lxmike
M2 fan.
I considering getting a contax slr, and in particular the 50 1.7 Zeiss Planar, how do people feel about this sombination. Thanks in advance
Mike
Mike
Contax 167mt
- Thread starter lxmike
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 22
- Views 7K
bgb
Well-known
I found this on the web after looking at the same camera on a local auction site, alas the camera had 2 Tokina zoom lenses and no Zeiss glass at all so i looked no further.
http://photo.net/equipment/contax/167MT
http://photo.net/equipment/contax/167MT
lxmike
M2 fan.
thanks very helpfull
MartinP
Veteran
I've been using the 139 for more than 27 years and have been well pleased with robustness, reliability and quality. It is also a very well thought out camera to use. As they went through a period of being reasonably priced I now have three bodies. The Zeiss glass is more than adequate too of course.
Apart from the 139 I have only looked at the RTS but decided it was a bit too big and heavy, plus long ago it was thought that the RTSII was a more durable camera. I was well set up with the 139 and didn't look any further at their newer bodies when they arrived.
Apart from the 139 I have only looked at the RTS but decided it was a bit too big and heavy, plus long ago it was thought that the RTSII was a more durable camera. I was well set up with the 139 and didn't look any further at their newer bodies when they arrived.
lxmike
M2 fan.
thanks martin, do you have the zeiss 50mm 1.7 and how do you find it
MartinP
Veteran
I have two, and they both work without any obvious weak areas. Of course maybe they are the worst SLR lenses in the world as I haven't used anything else enough to make a comparison ! Having said that, in RF the Summilux I use looks to have a slightly quicker change from sharp to unsharp - both are very attractive though. Mechanically they are good too, in my experience - no problems whatsoever in rain/snow or cold/heat for example and they are still solid after all this time.
One of the reasons I originally went for the 139 was for the Planar lens, as at that time it was the top-rated lens ever by Amateur Photographer in the UK. Really that would have been fairly marginal though as I'd expect the major manufacturer lenses to always be "better than me".
One of the reasons I originally went for the 139 was for the Planar lens, as at that time it was the top-rated lens ever by Amateur Photographer in the UK. Really that would have been fairly marginal though as I'd expect the major manufacturer lenses to always be "better than me".
Krosya
Konicaze
I dont have either, but I do have other Contax SLR cameras/lenses and they are great IMO. From the photos I have seem from Planars - superb lenses, I just went for a 1.4 version as I prefer a faster lens. I think they are well built and deliver superb results.
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
Get 139Q, small, beautiful and very capable camera. I'm saving for 50/1.4 now.
le vrai rdu
Well-known
I had a planar 50 1,7 on a 159mm
the lens was excellent and a pleasure to sue (not too small or big, good controls etc)
the lens rendering is fantastic
kuvvy
Well-known
It's many years since I shot a Contax SLR, a 137MA along with the 50mm 1.7 and it was a superb lens. I have no trouble recommending it. While we are talking Contax a friend of mine is about to put his up for sale and had I the cash / need I would be tempted. He has the Contax RX which I reckon hasn't had more than a couple of dozen rolls through it. He also has gorgeous 85mm 1.4 which is fantastic piece of glass.
ZeissFan
Veteran
The reason to get the Contax is for the Zeiss lenses. The bodies are good, but a nice little Yashica will also do.
As always, you'll need to replace the foam seals on the body.
I also shoot the Planar 1.4 and 1.8 in the Rollei mount, and both lenses are excellent.
The 1.7 Planar for the Contax mount also is excellent. I've never tested the lenses side by side, but I would expect the 1.7 and the 1.8 to perform nearly identically if not identically.
As always, you'll need to replace the foam seals on the body.
I also shoot the Planar 1.4 and 1.8 in the Rollei mount, and both lenses are excellent.
The 1.7 Planar for the Contax mount also is excellent. I've never tested the lenses side by side, but I would expect the 1.7 and the 1.8 to perform nearly identically if not identically.
jamais
Established
The 167MT has been our "family camera" since my father bought it more than 20 yeras ago. During all this time the only problem that occured is the delamination of the leatherette. Apart from that it turned out to be very reliable.
I also own the predecessor 159 MM which is simplified spoken an 167MT without built-in motor drive and without spot-metering.
The handling is very good with all three lenses that I have used (on either camera): Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.7/50 MM and Yashica ML 2/50.
I use the 1.7/50 mostly on my 159 MM (general purpose) and the ML 2/50 on the 167MT (mainly for portraits). I have never compared the lenses systematically but the ML 2/50 is said to have the better bokeh whereas the 1.7/50 might be all in all the better lens.
Costo Kim
Established
I've been using 167mt for a few years with f2.8 distagons 25 and 35 and f1.4 planars 50 and 85. I like this camera a lot: it is very cheap with great viewfinder and great AE
The only feature I probably missed is 2nd curtain sync
I didn't use planar 1.7/50 but it is great lens no doubt
some photos I made with these camera and lenses can be seen here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/costo/tags/contax167mt
The only feature I probably missed is 2nd curtain sync
I didn't use planar 1.7/50 but it is great lens no doubt
some photos I made with these camera and lenses can be seen here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/costo/tags/contax167mt
tlitody
Well-known
I have a 50 1.7 but don't use it much. I prefer wider or longer. It is a very very good lens and at one time was rated the best standard lens on the market so you won't be disappointed.
I have 167MT which has done long service and is a very good camera. Only thing I don't like is the sliding button to change shutter speed when in manual or aperture priority mode.
Other than that it is fine.
If you want manual wind on then a 139, 159 or RTSII is the way to go. The RTSII has mirror lock up which is useful for tripod and/or macro work. RTS III for flagship model.
Other aletrnatives are the yashica bodies which cost next to nothing but take the zeiss lenses.
Also if you want matrix metering the Aria is smaller and lighter. A bit more mirror slap than the 167MT which is really smooth.
As for lenses, if you want shutter priority then you need the MM lenses which can be identified by the smallest aperture number being in Green. They are worth more for some reason, maybe because they are the latest vesions.
For rangefinder size the Aria is a very good camera.
The 85 1.4 planar and 135 2.8 sonnar are must have lenses for portrait and bokeh effects IMO.
The 35 1.4 is hard to get your hands on and command high prices. The 85 1.4 isn't cheap either but is a fantastic lens.
I have 167MT which has done long service and is a very good camera. Only thing I don't like is the sliding button to change shutter speed when in manual or aperture priority mode.
Other than that it is fine.
If you want manual wind on then a 139, 159 or RTSII is the way to go. The RTSII has mirror lock up which is useful for tripod and/or macro work. RTS III for flagship model.
Other aletrnatives are the yashica bodies which cost next to nothing but take the zeiss lenses.
Also if you want matrix metering the Aria is smaller and lighter. A bit more mirror slap than the 167MT which is really smooth.
As for lenses, if you want shutter priority then you need the MM lenses which can be identified by the smallest aperture number being in Green. They are worth more for some reason, maybe because they are the latest vesions.
For rangefinder size the Aria is a very good camera.
The 85 1.4 planar and 135 2.8 sonnar are must have lenses for portrait and bokeh effects IMO.
The 35 1.4 is hard to get your hands on and command high prices. The 85 1.4 isn't cheap either but is a fantastic lens.
jdvf
Established
If you can get the combination for a reasonable price then go for it. It is an excellen combination. I prefer the Aria over the 167MT due to the better viewfinder and the compactness but both are good cameras.
And the 1.7 Planar is one of the best 50mm lenses I know. I think it is not worse than its famous faster brother. (Although I own both I never compared them directly.) If you want to use the shutter priority or program mode then check if the lens is the MM version. You can distinguish it form the AE version by the marking of the smallest aperture on the aperture dial.
Greg
P.S. A Happy New Year to all of you!
And the 1.7 Planar is one of the best 50mm lenses I know. I think it is not worse than its famous faster brother. (Although I own both I never compared them directly.) If you want to use the shutter priority or program mode then check if the lens is the MM version. You can distinguish it form the AE version by the marking of the smallest aperture on the aperture dial.
Greg
P.S. A Happy New Year to all of you!
FrankS
Registered User
I've always wanted a Contax, and looked at the 167 back in the day but couldn't afford it then. Last year I bought this RTS for not much and recovered it. I bought a Yashica ML50f2 lens to use on it, also for not much. (Notice a trend here?)
I ordered a plain black leather covering from Aki Asahi, but he sometimes sends along a second skin for practice. This is it.
I ordered a plain black leather covering from Aki Asahi, but he sometimes sends along a second skin for practice. This is it.
Attachments
Last edited:
I have an Aria with 28/2.8 Distagon, 50/1.7 Planar, and 85/2.8 Sonnar. Very compact setup, great Zeiss lenses, huge viewfinder, matrix meter...highly recommended!
85/2.8 Sonnar:
85/2.8 Sonnar:
tlitody
Well-known
If you plan on doing a lot of tripod work, then note that the tripod socket is not central under the lens axis on the 167MT. This could be a real pain.
ZeissFan
Veteran
The 85 Sonnar is an excellent lens and often overlooked in favor of the 85/1.4 Planar.
tlitody
Well-known
I haven't used the 85 2.8 sonnar but it is supposed to be the equal of the 90 for the G1/G2 camera. And cheaper than the 85 1.4 Planar as well as a lot more compact.
