Canon 5d MKII and Contax/Canon/ZE

[msbarnes]

Hello,

I'm interested in getting a Canon 5d in the future for portraits.

I'm not in the position to buy but I'm trying to plan out my lens line up. I'm mostly interested in 35mm, then 85mm and 50mm. I'm mostly trying to gather some information as I'm not familiar with this stuff. I'm not concerned about noise/weight/size because I'd use this specifically for portraits. I have film cameras that I'm happy with for everything else.

1. Do you people feel that AF is a blessing? I'm used to MF lenses but a good reason to consider Canon L lenses, seems to be for AF. It seems (although debatable) that the Zeiss lenses are technically better. I have limited experience with this so I'm not sure what my requirements would be.

2. Is there any functional difference between ZE and Contax lenses? It seems that the ZE lenses are about a decade newer in design, but the Contax lenses are still very good. Although I'm not sure if it is necessary, does the Contax lens allow AF confirmation, metering, etc.?

3. What's the going rate for a Contax 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.4? Those are the lenses that interest me more but I do not see them on keh.com and have never really tracked the prices.

4. How is the build between Contax, ZE, and Canon L lenses? Is it common for the AF on Canon lenses to fail? Whenever possible, I prefer mechanical cameras/lenses to avoid dead weight. For this reason I don't like to buy expensive electronic cameras. I feel that an all mechanical lens is easier to service...if needed.

5. How do the lenses compare optically? For those that have tried 2 or 3 of these lenses? This seems to be quite subjective but I thought I'd throw it out anyways.

6. Any experience with the Leica R lenses? I do not see many people using these lenses, are they compatible? I'd probably opt for the f2 lenses since those are more attainable.

Thanks!

 

[kanzlr]

1. yes, and if you do not replace the matte with something usable for manual focusing, you will be frustrated, because the one installed does not show depth of field correctly for fast lenses.

2. yes, with Contax lenses you will 1. need an adapter and 2. lose auto diaphragm. When you stop the lens down to say f8, the viewfinder will darken and then depth of field will increase. Not ideal for focusing.

3. the 35mm is often in the € 1500 range, the 50 1.4 can be had for € 150,-- and the 85 1.4, depending on version, is around € 700,--

4. no idea, but Canons L lenses seem to be reliable and built well. Contax lenses use surprising amounts of plastic (not that this is a problem in itself).

5. no idea 🙂

 

[rxmd]

I'm interested in getting a Canon 5d in the future, mostly for portraits.

I'm not in the position to buy but I'm trying to plan out my lens line up. I'm mostly interested in 35mm, then 85mm and 50mm. I'm mostly trying to gather some information as I'm not familiar with this stuff. I'm not concerned about noise/weight/size because I'd use this specifically for portraits. I have film cameras that I'm happy with for everything else.

1. Do you people feel that AF is a blessing? I'm used to MF lenses but a good reason to consider Canon L lenses, seems to be for AF. It seems (although debatable) that the Zeiss lenses are technically better. I have limited experience with this so I'm not sure what my requirements would be.

2. Is there any functional difference between ZE and Contax lenses? It seems that the ZE lenses are about a decade newer in design, but the Contax lenses are still very good. Although I'm not sure if it is necessary, does the Contax lens allow AF confirmation, metering, etc.?

3. What's the going rate for a Contax 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.4? Those are the lenses that interest me more but I do not see them on keh.com and have never really tracked the prices.

4. How is the build between Contax, ZE, and Canon L lenses? Is it common for the AF on Canon lenses to fail? Whenever possible, I prefer mechanical cameras/lenses to avoid dead weight. For this reason I don't like to buy expensive electronic cameras. I feel that an all mechanical lens is easier to service...if needed.

5. How do the lenses compare optically? For those that have tried 2 or 3 of these lenses? This seems to be quite subjective but I thought I'd throw it out anyways.

I've been in a somewhat similar situation to you, the 5D was my first DSLR and I use it mostly for portraiture and "slow" photography. It is very good for that. I use live view a lot, and on a tripod with an attached field monitor (or remote-controlled though an Android tablet with the DSLR Controller app) it feels a lot like shooting medium or large format.

Regarding Contax, one should probably distinguish between the manual-focus Contax/Yashica lenses for the Contax 167/RTS/Aria/... cameras and the autofocus Contax lenses for the Contax N. The former can be adapted with a simple adapter, but there is no autofocus (obviously), the aperture is manual, and metering is stop-down. The latter can be converted by a company called Conurus (http://conurus.com/contax) and then support everything an autofocus Canon lens would. Consequently the Contax N lenses have something of a cult status and are a fair bit more expensive.

Personally I find AF is a nice bonus that makes it substantially easier to move and shoot, especially in low light with the DSLR. I recently shot a wedding with three lenses: an adapted Leica 90/f2.8 Elmarit-R, a Canon 50/f1.4 autofocus lens, and a Canon 24/f3.5 manual focus tilt/shift lens which doubles as a macro. The hit rate on the 50/f1.4 was definitely better in fast-changing situations. That said, the manual lenses were perfectly workable.

Pretty much all adapted manual lenses allow metering, but it's stop down only. Also the camera will be unaware of the aperture you selected. So if you want open-aperture metering with a manual Zeiss lens, you'll need the ZE variety.

ZE lenses will do AF confirmation. For adapted Contax lenses you need an adapter with a chip. The better ones, such as the Optix v5/v6 and EMF chips, will also allow you to fine-tune the AF confirmation feature for each lens and to configure focal length and max. aperture for the EXIF data. Chipped adapters have become cheap now, so there is really no reason to use anything else.

I'm not sure whether the difference between a good Canon lens (L or otherwise) and a Zeiss lens is all that discernible in the final picture. The better zooms now deliver image quality equal to good primes. I would never give away my 70-200/f4 IS, for example, simply because it delivers outstanding image quality and the image stabilizer makes it tremendously useful.

The build feels different. This is a subjective thing now. Materials have advanced sufficiently that I'm hesitant to claim a modern polycarbonate L lens is significantly less solid than an all-metal 1970s lens, but the subjective difference is there. That said, among the Canon lenses, not all L lenses are equally well built. I have three, a 24-105/f4, a 70-200/f4 and a 24/f3.5 TS-E, and the latter two feel substantially better built than the 24-105. The 24/f3.5 is on par with the best manual-focus lenses as far as I can tell (being a manual focus lens itself).

The most important thing to have for manual lenses is a good focusing screen. The standard focusing screen of the 5D is fairly bright, but does not show much DOF difference between, say, f/1.4 and f/4, so manual focusing gets difficult. I now use mostly the EG-S "precision" screen, which is darker (still usable with f/4 lenses though), but shows the focus much more precisely. There are no original screens with focusing aids, such as split-image or microprism rings; for that you'll need a third-party focusing screen by Brightscreen, Katzeye or others. Leica screens for the R8 and R9 cameras also fit the 5D if you cut away one of the "noses" of the screen; it's one of the easiest ways to get a split-image screen. Third-party screens may affect the metering system, though, not so much wide open but more so when stopped down.

Regarding the price and performance of specific Contax and ZE lenses, others will be more qualified to comment. If there are any more questions, feel free to ask 🙂

 

[rxmd]

And regarding Leica lenses (you added that while I was replying) - I have three, a Summicron 50/f2 and a 35/f2.8 and 90/f2.8 Elmarit, and all of them work without problems. The 90/f2.8 is my primary portrait lens (waiting for a 85/f1.5 to replace it 🙂).

Just take a look at the compatibility table at http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Leica_db.html in the "5D" column, and it tells you exactly which variety of which lens works with the 5D.

 

[ThomasM]

I tried the C/Y 50/1.7, 28/2.8 and 100/3.5 on my 5d II and had problems with mirror blocking with all of them. I've also tried Summicron-R 50, and the 60 and 90 Elmarits, and they didn't pose any problem (other than rather inconsistent metering). Focusing is going to be hard, though, as kanzlr -and rxmd, who was really fast 🙂, already explained.

 

[f16sunshine]

I've adapted Contax, Leica R, Zuiko, and many German and Japanese M42 lenses.
There are some lenses that will hit the mirror at infinity. Mostly wide angles (Contax 28mm f2 for example or MD f1.2/58mm).
If you get a good focus screen and high quality adapters these old lenses are still superb.
Purchase adapters that have the latest af emulator chips.
You will have the ability to program exif data, use focus confirmation, adjust focus confirmation, and, all the metering modes the camera employs.
For Zuiko and Leica R , popping an adapter in the camera effectively changes the mount to those lens mounts. The lens release on the zuiko is on the lens. For Leica R it is on the adapter.
With Contax Yashica you will want an adapter for each lens. Removal is not as easy.
If you don't plan to use the C/Y lenses with native mount film Cameras. I would suggest buying the semi-permenant adapter kits from Leitax.
Otherwise I have purchased all my adapters from HappyPageHK on ebay.
They have a tighter grip on QC than any other seller. The actual adapter rings are often from solid brass from Kindai and their Chip is Epoxied on in a very clean solid manner.
Cheaper adapters are loose fitting and have the chips sloppily soldered on to the ring.

Check out the pebble place site that the doc refers to above. Excellent info to get started with.

 

[gavinlg]

The Canon L lenses are very very good - especially the primes. I used a 35mm ZE distagon for a year after owning a 35mm f1.4L on my 5d - and while the zeiss is a superb lens, I'd buy the 35L anyday if I was getting back into DSLRs. It's performance even wide open is pretty astonishing, it's got super quick/super reliable AF, and honestly it's just dead reliable all the time. The zeiss's are slow to MF even with the 5d/5dII matte focussing screen, and can be difficult to get accurate focus with the faster lenses. By the time I could focus the distagon and get one shot with my 5d, I probably could have taken 4-5 AF'd shots with the 35L. I even tried an aftermarket focussing screen with a split prism but found it annoying in contrast to film SLRs which are much easier to focus.

The zeiss lenses are really well built and super super heavy, and feel lovely to use. They feel kind of like jewelry. The Canon L lenses feel more utilitarian/plasticky but barely ever have problems - they're universally relied upon in some of the toughest conditions on earth.

 

[daves]

Canon L glass is horrifically expensive and not as resilient as it might be, either. There's no doubting that L glass is better, but all Canon primes produce results that are way more than acceptable. For working in the field (which I've not done too much of this last year) I have a bull**** 35mm, an even worse 50mm and a pretty decent and comprehensive L zoom, which I hate using but serves a purpose. For low-impact assignments I also have a 50mm 1.2 and it's bitingly sharp, renders everything beautifully. However, I certainly wouldn't have wanted to pay for it were I not earning money with it. The autofocus is excellent on all Canon primes and very rarely lets you down, especially wide open.

 

[redisburning]

Canon engineers are good at what they do.

Their lenses have high resolution and color saturation but there are some things you notice about them that look to be compromises necessary to deal with the reality of AF (i.e. that it's not quite as accurate as one might think).

At the very least I would not go for the Canon 50/1.4 over the Contax or ZE version. The good news is that they are very different lenses look wise so it's not too hard of a choice.

 

[f16sunshine]

BTW
Don't pass on the cheaper Canon Primes. I've been using the ef 50 f1.8 ii (metal mount). Also known as the plastic fantastic. The lens renders pretty nicely for portraits and like most 50's, it's sharp as a tack stopped down. Price around $70 used.

 

[redisburning]

isnt the 1st version the metal mount one?

 

[f16sunshine]

isnt the 1st version the metal mount one?

Could be. I only know what I was told when I bought it. I'm far from a Canon lens expert.

Great lens for the money. Very classic signature at wide open that is great for portraits (read: low contrast, coma, vignetting and sorta soft).

 

[rxmd]

If you want to use manual focusing lenses, make sure to take a look at Magic Lantern (http://wiki.magiclantern.fm) - it's a firmware add-on that provides extra features like focus peaking on the LCD, focus trap (release the shutter when something comes into focus), motion detection, extra ISO values and display of extra information like the DOF and hyperfocal distance at the current aperture.

 

[daves]

BTW
Don't pass on the cheaper Canon Primes. I've been using the ef 50 f1.8 ii (metal mount). Also known as the plastic fantastic. The lens renders pretty nicely for portraits and like most 50's, it's sharp as a tack stopped down. Price around $70 used.

Couldn't agree more. The 50 you're talking about is the one I refered to, somewhat indelicately, as a bull**** lens. It's not. Neither is the 35mm 2.0. They're both just cheap, and if you're doing work that could lead to them being banged around, they're excellent. The 1.8 is nowhere near as good as the 1.2 but it takes a lot of looking to really pick out much of a difference. Cheap Canon primes are a good thing.

 

[gavinlg]

Actually interestingly I much prefer the f1.8 50mm to the f1.4 version. Built like crap though.

 

[ReeRay]

What you get from the Contax Zeiss MM lens range is colour, contrast and saturation. On my Canon 5DMK2 I use the CZ 35, 50 and 85 (all f1.4) the Conurus converted N24-85mm, and the superb 35-70mm. I also have the Canon equivalents. If I need to work quickly then the Canon and AF are a no brainer but for "slow" work it's the CZ every time. Post processing the CZ files is effortless. Colours are bang on, highlights and shadows exactly as they should be. On the other hand I spend much more time processing the Canon files albeit the eventual outcome is close. Both ranges are sharp and produce great files but the rendition from the CZ range tips it for me every time.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Hello,

I'm interested in getting a Canon 5d in the future for portraits.

1. Do you people feel that AF is a blessing? I'm used to MF lenses but a good reason to consider Canon L lenses, seems to be for AF. It seems (although debatable) that the Zeiss lenses are technically better. I have limited experience with this so I'm not sure what my requirements would be.

AF is amazing. I remember, before i first got into the EOS system, that i couldn't imagine that i would ever want AF. This was the early 90s. My love for it was immediate. I've owned a lot of manual focus cameras since, and they all seem like a sad compromise in that respect.

Are Zeiss lenses "technically better?" If you're looking for maximum sharpness, they probably are. But, as you say you're interested in photographing people, other matters are probably going to outweigh the 'max sharpness' issue. Canon lenses have much better bokeh than the ZE Zeiss lenses have. And, the AF really IS valuable when photographing people, whether they're moving or not. I spent a few years trying to shoot fashion and AF was always a blessing.

As for the quality of Zeiss lenses..... Well, of all fashion photography not shot with medium format cameras, i'd say 90%+ are shot with Canon digitals. And, i'd wager that 95+% of that is shot with Canon glass. The best photographers in the world, operating with the highest budgets, in the most prestigious publications, for the top clients... are all using 'regular old' Canon glass. Both EF and L. If you think you need something other than that, well, that's your choice, i suppose.....

2. Is there any functional difference between ZE and Contax lenses? It seems that the ZE lenses are about a decade newer in design, but the Contax lenses are still very good. Although I'm not sure if it is necessary, does the Contax lens allow AF confirmation, metering, etc.?

Functional? ZE don't require stop-down metering. But, the way the lenses render, i would prefer the Contax lenses. I've had the MM or AE 50/1.4, the N-85/1.4 and really liked them. The Contax 50 is very sharp and has the good kind of Zeiss bokeh. From what i've seen of the ZE, i wouldn't want to own them if they were a gift.

3. What's the going rate for a Contax 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.4? Those are the lenses that interest me more but I do not see them on keh.com and have never really tracked the prices.

Contax 50/1.4 is pretty inexpensive. $250? The 35/1.4 is pricy and not common on the market. 85/1.4 is pretty good, but i didn't own the manual focus version.

4. How is the build between Contax, ZE, and Canon L lenses? Is it common for the AF on Canon lenses to fail? Whenever possible, I prefer mechanical cameras/lenses to avoid dead weight. For this reason I don't like to buy expensive electronic cameras. I feel that an all mechanical lens is easier to service...if needed.

I've not heard of AF failing on Canon lenses. It's such a non-concern, i would dissuade you from even considering it. All the Canon EOS cameras are pretty bulletproof/infallible. They just work. No CLAs, no pampering. Just forget they're even "electronic" and not "mechanical." Guys like James Nachwey shoot Canons in war conditions. You're not likely to stress them to any point they can't handle, even if they don't feel like tanks.

5. How do the lenses compare optically? For those that have tried 2 or 3 of these lenses? This seems to be quite subjective but I thought I'd throw it out anyways.

Get a few copies of the 50/1.4 and keep the best one. There seems to be sample variation. I haven't experienced it, as i've had mine for almost 20 years, and it's a great performer. The 85L is legendary for good reason. Same with the 135/2. But, the 85/1.8 is also fantastic, with more Sonnar-ish bokeh. I used to have the 85L and when i re-buy an 85, it'll likely be the 1.8 version. I simply didn't want to take the 85L out much, because of the size/weight.

The 35/2 is a really good lens. I compared it to the Summicron-R 35/2 and felt they were even. The 35L is even better.

6. Any experience with the Leica R lenses? I do not see many people using these lenses, are they compatible? I'd probably opt for the f2 lenses since those are more attainable.

I've had the 28 Elmarit (last, acclaimed version), 35/2, 50/2, and 80 Summilux. The 28 really was excellent. In the other focal lengths, i preferred and kept the Canons. I did like the 35/2's bokeh, but it was no sharper than the Canon 35/2, and the Canon had AF which gave me quicker and more consistently critically accurate focus. Don't discount that factor. AF, when you're in a dynamic situation (shooting people/models/etc) at wider apertures, will probably give you sharper images simply by giving you more accurate focus.

Thanks!

Just for reference.... I've had three mf Contaxes, a Leica R7 and R8, several Nikons. All while i had a Canon EOS3 or 1n, and 5D, 5DMk2. I dabbled with all those other cameras, and always kept the Canon gear. I've tried adapting lenses to the Canon: Contax, Leica, Nikon, Pentax. And, always ended up abandoning that idea, and just keeping the Canon gear. There may be a good reason why all those classic old photojournalists and current street shooters used Leica-M. There's a reason why all the fashion magazines and catalogs are shot with Canons. Steven Meisel and Annie Leibovitz are not messing around with Contax or Leica-R.

 

[venchka]

To get your feet wet, learn the system and not break your wallet:
Canon 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 100/2.0. Think of it as Summicrons on a very slim budget. If you want to move up the lens food chain, you won't loose much selling those lenses. You might not want to change.

Wayne

 

[Turtle]

Canon L lenses are superb and, personally, unless I had good reason, I would not bother with the compromises of Zeiss ZE lenses. Most of the latest L lenses have good manual focus feel and they are stiff enough to be set hyperfocally for street work, like you would a manual lens.

I own the 24 1.4 II L, 85 1.2 II L, 135 L and 70-200 f4 L. All are absolutely superb, with quick AF and wonderful technical performance. The 85 is simply wonderful for portraits and plenty fast enough AF wise for that task. The latest 24mm is breathtaking and I cannot imagine bothering with a Zeiss when this lens provides such incredible performance. Perhaps ZE is better at the edges at wider apertures, but who shoots landscapes at f2?

Build and reliability of the L lenses is excellent.

 

[rxmd]

If you can find a EF 50/1.8 version I (metal mount), do it! It is just plain good.

Actually the second version is just as good - the optics are identical, and the price premium for used version I lenses IMHO isn't worth it.