Contax G vs. Contax SLR

sooner

sooner

Well-known
Local time
5:43 PM
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
688
Hi Folks,

I used to own a G2 with the 28, 45, and 90 lenses, and they were the best lenses I've ever owned. However, I sold the system due to limited funds and GAS for a medium format system. I recently caught a whiff of the Contax slr lineup, and was wondering how the Zeiss glass for the Contax slr's compares to the Zeiss lenses for the G system. Call it Zeiss vs. Zeiss. This may be heresy for some here, but just curious how they compare. Thanks. --John/sooner
 
I never owned the G system but I do own the Contax SLR system. The lenses that I own are splended -- namely the 25, 35 2.8, 45, 50 1.4 & 50 1.7, the 85 2.8 the 28-70 zoom and 35-135 zoom. The prime lenses are all superb in MHO as is the 35-135 zoom (it is as sharp as any of my primes) The 28-70 distorts at 28 and is not as sharp as the other lenses however, it is still a pretty good lens. For my money Zeiss is Zeiss which means whether it's "G", C/Y or ZI you end up with high quality.
 
i once owned all (but the 15) g lenses. i now have most of the N slr lenses. they are both superb series for their class. the ns are often faster, of variable focal length, much bigger and heavier. neither series flares much - better than anything else i have used inc leica asph era. the g lenses are a tiny fraction of the cost of n ones. the quality difference is negligible; in practice i felt that a few really stand out: g21, g28, g45, n50, n85, n100. but even the n zooms are very, very good. more important, imho, should be whether you wish an slr or g-type camera (viewfinder, weight, stealth, access to digital etc etc)...the lenses are top either way.
 
I think the lenses are basically superb in both the G and SLR lines. What I don't have a feel for is how good the Contax SLRs are -- I own instead the very inexpensive Yashica FX-3 2000. I suggest you find out more from folks with experience with the SLRs.
 
I own the RX, Aria, S2 & 139Q. In the past I owned the RTS,137md & 167. They are essentially sturdy cameras. My favorite is the RX, it is large but not unmanagebly so. I've had my cameras for a few years and they were all used when I got them. The film advance on my S2 & 139Q both had to be fixed. The mirror box on my RX was repaired last year and a couple of months ago I had my Aria looked at -- the door latch was balky. Overall, considering the years of use I find these cameras to be reliable and sturdy.
 
The G serie lenses are second to none and the same for contax SLR lenses.
Of course the biogons do a better job than the distagon especially wide open in the corners
 
Thanks for the replies to my rather vague question. I should have specified that I'm only interested in the manual focus (MM) lenses and cameras. Haven't really narrowed the slr bodies too much, though the Aria looks nice in terms of size and matrix metering. But mostly I didn't even want to begin indulging the research before getting a sense for the lenses. I've been tempted to buy a G1 but frankly I didn't like autofocus, even though the sharpness and color rendition of the G lenses was so great.
 
I used to have a Contax SLR system and currently have the G2 (28,45,90mm). I had my slr system for almost 20 years without a flaw. I started with the 137MD with the 50mm 1.4 lens in 1980. Later I bought the 28 f/2.8 distagon. I add the 159MM and 85 f/1.4 and 180 f/2.8. These cameras were amazingly reliable and the lenses were top shelf. The lenses were all manual focus and build quality was very very high. The focus was very smooth. My fave was the 85 Planar. It was amazing. As good as the system was I have to agree with Jaap. Using the G2 and the lenses I have seen differences in the way the images look between the G2 and Contax slr. There seems to be more contrast in the G lenses and they're sharper. Color is very rich with the G lenses. As far as the wides go the G28 Biogon in astounding. As far as I'm concerned you can't get better. There is NO distortion. The G45 Planar I feel is sharper then the slr 50mm f/1.4 I had especially wide open where the 50 Planar was noticably soft. The G45 is great even wide open. I would have to give the nod in favor of the G lenses.
 
I have both the G and SLR systems now with a few SLR lenses with the 28, 45 and 90 in the G. For the heck of it a few months ago, I tried the 45 on the G body and compared it to the 50 1.7 but using the GA-1 and G body. Both were VERY, VERY good but I'd have to give the edge in terms of resolution and contrast to the G lens. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31568

The SLR 85 is a superior lense as is the 60mm macro. Again the G lense are just a hairs breadth above. Best value lens on the planet.

keoj
 
you can't compare a f 1.4 lens or 1.7 lens with a f2.0 lens wide open The moderate speed lens will always be better.
 
Keoj, thanks for the interesting comparison, somehow I missed your earlier thread--maybe because I wasn't interested in Contax slr's until now. I can't tell any difference in the crops, both look great, but I appreciate your summation. Sounds like the consensus is the slr lenses are also great, but a couple of you think the G lenses slightly but noticeably sharper. That's really what I'm after as I experienced the G lenses and wouldn't invest in a Contax slr unless those lenses were pretty darn close. I'm still not sure, but photodo does mtf tests and finds the same, namely both lenses excellent but a slight nod to the G series. But at that level of excellence I don't know if it matters.

Jaag, I'm just curious why Keoj's lens test is unfair given that both lenses were shot at f/5.6? Certainly seemed like a real world test, but I would welcome a more technical analysis of the testing parameters in your view.
 
I haven't a G, but I do own a 1,7/50 AE that I use in both Yashica and Contax bodies and it is very very sharp and with fantastic colour rendition. Even when used wide open, lack of sharpness (I do 8x12 inches enlargement from time to time) is more likely due to poor focusing that a real fault of the lens.
 
sooner said:
Keoj, thanks for the interesting comparison, somehow I missed your earlier thread--maybe because I wasn't interested in Contax slr's until now. I can't tell any difference in the crops, both look great, but I appreciate your summation. Sounds like the consensus is the slr lenses are also great, but a couple of you think the G lenses slightly but noticeably sharper. That's really what I'm after as I experienced the G lenses and wouldn't invest in a Contax slr unless those lenses were pretty darn close. I'm still not sure, but photodo does mtf tests and finds the same, namely both lenses excellent but a slight nod to the G series. But at that level of excellence I don't know if it matters.

Jaag, I'm just curious why Keoj's lens test is unfair given that both lenses were shot at f/5.6? Certainly seemed like a real world test, but I would welcome a more technical analysis of the testing parameters in your view.
Click to expand...
I can't give you a technical analysis but what i do know is that's it 's very very very difficult to analys differences with good 50mm lenses at f 5.6 of nearly any good brand like contax, nikon, canon, leica, etc. They all will be better than any film can display
 
jaap is correct, is is not an absolute or great comparison between the 50 1.7 at 5.6 and the 45 2.0 at 5.6. I was always taught that the optimum f stop for resolution is two stops above wide open (trying to balance abberations at wide open versus diffraction limits at closed). Using the f of 5.6 was approximately hitting this zone for both lenses. I used the 1.7 lens because I believe that it is another "benchmark" in terms of quality. Most tests that I've seen put this lens in the very upper eschelon of resolution as well. As I said, I was expecting to see more difference given the 4000 ppi resolution level and the poor quality contrast image that I was trying to the perform the assessment. In the end, both high quality lenses, the G had just an qualitative "pop" in the contrast. A widely shared opinion is that the 85mm, the 50 1.4 and the 60 mm Makro are spectacular lenses in the SLR line.
 
sooner said:
Thanks for the replies to my rather vague question. I should have specified that I'm only interested in the manual focus (MM) lenses and cameras.
Click to expand...

If you limit yourself to only the MM type lenses (to which owners seem to hold on), you will have a hard time sourcing them and will end up paying noticeably more. (Been there. Done that. :( )

The MM type needs a compatible body (e.g. Aria, RX, etc) in order to enable Tv and P modes. The AE type lenses do function on all C/Y bodies (N excepted of course) and work in Av and manual modes.

The Yashica ML lens series are no slouch either, e.g. the 21/3.5 is especially prized and commands a premium.

Plenty of C/Y info at http://www.cdegroot.com/photo/
 
Last edited:
The MM type works fine on an older body, my MM 50/1.7 does on a RTS.
 
Thank you all for the information, tips, and links. This is certainly a system I'm going to begin following seriously......John/sooner
 
I bought a 139Q a bit more than 24 years ago. I am still using it. About 15 years ago there was a fault with the shutter, but apart from that service it has been working well despite being occasionally soaked and frozen.

I was so worried about what to eventually replace the thing with, that I bought another one secondhand earlier this year (from SHPhoto, an RFF sponsor). The handling is completely gorgeous and the functionality more than enough for me.

I only have a couple of Contax lenses (plus Yashica etc) and those have no detectable faults in practical use.

The only negative point is the original covering - it is a soft-feel plastic and a bit delicate - but after nearly a quarter of a century I suppose that's expected somewhat. Apparently Aki-whatsisname does replacement coverings, so this cosmetic problem will be fixed soon.

I would highly recommend the RTS range.
 
I just bought a contax S2 and i really like it a lot. The bottom plate has aprox. the same size as from the G2 ! And it has the same weight as a G2. And it doesn,t need a battery But i don,t dare to say anymore about an SLr here on RFF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom