Contax G vs. Leica M Lenses...

J

jarane

Member
Local time
12:36 AM
Joined
Mar 23, 2015
Messages
20
Hi everyone,
newbie here (to this forum, anyway).

I have read tons of threads about people giving their personal opinions when it comes to Contax G vs. leica M lenses.

I’m wondering if anyone in this forum actually did an objective shootout of the two optical systems. Not the cameras.
Same scenes, shot on the same tripod, same (or very similar) focal lens, etc…
Several Google searches didn't bring any informative results.

Could be very interesting to see such a face-off.

Best to all,
E.C.
 
Planar 45mm, sonnar 90mm and biogon 21mm n G-mount are the best lenses I ever had a pleasure to use. I much prefer G colors, bokeh and 3d rendering to any Leica lens. Zeiss is a better glass at a better price hands down. Leica is a better brand and long term support! Besides, i heard they now manufacture digital RF :)
 
jarane said:
I have read tons of threads about people giving their personal opinions when it comes to Contax G vs. leica M lenses.
...
Click to expand...

About 18 years ago, I had both ... Leica M6TTL and Contax G2, with a complement of lenses for each (16, 28, 45, 90 for the Contax, 15, 24, 35, 50, 90 for the Leica). The lenses were excellent in both systems, and mostly indistinguishable at most working apertures.

I found the Contax G very irritating to use, ended up selling the Contax system and keeping the Leica.

G
 
The 45mm contax G is an absolute honey of a lens. I don't think there's really an M-mount equivalent personally. The 35mm is a bit rubbish though..
 
I have two Zeiss Planar 45/2 lenses; one for the G1 camera and one in M mount for the Leica cameras. Someone compared this lens with the ZM 50/2. The 45/2 may have come out slightly ahead of the 50/2.
 
I have both systems, I currently use G-system after dumping the system twice due to faulty focus mechanisms. I finally found a non-faulty body/lenses and I enjoy using it (more often then the M-system nowadays). The photos coming out (by 45mm lens) are absolutely stunning. Check out the latest images in my gallery. I agree that G-system is tricky to use but once you get the hang of it, it is very enjoyable! I plan to buy a 28mm G lens.
 
Thanks guys,
if any of you decide to do a face-off of the 2 lens systems (hint LeicaFoReVer), please post it here.

I think it would definitely be interesting to compare both.

Thanks in advance & all the best,
E.C.
 
gavinlg said:
The 45mm contax G is an absolute honey of a lens. I don't think there's really an M-mount equivalent personally. The 35mm is a bit rubbish though..
Click to expand...

It also produces some of the nastiest bokeh of any modern lens. Extremely sharp yes, but I'll take a 50 cron any day.

The 90 is a good sharp Sonnar, but a number of Leica 90s, I would take before: Elmarit-M, Summarit, and the cron.

At 28 the Summicron is worlds ahead of the contax. At 21 the SEM is the gold standard today.

Contax G was very good effort yes, and lenses are fun to use today. 45/2 is very high resolving. But they have the performance relationship to the modern Leica lenses that respective prices would suggest.

No free lunch, sorry.
 
I disagree, re: the 45's bokeh. I quite liked it, and definitely preferred that lens to the 50cron, DR, or pre-ASPH Summilux, or zeiss Planar 50. Maybe a toss up between the G45 and the 50 Summilux-ASPH.
 
Yeah I completely disagree about the bokeh being harsh too. It is really smooth and pleasant to me. Hard to beat the 45 for the price it goes for now days.
 
The beauty of a face-off would be that we could all view & review the results side-by-side.
The subjectives will always be subjectives, but the actual data would be there for all to analyze.
E.C.
 
The Planar 45mm f/2 Contax G lens is superb.

Contax G1, Planar 45mm f/2, Tmax400.

Erik.

9120004960_a54eeabbfa_c.jpg
 
gavinlg said:
..... The 35mm is a bit rubbish though..
Click to expand...
I shot with the ContaxG system for about 7-8 years. I had the 21, 28, 35, 45, & 90mm lenses. Probably 90% of what I shot during that time was with the 35mm lens. The 35mm was merely very good while the 21, 28, & 45mm lenses were technically spectacular by both MTF charts and much user opinion.

The old ContaxG website, which was up for about 7 years, was very active similar to RFF. It was much more photograph oriented than RFF but there was some gear discussion. There was essentially no question in the minds of the 35mm Planar users that the lens was very good.

BTW, the ContaxG site was taken down not because the user base dwindled but because the site owner and software developer, Glen Campbell, did not have the time to keep the software ahead of hacker technology. That was too bad as the site software was incredibly good. Photos were uploaded directly to the site. Photos could be rated 1-10 and frequent user generated contests were scored automatically by viewer votes. And the functionality of the site software kept Glen Campbell employed as a software development manager with some big time web companies.
 
I have the 28-45-90 set of lenses, and each of these lenses is excellent overall. The 90mm lens is great for portraits. The 28mm lens is an excellent wide angle lens, while the 45/2 Planar is stellar. The G cameras are not of the same quality level as these lenses. I like the 45/2 so much that I got a second one in M mount. It is an amazingly good lens.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I shot with the ContaxG system for about 7-8 years. I had the 21, 28, 35, 45, & 90mm lenses. Probably 90% of what I shot during that time was with the 35mm lens. The 35mm was merely very good while the 21, 28, & 45mm lenses were technically spectacular by both MTF charts and much user opinion.

The old ContaxG website, which was up for about 7 years, was very active similar to RFF. It was much more photograph oriented than RFF but there was some gear discussion. There was essentially no question in the minds of the 35mm Planar users that the lens was very good.

BTW, the ContaxG site was taken down not because the user base dwindled but because the site owner and software developer, Glen Campbell, did not have the time to keep the software ahead of hacker technology. That was too bad as the site software was incredibly good. Photos were uploaded directly to the site. Photos could be rated 1-10 and frequent user generated contests were scored automatically by viewer votes. And the functionality of the site software kept Glen Campbell employed as a software development manager with some big time web companies.
Click to expand...

Bob, the site has actually been revived, as well as an archive site with the previous contents (and 96 images of yours!).

Archive: http://www.contaxgarchive.com/

New ContaxG: http://contaxg.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom