Contax G2 (21-45-90, as far as I recall) alongside Leica for a couple of years.
Yes, the lenses were very, very good (shame about the focusing, though). They're up there with the very best. But equally, I've often taken better pictures with other lenses on other systems. The lenses don't always have the technical knockout factor, but some do, and besides, I care more and more about the picture knockout value, not the lens knockout value. Frankly, I can't get as excited about lenses as some people do -- and besides, 'magic' appears in many different ways: on Leica, 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar, 18/4 Distagon, 24/1.4 Summilux, 35/1.4 Summilux, 50/1.5 C-Sonnar, 75/2 Summicron, 90/2.2 Thambar, 135/2.8 Elmarit; on other 35mm, 21/4 and 58/1.4 Nikkor on Nikon, and 58/2 Biotar on Exakta; or on the Alpa, 38/4.5 on 44x66m; or on 6x7cm, 100/2.8 Planar (alas, the first but not the second); or on 4x5 inch, 150/4.5 Apo-Lanthar or 150/6.3 Tessar. Generalizations about systems as a whole strike me as a bit pointless, though not quite as pointless as generalizations about particular design types (Tessar, Sonnar, whatever).
Cheers,
R.
Yes, the lenses were very, very good (shame about the focusing, though). They're up there with the very best. But equally, I've often taken better pictures with other lenses on other systems. The lenses don't always have the technical knockout factor, but some do, and besides, I care more and more about the picture knockout value, not the lens knockout value. Frankly, I can't get as excited about lenses as some people do -- and besides, 'magic' appears in many different ways: on Leica, 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar, 18/4 Distagon, 24/1.4 Summilux, 35/1.4 Summilux, 50/1.5 C-Sonnar, 75/2 Summicron, 90/2.2 Thambar, 135/2.8 Elmarit; on other 35mm, 21/4 and 58/1.4 Nikkor on Nikon, and 58/2 Biotar on Exakta; or on the Alpa, 38/4.5 on 44x66m; or on 6x7cm, 100/2.8 Planar (alas, the first but not the second); or on 4x5 inch, 150/4.5 Apo-Lanthar or 150/6.3 Tessar. Generalizations about systems as a whole strike me as a bit pointless, though not quite as pointless as generalizations about particular design types (Tessar, Sonnar, whatever).
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
jgran
Member
There's always the option of converting your Contax G lens to Leica M through the folks at Japan Exposures:
http://www.japanexposures.com/lens/
A bit expensive esp with the weak dollar. IIRC Raid reviewed the converted 45/2 planar in a thread a while back.
Jorge
http://www.japanexposures.com/lens/
A bit expensive esp with the weak dollar. IIRC Raid reviewed the converted 45/2 planar in a thread a while back.
Jorge
j j
Well-known
froyd
What not just kiss and make up? New partners and new camera systems are expensive and one eventually goes through a fed up with them phase, too.
What not just kiss and make up? New partners and new camera systems are expensive and one eventually goes through a fed up with them phase, too.
froyd
Veteran
Roger, your point is well taken, but I'm looking for specific lens recommendations from forum members who, like me, wanted to approximate the look of the G lenses on an M-mount camera without going the Japan Exposure route.
Now I have an M4 and a handful of Leica 2.8 lenses from the '60s. I'm sure they'll keep me happy and deliver good images, but if I wanted that G45 Planar rendering, what would be my options? Does the ZM Planar come close? Do I need to step up to really expensive Leica lenses?
Now I have an M4 and a handful of Leica 2.8 lenses from the '60s. I'm sure they'll keep me happy and deliver good images, but if I wanted that G45 Planar rendering, what would be my options? Does the ZM Planar come close? Do I need to step up to really expensive Leica lenses?
nonot
Well-known
Tricky one, I borrowed a planar 50 for a couple months from a friend (to "replace" the G 45) I didn't get the same feeling from it, but that's just me. I gave up my G system for an M system, but I ended up buying a G2 again because for me it was always a pleasure to use.
froyd
Veteran
I just might.
If my only options are $2000 Leica lenses, selling the G system won't raise enough cash to help finance the purchase. If, on the other hand, other < $1000 are available to give me the look I want, then I might sell the Contax and some older Leica lenses and replace my lens line-up.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
A $15 Yashica FR-1 and a $75 Contax C/Y Planar 50/1.4 will give you the Zeiss "look" if that's what you're really after.
Just saying.
Just saying.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A very fair point, but I'm not sure we all see the same things in a lens. For me, the Zeiss 21/4.5 M-mount (or old Contax mount) is a better lens than the Contax G-21; the 90 Contax was nothing special and was the worst at focusing (I prefer the 75 Summicron but have not tried the 90 Summicron ASPH); and in 50s, I prefer the Sonnar-C even though it's very, very different lens. Arguably, the current 35/2 and 50/2 Zeiss/Cosina offerings are better than the G-45 as well, but much more similar to it than the Sonnar-C.
There's an old saying: "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." It is generally taken to mean, "Don't get hung up on what you remember, and still less, on what you think you remember."
Cheers,
R.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
As did I. I re-bought a G2 body for the 21 and 16 lenses, and then stumbled into a great deal on a 45. The G21 and 16 are remarkable lenses in my book, and with the Leica Frankenfinder one can have a very M-like view of things.