"Contax look" M lens?

[piero2025]

I would like to buy Leica mount lenses that would give me the "Contax 35mm look" (as in Contax G1/G2, Contax TVS). In my mind, Leica/Zeiss lenses are clinically sharp, while Contaxes are not unsharp by any means, but "softer" I would say, with "gentler" color.

Examples of "the Contax Look":

https://flickr.com/photos/summer-never-ends/11004657466
https://flickr.com/photos/guava0823/51018365136
https://flickr.com/photos/83510117@N04/9919653975
https://flickr.com/photos/145955752@N05/34891380456
https://flickr.com/photos/guava0823/51061692572

I have found something similar in MF terms, it would be Mamiya 6 (the Contax-y look):

https://flickr.com/photos/28887596@N06/4953761255

vs Hasselblad/Zeiss (the "clinically sharp look")

https://flickr.com/photos/elzopilote/31739193893

Am I making any sense? Ideas?

 

[the_jim]

Hmmm. I’m not sure that I’m totally tracking what the Contax look is. Some of your example images appear soft because of the particular scans, I would guess (the first two and the last one).

As far as lens suggestions go, you could check out the 45mm lens from Funleader…which is converted Zeiss/Contax lens.

Additionally, any modern spherical lens from Voigtlander (28 2, 28 3.5, 35 1.4, 40 1.4, 50 2.5…for example) or Zeiss with C41 film and playing around in Negative Lab Pro will get you in the ballpark of any of your examples…at least to my eye.

 

[furcafe]

I would like to buy Leica mount lenses that would give me the "Contax 35mm look" (as in Contax G1/G2, Contax TVS). In my mind, Leica/Zeiss lenses are clinically sharp, while Contaxes are not unsharp by any means, but "softer" I would say, with "gentler" color.

Examples of "the Contax Look":

https://flickr.com/photos/summer-never-ends/11004657466
https://flickr.com/photos/guava0823/51018365136
https://flickr.com/photos/83510117@N04/9919653975
https://flickr.com/photos/145955752@N05/34891380456
https://flickr.com/photos/guava0823/51061692572

I have found something similar in MF terms, it would be Mamiya 6 (the Contax-y look):

https://flickr.com/photos/28887596@N06/4953761255

vs Hasselblad/Zeiss (the "clinically sharp look")

https://flickr.com/photos/elzopilote/31739193893

Am I making any sense? Ideas?

Hmmm. I’m not sure that I’m totally tracking what the Contax look is. Some of your example images appear soft because of the particular scans, I would guess (the first two and the last one).

As far as lens suggestions go, you could check out the 45mm lens from Funleader…which is converted Zeiss/Contax lens.

Additionally, any modern spherical lens from Voigtlander (28 2, 28 3.5, 35 1.4, 40 1.4, 50 2.5…for example) or Zeiss with C41 film and playing around in Negative Lab Pro will get you in the ballpark of any of your examples…at least to my eye.

I agree w/the_jim. The Contax 35mm "look", if it exists, was produced by Zeiss lenses, which you have lumped in w/Leica as producing "clinically sharp" photos.

Zeiss v. Leitz I can understand, but I'm afraid Zeiss v. Zeiss is too subtle for me.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Having owned the G1 and G2 in the past, I think I know what you mean by the "look". The closest I've found in M-mount is the 50mm f1.5 Nokton II from Voigtlander. It's a very different design from the 45mm Planar, but seems very similar to me in its rendering. All very subjective, of course, like so much of this photography business!

 

[jcb4718]

I can identify with your thinking. I only have LTM lenses and I have found that the modern Voigtlander LTM lenses are sharp and contrasty, too contrasty in fact when the scene itself is high contrast. I find older lenses often produce more pleasing images in the way you are looking for. The older LTM lenses lenses I like: Canon 35mm f/2 and 28mm f/3.5; almost any 50mm sonnar (I have an Opton, a Canon and a Jupiter-8). None of these lenses are 'clinically sharp' but I am very happy with them.

 

[BWF]

Side note, will Zeiss ever release new M Mount lenses? It seems like Voigtlander is on a tear, but Zeiss hasn’t released a new lens in 10 years. It seems like there is a lot that Zeiss could do with its legacy designs, like releasing a new 45/2 Planar in ZM.

 

[former member]

You can buy Contax G lenses that have been converted to M Mount, and also have them converted to M-Mount.

You can also find the 50/1.4 Planar in Leica mount.

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/services/ad/188

 

[furcafe]

Side note, will Zeiss ever release new M Mount lenses? It seems like Voigtlander is on a tear, but Zeiss hasn’t released a new lens in 10 years. It seems like there is a lot that Zeiss could do with its legacy designs, like releasing a new 45/2 Planar in ZM.

More like 8 years (the 35/1.4 Distagon was introduced in 2014), but I get the feeling that they've filled out all the gaps that they felt needed filling & are content to allow Cosina, who makes the ZM lenses for them anyway, to cater to consumers who want more esoteric lenses or less popular focal lengths (like their discontinued 85mm lenses). The 45/2 Planar was the alternative to a 50 for the G series, which didn't use framelines, & a new one would fall right between the 35 & 50 ZM Planars, so I'm sure they don't see that as a big enough seller to revive.

 

[lukx]

Like others, I'm not entirely sure what that Contax look is supposed to be compared to other Zeiss lenses. Also I think that blanket statements such as "Leica lenses are too clinically sharp" is not very precise, since Leitz have been making lenses for 80+ years. While all good in their own right, not all of these are extremely sharp. Also keep in mind: any photos from the Contax G line are obviously film, while many photos you'll see taken with M or LTM mount glass might be digital, which will oftentimes look sharper (and worse, imo). But I may be stating the obvious here...


You could try to go by lens design. If you pick a lens from a similar period you might find similar characteristics. The Planar 45mm f2 is a traditional 6 element Double Gauss design with rather modern coatings. No aspherical elements and such, nothing too fancy. A lens with similar spec is the Leica Summicron 50mm v3, produced between 1969 and 1979 I believe. It's got a reputation of being a little less sharp than other Summicron 50s, but has nice micro-contrast (something I've heard people say about Zeiss glass such as the 45mm) and pleasing bokeh (10 blades!). It is a very nice lens.

Generally, discussions about look will be very subjective, and mostly people will suggest lenses that they like themselves (like I just did). I hope you find what you are looking for!

 

[furcafe]

Like others, I'm not entirely sure what that Contax look is supposed to be compared to other Zeiss lenses. Also I think that blanket statements such as "Leica lenses are too clinically sharp" is not very precise, since Leitz have been making lenses for 80+ years. While all good in their own right, not all of these are extremely sharp. Also keep in mind: any photos from the Contax G line are obviously film, while many photos you'll see taken with M or LTM mount glass might be digital, which will oftentimes look sharper (and worse, imo). But I may be stating the obvious here...

. . .

Right, I'm not sure if there's a noticeable difference between photos produced by, say, a 45/2 Planar in Contax G mount made by Yashica/Kyocera in 2000 & a 50/2 Planar ZM made by Cosina in 2005. BTW, I have the 45/2 Planar in G & converted M mounts, but don't have the 50/2 Planar ZM or else I'd compare the 2 myself!

 

[the_jim]

My guess is that the ZM 50 f/2 is only a slight tweak of the 45…especially considering that the field of view is wide for a 50. Of course, different manufacturers and so on.

But yeah, the modern Zeiss/Contax lenses are…modern lenses. Other modern lenses are going to look somewhat similar. Softness and low contrast on film are more a function of exposure and processing (as mentioned above, Negative Lab Pro offers a lot of power in this arena).

 

[aizan]

There’s no such thing as the Contax Look. It’s the Zeiss Look, circa the late ‘90s, early ‘00s.

I’d check out the early Cosina Voigtländer lenses.

 

[markjwyatt]

One of the shots was Ilford Delta 400, and two (of the young lady) were Fuji Superia Premium 400. Some of the others did not identify the film. I wonder if the film (modern T-grain basis B&W and SuperiaPremium 400 color) was part of what you are identifying as not "clinically sharp". Both Delta 400 and Fuji Superia (XTRA in my case) have a definite grain pattern which is very nice, and may soften the image a little from being clinically sharp.

 

[raid]

I have a Zeiss planar 45/2 in M mount. I also have a Zeiss 5cm 1;5 in LTM.

 

[splitimageview]

ZM lenses are what you want. I too don't see a distinction between Contax and Zeiss look.

 

[cboy]

The contax look is the zeiss look of that era specific to the contax g series of lenses. Its rendering would be similar to rendering of lenses made during that era id imagine.

If you want softer crisp rendering id recommend the voigtlander 35mm ultron asph in ltm mount not the m mount which is more clinical/ modern. Just have a ltm - m mount adapter to attach o your m mount body

Otherwise just do the third party conversions of the contax g lenses to m mount..

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I do think Zeiss and Leica made different choices in term of the color rendering of their glass/coatings. Leica had higher red saturation and Contax did better with blues. At least by reputation. I don't think that the C/V Zeiss lenses render exactly like the Contax G lenses of a generation earlier. I bought several of the Zeiss-branded C/V lenses, hoping I could magically import what I liked about the G-series lenses to my Leica-M photography. I never quite saw it, though. Could all be an illusion/confirmation bias, although I did have a Contax G 45/2 that I liked so well I had it converted to an M-mount in Japan. Wonderful lens and it did really, really well with saturated red colors, although that is hardly the only criterion for a lens. The "color cast" or "saturation" questions are so easily addressed with modern photo software I almost think that aspect of things doesn't really matter much any more.

Bottom line: Leica and Contax each historically hewed to its own design philosophy and for my life I couldn't identify a Leica lens that was "trying" to produce a look like a Contax. Then again, if we are being honest with ourselves, I doubt that many of us could reliably pick the brand of taking lens by looking at a digitally rendered image. If you can, my hat's off to you, but I think that that Emperor has no clothes on, if you know what I mean. 😉

 

[piero2025]

Thanks to everybody for helping out.

From the conversation, I think that I just might buy 3 bessa cameras (m mount/ltm mount/contax mount) and experiment with lenses from different manufacturers and production years, so I will have many more "looks" to choose from (as perceived or real they might be).

In any case, you have opened my eyes on the fantastic world of rangefinders and their lenses.

 

[jsrockit]

The V3 50mm Summicron is something you should look into.

 

[bluesun267]

You're quite lucky actually that you can just use the lenses you like and be done with it (at least the 35 and 45). The Funleader mount is pricey but then the lenses themselves are comparatively cheap. I would do it in a heartbeat if I had fallen in love with the G series. (Not a knock on them, just that I never tried them).

It is nearly impossible to generalize lens 'look' based on manufacturer only, especially when that manufacturer has been in business for decades (Leica, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, CV).

The best you can do is narrow lenses down to a series, made in the same time period, with the same design team. Konica-M series lenses (like Contax-G) are good examples from the 90s (though I don't believe the Konica lenses are similar to Contax G--someone with more experience may chime in on that). Lenses are like clothing: anytime you are talking about more than a period of a couple years, things will change: personnel, materials, management, philosophy.