Contax T vs. T2

[raid]

Is there a big difference in the optical qualities of the lenses between these two models? The T supposedly has the better lens.

Raid

 

[steamer]

Raid, I wonder about this myself, another poster said they are the same lens, but me the T seems much sharper.

 

[raid]

steamer: FrankS also has read something to the effect that the lens of the T is the best, followed by the T3 and then lastly the T2. I wonder whether the T2 still has a sharp lens or not.

Raid

 

[steamer]

T and T2

T and T2

Here are a couple of photos that don't prove much except both lenses are nice.

Musician is T, cook T2

 

[steamer]

Two more

Two more

The Chef here is T, the lion is T2.

 

[raid]

Thanks, steamer. The photo with the T2 is not bad at all. So does the T2 have a very sharp lens?

Raid

 

[steamer]

I guess the T2 is pretty sharp, maybe it's just that the T is so much more fun to use, and with the T2 I don't like wondering if I'm really in focus or not.

 

[awilder]

The T* 38/2.8 Sonnar lenses are identical between the T and T2. Optically the T benefits from the short base optical rangefinder that can't be fooled like the active IR AF system in the T2 but the T2 does focus a bit closer to 0.7 meters vs. 1 meter with the T. The T* 35/2.8 Sonnar on the T3 is the sharpest of the series benefiting from a much improved passive AF system that focuses down to 0.4 meters. Having used the T3 and T2, the T3 takes slightly sharper images and is more capable but the T2 is much more user friendly and far less fiddley in it's operation.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

After many years I finally got a Contax T, and I love it.
I would never consider a T2 or T3. Apples and oranges...

Chris

 

[raid]

Chris: I got the Apple. I bought the T2. If I don't like it, I can sell it. I was looking for a small P&S camera with a sharp lens and at a affordable cost. The T2 meets these criteria well. The T is much more costly.

Raid

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

From what I've seen, any difference in sharpness between the T and the T2/3 is negligible. Because the T is very different from the other two it would make more sense to decide based on operation (e.g. MF vs. AF).

 

[raid]

Andrew: I agree with you on this point. I would have preferred the manual focus T but the much higher price would make it too expensive for my current needs.

Raid

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

Fair enough. I owned a T2 for a few years and enjoyed it very much, but I sold it to finance the purchase of a CV 35/1.7. Have fun with yours!

 

[raid]

Thanks Andrew. I want to make it a companion camera for a medium format wide angle camera in my next trip. If it is not sharper than my manual (guess)focus Minox GT, I will sell the T2 later on.

 

[awilder]

Raid let us know how your test shots compared to the Minox. Here are mine taken with my T2 @ f/4; full frame, center crop and left corner crop. Compare to the Rollei 35 RF 40/2.8 Sonnar on my Leica MP shown here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=696987

 

[Jeremy Z]

Well, for what (little) it's worth, if you're looking for a point & shoot a little more exotic than the Olympus Stylus Epic but less expensive than the Contaxes, consider the Yashica Ts. I had an original T4, with the 35mm f/3.5 Zeiss Tessar. It was quite sharp. Yes, I know; no manual control. Just a thought!

 

[raid]

I have two such Yashica's (T2) and both have broken down. I tired them again last night to see if they would function or not. Each sports a Zeiss Tessar 3.5.

Raid