Contax G vs. Contax SLR

Because of my satisfaction with my G2 system (21,28,45 and 90) I sold off my Nikon SLR system, got an RX and all Zeiss glass (35/2.8 PC-Distagon, 50/1.8 Planar (sold the 1.4 because I found the 1.8 as good or better, though the 1.4 is better built), 60/2.8 Marko-Planar, 85/1.4 Planar, 100-300 Vario-Sonnar (perhaps the very best of the bunch). They are phenominal. Nikon glass is good, Zeiss is over the top better IMO. I like the overall signature of the glass and also feel it's slightly warmer in it's colors.

In terms of differences from the G system it's hard to definitively compare. The 28 and 45 lens in the G system are on a pedestal of their own and nothing, and I mean nothing, seems to match them in terms of color, sharpness and 3-D rendition.

See my links below for my Contax Images and Contax G galleries of Contax SLR images and G2 system images for some indication of the capabilities and some reference of comparison.
 
Socke said:
The MM type works fine on an older body, my MM 50/1.7 does on a RTS.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. However, if the camera (e.g. RTS, etc) doesn't offer P and Tv modes, an AE-type lens works equally well and costs less.
 
I also agreed with most of your that said the G-lens are top notch. I have Canon L lenes and they don't compare well to the G-lens. The G pictures seemed to have a more 3-D effect than most. I have just recently purchased an N1 and I have yet to see the outcome. But I am sure N Zeiss would be just as good.
 
My experience...

After becoming entranced with the G lenses but not overwhelmed with the camera (or my rangefinder prowess) I bought into the Contax N system hoping to get a similar result from the glass. It was not. Note, I didn't have the primes so I guess there is no surprise there. Next I bought into the C/Y system, first with an Aria (great little camera) and then a S2 (beautiful). I've got the 25, 35, 50 1.4, and 85 1.4. They are all wonderful lenses (the 85 borders on greatness) but still not G quality. Unfortunately the 21mm (legendary), which I love some much in the G lineup, is exorbitantly expensive in the C/Y mount. Still chasing the G lenses in a SLR I bought into the Contax 645 system. I've only got three lenses; the 35mm (which gives me the 21 I like), the 45 and 80. It's a great system with great lenses but a hefty investment and not really for the same type shooting as a G. I think there's just no comparing SLR lenses to non-retrofocusing lenses. There is a reason why rangefinders exist and it's not for framing accuracy or meter sophistication: it's to support great glass. In the end, I've learn to use the G camera as best as possible: to mitigate it's shortcomings and appreciate where it excels, but most of all that there is just no replacement for the Zeiss glass on a G.
 
FWIW, the 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and 80/2 are not retrofocus designs.

OTOH, the ZM (rangefinder) 15/2.8 and several M-mount wideangles currently from Leica ARE retrofocus.

Retrofocus wideangle lenses typically have more even illumination across the frame. They used to have more linear distortion than non-retrofocus designs, but that was before the advent of CAD/CAM. Distortion is now much easier to correct in retrofocus formulae than it used to be.
 
Last edited:
Sooner--

Like others here, I've owned both the G2 (with most of the G lenses) and Contax manual focus SLRs (ST and Aria), with a number of the MM primes. And I also found they gave me comparably superb results. But as you may know already, there is a BIG difference in the size and weight of the MM lenses compared to the G lenses. And most of the SLRs are heavy beasts too. I actually found the Aria the handier SLR to use. While it's often put down as an "amateur" camera, it has all the basic functions, along with one of the best viewfinders ever made for an SLR. It's worth looking into if you want to lighten your load.
 
Zeiss is Zeiss is Zeiss. They are all very Zeiss. In fact, the very best in their class--ZM, 35 SLR, MF, G, N--part is the the T* coating, part is the optical design, part is mechanics.
 
Thanks again for all the responses. I'm not concerned about the larger size of the Contax slr's, what matters is image quality especially considering the cost of buying into an expensive system. What I'm hearing is that the slr lenses are superb, but some feel not quite up to the G lenses, but it's close. So for me it comes down to weighing the subjectivity of how much I dislike using a G body, preference for manual focus, and cost. I may just go for a cheaper body with the 50 1.4, say, and try it out. And if not wowed sufficiently, sell it again. After all, when I sold my G2 setup I didn't take a loss, which is perhaps the only upside to an active used camera market.
 
I just picked up a really nice Contax/Zeiss 45mm f2.8 pancake lens in Ti that I'm planning to use with an S2 (if I can find a nice one). Even though I'm an M user I'm looking for a small sturdy, mechanical, well built, weather sealed, SLR that accepts Zeiss or Leica glass. I thought about going the Leica R6.2 route but the lens will be too heavy for my intended uses. I think the S2 w/ the f2.8 45mm pancake will make a nice, compact, sturdy, package. I guess if I can't locate an S2 then you'll see this lens up for sale in the Classifieds.

BTW- my new Zeiss 45mm is marked "Tessar 100 Jahre", and grey in color, I assuming that its a commemorative edition but is it made out of ti?
 
Last edited:
Rod Fung said:
I just picked up a really nice Contax/Zeiss 45mm f2.8 pancake lens in Ti that I'm planning to use with an S2 (if I can find a nice one). Even though I'm an M user I'm looking for a small sturdy, well built SLR that accepts Zeiss or Leica glass. I thought about going the Leica R6.2 route but the lens will be too heavy for my intended uses. I think the S2 w/ the f2.8 45mm pancake will make a nice, compact, sturdy, package. I guess if I can't locate an S2 then you'll see this lens up for sale in the Classifieds.

BTW- my new Zeiss 45mm is marked "Tessar 100 Jahre", and grey in color, I assuming that its a commemorative edition but is it made out of ti?
Click to expand...

No doubt the 45 Tessar is a compact lens and I hope you like it. Sorry to report that after trying it for a few months I found it just did not have the magic of the rest of my Zeiss SLR lens line-up and I sold it. I probably should have given it a bit more of a chance and this was almost 5 years ago now. On the other hand you really do not see people much raving about it other than how small and compact it is.
 
Rod Fung said:
I just picked up a really nice Contax/Zeiss 45mm f2.8 pancake lens in Ti that I'm planning to use with an S2 (if I can find a nice one). Even though I'm an M user I'm looking for a small sturdy, well built SLR that accepts Zeiss or Leica glass. I thought about going the Leica R6.2 route but the lens will be too heavy for my intended uses. I think the S2 w/ the f2.8 45mm pancake will make a nice, compact, sturdy, package. I guess if I can't locate an S2 then you'll see this lens up for sale in the Classifieds.

BTW- my new Zeiss 45mm is marked "Tessar 100 Jahre", and grey in color, I assuming that its a commemorative edition but is it made out of ti?
Click to expand...
I own a Contax S2 and I'm very happy with it. But keep in mind that the viewfinder is not at the same level as a Contax RS, RTS(leica R6.2). It's more the viewfinder of a contax aria ,167 MT. An other drawback of the S2 is the noisy mirror RETURN. If you can live with that then it's a very fine (and nice)camera!
 
FWIW the only glass I think is better than my beloved Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 would be the Zeiss Contax T* 50mm f/1.4 I have. Not a lot, but you can see it.

For anyone wanting to try the MM lenses but not wanting to pay for the Contax SLR name, try Yashica. My 139Q died. My FX-3 has yet to quit on me. I also bought a couple of FX 103s after learning they were sort of the Yashica equivalent of the 139Q. Both were used and both have worked well. In fact, I got one (with Yashica glass) for $15 a few years ago because the person selling it didn't try a new battery first. Got a second for a few dollars more before I made the mistake of praising it on the Popphoto forums. There was an immediate jump in ebay prices. Hope it doesn't happen after the plug here. The OTF flash works as well with the FX 103 as it did with the 139. And it is great!
 
Rod Fung said:
I I'm looking for a small sturdy, mechanical, well built, weather sealed, SLR that accepts Zeiss or Leica glass ..
Click to expand...

The C/Y and Leica cameras and lenses are not weather-sealed.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info on the body material on the 45 tessar. For the weather sealing... I had read that the S2 and S2B had weather sealing gaskets on the dials on the top plate...is this incorrect?
Thanks again.
 
Last edited:
Rod Fung said:
Thanks for the info on the body material on the 45 tessar. For the weather sealing... I had read that the S2 and S2B had weather sealing gaskets on the dials on the top plate...is this incorrect?
Thanks again.
Click to expand...
yes indeed it has it incorporates a number of soft rubber tubes and seals.
To better withstand adverse weather and climate conditions.
 
I have a 139Q & the 50/1.4. It's a great setup, but since I've gone rf, I barely use it. I keep thinking about selling it, but haven't been able to say goodbye to thing.
 
I do believe the S2 is weather sealed. The mirror slap is a bit noisy. The 139Q is better tamped.

I own the 45 Tessar pancake lens and I think it has something special about it. The color rendering is superb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom