Contax RF virgin question - please tell me about 50/1.5 lens

[Nick De Marco]

Hi Contax RF people

I have never had a Contax RF before (though used a slightly dodgy Nikon RF with 50/1.4 lens which, although needing repair, produced some lovely pics). I am much more used to using Leica RFs and lenses or copies.

But I do love Contax glass, often more than any other, for example on my 5D 2 I find old Contax lenses generally to be the best (above Canon L, Leica, and olympus, all of which I use on it too).

I bought a vintage 50mm Summilux 1.4 the other day for my M6. But I tried out the new Zeiss 50mm f1.5 ZM too. The latter was certainly the sharper lens, and beautifully made - but a bit pricy new.

This got me interested in the old 50/1.5 I understand the new one is based on. I grabbed a used Contax I and 50/1.5 on evilbay yesterday. The lens maybe rather poor I just don't know: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....TRK:MEWNX:IT&item=110415286141#ht_1461wt_1167

I have seen a mint looking Contax IIIA and 50/1.4 combo for nearly £500. It's tempting but I'd rather save the money. All I want is a user Contax RF with which I can take some photos with the 1.5 wide open now and then. Ought I to be looking for a better copy/later body, or is what I have just bought perhaps enough?

Thanks

 

[sebastel]

i own a IIa, and found it a bit unreliable - CLA might help, but i also had the chance to get a bessa R2C, so that one is now my preferred body for using contax mount lenses.

cheers
sebastian

 

[Nick De Marco]

Thanks Sebastian.
Good idea, I had not thought of that. I shall look out for the right Besa in the UK. I assume it should take my Nikkor RF 50/1.4 too?

 

[sebastel]

not exactly.
nikon RF mount and contax mount may use the same bayonet, but the specifications for the focusing helicoid are different.
they are based on different focus length of the standard lens (with nominally 50mm FL).

that's why cosina offered both an R2C (contax) and an R2S (nikon).

 

[sebastel]

here is a description of the incompatibility:

http://www.cameraquest.com/NRF-Contax.htm

 

[Nick De Marco]

Thanks for that

 

[Roger Vadim]

Get a Kiev 4, and be lucky like me (my kiev works flawlessly) or, to be on the save side, have it cla'd. The cheapest option to shoot Zeiss glass.

This Kiev, I'll admit, is one of my favorite shooters, with a lovely coated Carl Zeiss Jena T 2/5cm mounted it produces the most stunning pictures (in B/W).

The Kiev is much cheaper than the average Contax II/III, and both might have the same issues (shutter CLA needed). An early Kiev (mine is '61 and build quality is ok) is worth going for.

Have fun with Zeiss!

 

[batterytypehah!]

I'm afraid the lens you bought is a fake (i.e. a Ukrainian Jupiter-3 disguised as genuine Zeiss). I can't say for sure, as I don't have a 50/1.5 of my own to compare it to, but those aperture blades sure don't look right.

There was a discussion of Zeiss fakes over in the FSU forum not too long ago (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75891). Forum members Brian Sweeney and raid contributed a lot of information there and can probably help you. You should also check this site: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Zeiss_Fakes.html

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I'm afraid the lens you bought is a fake (i.e. a Ukrainian Jupiter-3 disguised as genuine Zeiss). I can't say for sure, as I don't have a 50/1.5 of my own to compare it to, but those aperture blades sure don't look right.

There was a discussion of Zeiss fakes over in the FSU forum not too long ago (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75891). Forum members Brian Sweeney and raid contributed a lot of information there and can probably help you. You should also check this site: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Zeiss_Fakes.html

Well, the OP's lens does have the small focus triangle and decimal point instead of comma, which that link you provided seems to suggest indicate authenticity.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Keep in mind that most of the photos there are of LTM mount versions. Contax mount 50s don't have a focusing triangle at all; the focus scale is on the body.

I do know for certain that my pre-war collapsible 5cm/2 is genuine (there are no fake collapsibles) and it has commas, not dots, on the aperture scale. I do not know if and when Zeiss switched to dots after the war.

Like I said, I hope other members can settle this. All I'm saying is I get a bad vibe from that auction. Note how the photos don't show the CZ name or red T marking. I also understand $200 is a steal if it's genuine.

 

[ZeissFan]

That's an authentic Zeiss lens. The chrome barrel, marking on the aperture ring and face ring are Zeiss, not Soviet. And the lens elements have the a light purple hue that is evidence of single coating rather than the dark hues seen in Soviet lenses.

The aperture blades are Zeiss.

 

[ZeissFan]

Regarding the red "T." Lenses marked as Zeiss-Opton used a red "T."

Lenses marked as "Carl Zeiss" do not carry a red "T."

Also, the workmanship of the Zeiss lenses is far superior to what the Soviets were able to achieve.

 

[ZeissFan]

One last bit of trivia. When Zeiss revived the f/1.5 50mm Sonnar last year in the "S" mount, it used commas rather than periods for all aperture markings, including the face ring.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Thanks for clarifying, and sorry that I've been steering this in the wrong direction. What's your feeling on the price, then? (BIN $249, accepted offer $200)

Also, to get back to one of the other points in the OP, the Contax I is generally considered not reliable enough for serious shooting. For every now and then, as Nick says, I think he should be fine.

 

[raid]

I have the CZJ 5cm 1.5 and the Zeiss Opton 5cm 1.5, and I find both to be excellent lenses. The 5cm 2.0 should not be ignored, and I love my CZJ 5cm 2.0 lens as much as I like using the 5cm 1.5. It has been stated online that the CZJ 1.5 lens is one of few cases where a faster lens is actually also optically better than its slower cousin the 2.0 lens.

I have the Contax mount lens and also the Brian Sweeney adapted LTM lens. The lettering and the "ears" help with authenticating the lens. If a lens is collapsible, then it is always authentic since no FSU clone is collapsible. The dealer's reputation is also a good indicator.

The rest is just having luck and not overbidding at ebay for a lens that you don't know 100% to be authentic Zeiss or not.

 

[Paul T.]

If a lens is collapsible, then it is always authentic since no FSU clone is collapsible. The dealer's reputation is also a good indicator.

The rest is just having luck and not overbidding at ebay for a lens that you don't know 100% to be authentic Zeiss or not.

It's easy to tell apart the later ones, like the one posted by the OP; they look completely different cosmetically, especially the look of the chrome.

Personally, I think the tricky ones to tell apart are the ZK Zorki Sonnars, which seem to be faked more and more - their rarity value seems to encourage prices as high as the Zeiss lenses.

 

[splitimageview]

The CZO 50/1.5 is my favorite lens. I use it with an M-mount adapter.

 

[Vics]

I use my CZ Sonnar 1.5 on a Contax IIIa and I love its signature! Beautiful tones and very sharp. I think it may be a better 50 than my DR Summicron. Wish I had one of those M adaptors!
VS

 

[Nick De Marco]

Thanks for the info and I'm glad it's confirmed as a genuine one.
I really am looking forward t using this lens - and am finding the idea of the CV RSc very tempting
What about the Contax to M adpater mentioned, is it any good and where can I get one?

 

[raid]

AMEDEO ... on ebay. He makes the very best adapters.They go for about $230 or so.