Best lens for contax IIa or IIIa

L

LOOP

maraboutflash
Local time
2:17 PM
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
158
The first lens I got by pure luck is opton 50 mm1,5, I was astonisdhed by the quality, not only B & W also le "rendu des couleurs"...
What is now the second lens I should buy ?
21 mm , 35 mm or 85 mm. Well , i know it depends what I want to do , what kind of pictures, but speaking about the characteristic of the lens : what is best ?

I have seen a Leica shop in wien with a whole range of contax lens ?
What do you think ? Are there some other good shops in europe ?
 
I have used all, and believe that all are uniformly excellent. Just be sure that you buy the post-war 35 and 85. The post-war 35 is an improved design, and all post-war lenses are coated.
 
It is hard to say without knowing what you like to do. But I'll put in a vote for the long lenses. The 135/4 is an underrated gem and the 85/2 is just exquisite.

William
 
William,
You surprised me -- I expected a plug for the 50/3.5 rigid Tessar :D.

The 21mm Biogon has received a lot of well deserved praise but I am absolutely astounded by the 35/2.8 Biogon. I've managed to accumulate every Contax lens I've ever wanted with the exception of the 75/1.5 Biotar and one of the ironic things about the Zeiss glass is that some of the easiest to find and most popular lenses they produced are also their best (35 Biogon, 50/1.5 and 2 Sonnar, 85/2 and 135/4). Some of the more obscure lenses (and more expensive) like the Biotar, Biometar, Orthometar, Planar, etc. do not necessarily perform better than the readily available Sonnars and Biogons -- just my ever-so humble opinion :)...
 
I'd probably go for a postwar 35mm Biogon. You cannot use the East German Biogon or the prewar Biogon on the IIa/IIIa.
 
Honu-Hugger said:
William,
You surprised me -- I expected a plug for the 50/3.5 rigid Tessar :D.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's a great lens and I do love that look, but I wanted to suggest something that might not get mentioned - especially here in the land of WA lovers :angel: Plus things that could be found easily might be better for his uses :D

William
 
I was humbled to think that the love of Western Australia (WA) extended far beyond these antipodean shores!!
 
There is a business of faking Carl Zeiss Jena lenses by changing the front ring of Russian post-war lenses, i.e. the Sonnars. Be carefull when you buy an alloy lens and learn to see the differences. I've also seen fakes in well-known camera shops.
This is not say the Russian are bad lenses, but when you pay for it, you want an original.

cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras
 
Honu-Hugger : I'd love if you could post a photo of those Biometar lenses! They sound so mysterious to me! (in contax mount) :D

thanks,
max
 
Honestly, for all the different focal lengths I've managed to collect thus far, the postwar Carl Zeiss 50/1.5 is used in 95% of my shots with the Contax II or IIA.

Its just the ideal 50mm camera. As soon as you get into other finders and such, the camera loses a lot of its handling advantages IMO. Telephotos are better handled on an SLR.
 
I still have a post-war 35mm Biogon to sell. it's stunningly nice and was serviced by Henry Scherer. I also have the 135/4.0 Sonnar available for sale, too. I've juyst been too lazy to list them on eBay. I'll get these into the classifieds here this weekend, along with my Contax IIIa with 50/1.5 Sonnar. Everything has been serviced by Henry. Great camera and lenses, but I've been seduced by larger formats.
 
Mike Kovacs said:
Its just the ideal 50mm camera. As soon as you get into other finders and such, the camera loses a lot of its handling advantages IMO. Telephotos are better handled on an SLR.
Click to expand...

But Contax designers made a RF enabled with extreme distance metering accuracy, and on the top of it they added the small fine tuning metering wheel. They designed a s y s t e m camera.

How it handles to you seems to be a personal taste question, rather than a hard fact.

Regards,
Ruben
 
I. M. O. - I base my opinion owning quite a few pre and postwar Contax mount Zeiss lenses. Most surprising is the 85/4 Triotar, most disappointing the postwar Biogon 35/2.8.
 
Last edited:
Mike Kovacs said:
I. M. O. - I base my opinion owning quite a few pre and postwar Contax mount Zeiss lenses. Most surprising is the 85/4 Triotar, most disappointing the postwar Biogon 35/2.8.
Click to expand...

What was the problem with your 35/2.8? Mine is amazingly sharp.
 
I am curious too- I really like my carl zeiss post-war 35/2.8. Great lens with excellent color rendition, IMO.
 
Its sharp enough, I just don't think it lives up to the hype that its price reflects, even compared to my black Jupiter-12. I think I I'm just not a 35mm kind of guy. I should clarify - this Opton is actually on loan (that could turn to a sale) but I think I will pass.

The prewar 85/4 Triotar was <$50, had a small chip in the rear element that I filled in with black paint, and is sharper than the 1970's vintage 85/1.8 Nikkor SLR (!) or Jupiter-9. The Nikkor is well known to be one of the finest ever made, so that speaks highly of it.

Update - I posted some shots of the Cologne cathedral taken with the Biogon if you want to see. Have a few more of the old city and railway station to post too after the 24h upload limit expires.

Synopsis of the postwar Biogon - so-so wide open, somewhat suceptable to flare, super sharp stopped down a couple of stops, low rectilinear distortion. Don't think on balance its worth what it costs these days but it is a nice lens. I do have a small lens hood on it at all times. The low distortion is pretty apparent in the shot of the door - I don't think there's another 35mm lens that could do better than that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom