Is there an M (or LTM) lens that 'renders like' the Zeiss 45mm/f2 Planar for Contax G-series?

[mfunnell]

I'm just wondering whether there's a Leica RF-mount lens which renders like the Zeiss 45mm/f2 Planar AF lens I have for my old (now much unused) Contax G2. If there is, could someone tell me?

While I am talking at the moment (elsewhere on RFF) about B&W only, here I'm more thinking of colour rendering (though rendering with B&W matters too). I can recall really liking the 'look' I could get with colour photos from my G2/45mm combo.

Now, the (very) obvious answer to this might well be "the ZM 50mm/f2 Planar, of course". If that's so then tell me - I've not tried that lens, thus I've no idea if it renders like the one for Contax G-series or not. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, and maybe there's something else similar or closer. Who knows 🤷‍♂️ Certainly not me.

I was hunting around for something to illustrate the 'look' I'm thinking of, and the only photo which came readily to hand was this:


Also of course, that 'look' very much depends on the film used (Portra 400 VC for this one), the development, the scanning, whatever post-processing I did or didn't do etc. (For example, a later shot, of the water cannon, from the same day - 16 freakin' years ago! - was from Portra 400 NC: a different scan from a different film etc. That one needed correcting for a nasty yellow-green colour-cast so isn't a good way to illustrate what I'm after.)

Any answers will be much appreciated 🙂

...Mike

 

[santino]

I think the 2/45 is pretty unique (correct me if I’m wrong). Instead of a new lens you could always convert your G lens to M mount.

 

[mfunnell]

I think the 2/45 is pretty unique (correct me if I’m wrong). Instead of a new lens you could always convert your G lens to M mount.

I suppose 🤔 .. But at least for now I’m not inclined to. Perhaps I should think about it. But for the moment that will be left for ‘sometime’.

…Mike

 

[cboy]

Why you need an alternative to the 45mm if there's still many copies available. Moreover you can get a conversion m lens adaptor

Contax G 45mm f/2 Zeiss Lens Leica M Mount Conversion – Excellent

"Funleader G45 45mm f/2 – Zeiss lens from Contax G re-engineered for Leica M. Precision rangefinder coupling, clean glass, great handling. $485"

myfunleader.com

 

[mfunnell]

Why you need an alternative to the 45mm if there's still many copies available. Moreover you can get a conversion m lens adaptor

Contax G 45mm f/2 Zeiss Lens Leica M Mount Conversion – Excellent

"Funleader G45 45mm f/2 – Zeiss lens from Contax G re-engineered for Leica M. Precision rangefinder coupling, clean glass, great handling. $485"

myfunleader.com

I already have a copy. But thinking specifically about colour rendering, I’ll note it only works on a 35mm film camera and, at least where I am, colour 35mm film development has become both inconvenient and quite expensive.

[EDIT]I'm quite well placed to develop then scan my own B&W film. But not C-41 or E-6 colour - and I'll likely never do either colour process.[/EDIT]

Any film I use in future (and I should, I really should) will be B&W except in very restricted circumstances.

If it’s my only option, I might get a G-series 45mm Planar converted. Thanks for the link.

If I do, I’ll buy one, not convert my own. That’s because mine is part of an original black G2 set, which I wouldn’t want to break up.

…Mike

 

[Godfrey]

What camera are you shooting with?

If digital, this is simply a matter of tuning the camera color profile used with whatever 50mm lens you might have to match the color profile you're looking for. A lens might have a particular color response that you like on a particular film, with a film camera, but the same color response can be tuned in pretty easily by manipulating a digital body's output with profiling to meet your spec. Lens qualities that cannot be so easily tuned by a camera profile are more resolution, contrast, geometry, etc. Color is almost entirely the province of body profiling/tuning with a digital camera.

If you're shooting with a film M-mount body rather than a digital M, then the usual match up is Zeiss for the Zeiss look on film. Every lens and film combination has its specific color rendering.

G

 

[mfunnell]

What camera are you shooting with?

If digital, this is simply a matter of tuning the camera color profile used with whatever 50mm lens you might have to match the color profile you're looking for. A lens might have a particular color response that you like on a particular film, with a film camera, but the same color response can be tuned in pretty easily by manipulating a digital body's output with profiling to meet your spec. Lens qualities that cannot be so easily tuned by a camera profile are more resolution, contrast, geometry, etc. Color is almost entirely the province of body profiling/tuning with a digital camera.

If you're shooting with a film M-mount body rather than a digital M, then the usual match up is Zeiss for the Zeiss look on film. Every lens and film combination has its specific color rendering.

G

I guess I maybe could or should have been more clear here: I was asking about the "overall look" including (but not limited to) the colour response.

I suppose, with digital, and with sufficient work and skull sweat, you could simulate more-or-less anything (at least to a point, and to some level of precision). I'm more interested in (if I can) just changing lenses to change the 'look' rather than shooting with whatever comes to hand then trying to simulate what I'm after in digital post-processing. In this particular case I was merely wondering "is there any Leica RF lens out there that, to some degree or other, renders things the way the Planar 45mm/f2 renders things for film?" For film, I guess, but I'm thinking more for digital. If I'm using film anyway, then I might as well just use my G2.

Perhaps there isn't. If not, then I need to think on what (if anything) I might do about that.

...Mike

 

[Erik van Straten]

Very interesting question. I've always wondered why a digital G1/G2 wasn't made, especially to be able to use the fantastic "G" lenses digitally.

Erik.

 

[mfunnell]

Very interesting question. I've always wondered why a digital G1/G2 wasn't made, especially to be able to use the fantastic "G" lenses digitally.

Erik.

Indeed the Zeiss "G" lenses for that Contax were very good. I have the 28mm Biogon, the 90mm Sonnar and the 45mm Planar. All are very nice lenses - but I have to say that (for me, at least) the 45mm has a kind of "magic" to it that the others, good as they are, don't quite match. I believe that, later, there was a 35mm added to the 'G' stable, and also a 35mm-70mm zoom (I think there was a firmware upgrade needed to support them, which I never had, since I never had the lenses).

I guess, though, that Zeiss got out of the Contax (and Zeiss-branded) camera business while Kyocera seems to have got out of the photography game completely (though anyone should feel free to correct me on this - I might easily be wrong) so there was no real institutional 'push' for a "Digital 'G' camera". More's the pity. I suppose I should just feel lucky that ZM lenses still exist (I only have one, the Zeiss 18mm Distagon - which I really like - but want the possibility of buying others should circumstances suggest).

...Mike

[EDIT]I just recalled that I also have the ZM C-Sonnar 50mm/f1.5. I should look for it, and try using it again. It's been a while.[/EDIT]

 

[Erik van Straten]

I also used the 45mm the most. If I were as wise as I am now 30 years ago I would have only bought the 45mm - I used the 28mm and the 90mm very little - but I'll take it from you that the 45mm was extraordinary. I only have the G1, adding the G2 seemed a bit excessive to me.
Anyway, it's a pity that this nice system only existed for such a short time.

gelatin silver print (planar 45mm f2) contax g1

Zagreb 1995

Erik.

 

[Freakscene]

Indeed the Zeiss "G" lenses for that Contax were very good. I have the 28mm Biogon, the 90mm Sonnar and the 45mm Planar. All are very nice lenses - but I have to say that (for me, at least) the 45mm has a kind of "magic" to it that the others, good as they are, don't quite match. I believe that, later, there was a 35mm added to the 'G' stable, and also a 35mm-70mm zoom (I think there was a firmware upgrade needed to support them, which I never had, since I never had the lenses).

I guess, though, that Zeiss got out of the Contax (and Zeiss-branded) camera business while Kyocera seems to have got out of the photography game completely (though anyone should feel free to correct me on this - I might easily be wrong) so there was no real institutional 'push' for a "Digital 'G' camera". More's the pity. I suppose I should just feel lucky that ZM lenses still exist (I only have one, the Zeiss 18mm Distagon - which I really like - but want the possibility of buying others should circumstances suggest).

...Mike

Other way around. Kyocera got burned financially on a number of digital camera projects, notably the Contax N digital, the first ‘full frame’ 24x36mm sensor dSLR to market, and told Zeiss they weren’t making cameras anymore. Zeiss took the Contax brand name, and the whole thing fell apart. The next Zeiss digital camera for photography, the ZX1, seemed promising, but was discontinued before most of us saw one. I’m still not sure if it really made it to market.

The sensor in my N digital failed but it remains the paperweight most likely to win an industrial design award.

 

[newst]

I can't tell you whether, to your eyes, a lens' color rendering will match what you want. What I can do is recommend two LTM lenses, the Topcor 1.8/50, and the Konica Hexanon 1.9/50. Check out their images online (I would start at FLICKR) to see if either will satisfy you.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I've seen the 45mm Zeiss Planar for Contax lens compared to the 50mm Planar ZM, but I don't recall anyone ever doing a direct side-by-side comparison.

Ken Rockwell (for what it's worth) wrote "... this lens [50mm Planar ZM] makes images that look like it might actually be closer to 45mm (the 45mm f/2 Planar in the Contax G2 system is actually 48mm)."

Karl-Johan Vogelius wrote: "... somewhat unusual characteristic of the Planar is that it’s seemingly just a slight bit wider than the stated 50mm focal length. It’s not really apparent in general use, but can be noticeable when switching between 50mm lenses and it doesn't feel too far off from the 40mm lenses I’ve shot in the past. Makes sense as there are claims that it’s closely based on the Zeiss 45/2 Planar for the Contax G series cameras."

It might be an interesting direct side-by-side comparison to see from someone who has both Contax G and Leica M systems.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (zeiss planar 45mm f2) contax g1

Belarus, 1996

Erik.

 

[Evergreen States]

Very interesting question. I've always wondered why a digital G1/G2 wasn't made, especially to be able to use the fantastic "G" lenses digitally.

Erik.

The Fuji X-Pro series is probably the closest digital equivalent to the Contax G series, particularly the X-Pro1 and X-Pro2, whose optical viewfinders have a slide-in magnifier for 50mm to 135mm equivalent lenses. This feature, as well as support for 28mm equivalent frame lines, was dropped for the X-Pro3.

Of course, Contax G lenses would have to be adapted and it's much simpler to use Fujifilm's excellent XF primes or zooms.

 

[d__b]

I've seen the 45mm Zeiss Planar for Contax lens compared to the 50mm Planar ZM, but I don't recall anyone ever doing a direct side-by-side comparison.

Ken Rockwell (for what it's worth) wrote "... this lens [50mm Planar ZM] makes images that look like it might actually be closer to 45mm (the 45mm f/2 Planar in the Contax G2 system is actually 48mm)."

Karl-Johan Vogelius wrote: "... somewhat unusual characteristic of the Planar is that it’s seemingly just a slight bit wider than the stated 50mm focal length. It’s not really apparent in general use, but can be noticeable when switching between 50mm lenses and it doesn't feel too far off from the 40mm lenses I’ve shot in the past. Makes sense as there are claims that it’s closely based on the Zeiss 45/2 Planar for the Contax G series cameras."

It might be an interesting direct side-by-side comparison to see from someone who has both Contax G and Leica M systems.

I remember looking at the Zeiss's own marketing material for both lenses and their diagrams and even their MTF charts looked identical. Also, a lot of the other ZM lenses seem to match Contax G lenses (28 2.8, 35 2.0 etc)

 

[peterm1]

If you are also thinking of a lens in a similar (though not identical) focal length the Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 Nokton (which of course is in Leica M mount). I did own one and liked it very much in many ways, but I found that 40mm is a bit wide for much of my shooting and in the end felt I had to sell it as it did not get sufficient use to justify me keeping it (especially given I wanted to fund a new purchase of some other lens - as often happens in my case!!). You would need to make your own decision about how comparable it is, but I always found its colors to be excellent if this is what you are specifically interested in.

A photo I took with it is at the bottom of this post and a link to a review by Philip Preeve, containing yet more photos is immediately above it. You decide how it compares. Be aware that it was made in both multicoated and single coated variants - the latter for those who wanted a specifically "classic" look in black and white images. Mine was in the MC form.

Review: Voigtländer VM 40mm 1.4 Nokton MC - phillipreeve.net

The Voigtländer VM 40mm 1.4 Nokton Classic is a very compact 40mm lens for Leica M-mount. Does the small size also

phillipreeve.net

Fiefy by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

 

[mfunnell]

I can't tell you whether, to your eyes, a lens' color rendering will match what you want. What I can do is recommend two LTM lenses, the Topcor 1.8/50, and the Konica Hexanon 1.9/50. Check out their images online (I would start at FLICKR) to see if either will satisfy you.

I've seen the 45mm Zeiss Planar for Contax lens compared to the 50mm Planar ZM, but I don't recall anyone ever doing a direct side-by-side comparison.

Ken Rockwell (for what it's worth) wrote "... this lens [50mm Planar ZM] makes images that look like it might actually be closer to 45mm (the 45mm f/2 Planar in the Contax G2 system is actually 48mm)."

Karl-Johan Vogelius wrote: "... somewhat unusual characteristic of the Planar is that it’s seemingly just a slight bit wider than the stated 50mm focal length. It’s not really apparent in general use, but can be noticeable when switching between 50mm lenses and it doesn't feel too far off from the 40mm lenses I’ve shot in the past. Makes sense as there are claims that it’s closely based on the Zeiss 45/2 Planar for the Contax G series cameras."

It might be an interesting direct side-by-side comparison to see from someone who has both Contax G and Leica M systems.

I remember looking at the Zeiss's own marketing material for both lenses and their diagrams and even their MTF charts looked identical. Also, a lot of the other ZM lenses seem to match Contax G lenses (28 2.8, 35 2.0 etc)

Thank you, all of those I've just quoted, and others, for your replies. It looks as if, maybe, my initial take ("the ZM 50mm/f2 Planar, of course") might be the most straightforward thing to try, initially. I'll confess to being tempted by the Konica Hexanon 50mm/f1.9, simply because I've had very good experiences with, and a liking for, Konica lenses. If the ZM doesn't do it for me, I might give it a try 🤷‍♂️

As to the similarities with the Fujifilm X-Pro series, I entirely agree: both that it seems the closest modern/digital system to the Contax G-series film cameras and that the (excellent, IME) native XF lenses are worthwhile on their own account (meaning I'm unlikely to look to adapt lenses from outside that system).

Again, thanks 👍😃

...Mike

 

[anerjee]

I'm just wondering whether there's a Leica RF-mount lens which renders like the Zeiss 45mm/f2 Planar AF lens I have for my old (now much unused) Contax G2. If there is, could someone tell me?

While I am talking at the moment (elsewhere on RFF) about B&W only, here I'm more thinking of colour rendering (though rendering with B&W matters too). I can recall really liking the 'look' I could get with colour photos from my G2/45mm combo.

Now, the (very) obvious answer to this might well be "the ZM 50mm/f2 Planar, of course". If that's so then tell me - I've not tried that lens, thus I've no idea if it renders like the one for Contax G-series or not. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, and maybe there's something else similar or closer. Who knows 🤷‍♂️ Certainly not me.

I was hunting around for something to illustrate the 'look' I'm thinking of, and the only photo which came readily to hand was this:
View attachment 4826160

Also of course, that 'look' very much depends on the film used (Portra 400 VC for this one), the development, the scanning, whatever post-processing I did or didn't do etc. (For example, a later shot, of the water cannon, from the same day - 16 freakin' years ago! - was from Portra 400 NC: a different scan from a different film etc. That one needed correcting for a nasty yellow-green colour-cast so isn't a good way to illustrate what I'm after.)

Any answers will be much appreciated 🙂

...Mike

I've shot with the contax G 45/2, as well as the last pre-asph summicron and the zm planar.

The 45/2 is not the same as any of the other lens, and I can still pick it out based on the look. If you want the same on a M mount, you may as well get a conversion done.

You can take a look at is the Zeiss c-biogon 35mm f/2.8 -- though the lens are quite different, both have similarities on how they render (sharpness, color, overall "punchiness" etc)

 

[mfunnell]

I've shot with the contax G 45/2, as well as the last pre-asph summicron and the zm planar.

The 45/2 is not the same as any of the other lens, and I can still pick it out based on the look. If you want the same on a M mount, you may as well get a conversion done.

You can take a look at is the Zeiss c-biogon 35mm f/2.8 -- though the lens are quite different, both have similarities on how they render (sharpness, color, overall "punchiness" etc)

That's kind of my concern with going ahead with anything but converting an actual G 45mm/f2 planar - that I might buy something (most likely the ZM 50mm/f2 Planar) then find it doesn't do what I want anyway. (In addition, I wonder/worry about the logistics of getting and converting said G-series Planar).

I also worry, more than a bit, about buying yet another Leica RF 50mm-ish lens (I already have 7 😱 seven! 😂) of which I mostly use three with any regularity (for the record, my Elmar-M 50mm/f2.8, my M-Hexanon 50mm/f2 and my Canon 50mm/f1.4 in LTM .. in descending order of frequency). It doesn't seem, well, efficient to buy another 50 if I won't use it. Decisions, decisions 🤔

...Mike