Contax RX / RTS ers around here?

[Freakscene]

My thought as well. I have reassembled my Zeiss kit for this reason.
Anyone here use the 25/2.8? Debating whether to go 25 --> 35 -->50 as opposed to the current 28 --> 35 --> 50. The 28/2.8 is so good.

I have the 25/2.8 - if you like the 28/2.8 you’ll like the 25 too. The 25/2.8 gets bad reviews, but it’s main flaw is field curvature, and it is the same flaw that characterise most of the other C-Y Zeiss wides. I prefer the 28/2 to either of the 2.8s, but they all look excellent on film - the basic lens design parameters ensure that the coarse image structures are rendered with very high mtf. They don’t resolve fine structures as well as more modern lenses, but remember that the designs are mostly 50+ years old. And on film they still look great - the tonality on medium speed film or slides can be quite exquisite. I like the way the photos taken with them look better than most modern SLR lenses. But you may see some decreased fine structure contrast on high resolution digital sensors.

Marty

 

[PRJ]

My thought as well. I have reassembled my Zeiss kit for this reason.

Anyone here use the 25/2.8? Debating whether to go 25 --> 35 -->50 as opposed to the current 28 --> 35 --> 50. The 28/2.8 is so good...

Jeesh, if we keep talking about this stuff we will shoot ourselves in the foot!

Contaxaholism is a problem I’ve had for over 25 years. I am yet to find a cure or effective therapy. There is a social stigma, but the cameras (apart from the disappointing S2 and S2b) are so appealing I don’t mind the stares. I still find myself looking online at camera models I have owned, or, even more sadly, already own. As I said, I have a problem.

Like you, I prefer the ST but the RX and RX II are also great cameras. The RX II has a brighter viewfinder if you don’t want or need the not very responsive focus confirmation of the RX.

Marty

I would buy the RXII but I try to avoid talking about the things I want to buy on the internet, you know what I'm saying? Lol.

I've used Contax off and on since the mid 90s. They are fantastic cameras, and the lenses, well, they are in that sweet spot of being incredibly good without being harsh like lenses are today.

 

[splitimageview]

I have the 25/2.8 - if you like the 28/2.8 you’ll like the 25 too. The 25/2.8 gets bad reviews, but it’s main flaw is field curvature, and it is the same flaw that characterise most of the other C-Y Zeiss wides. I prefer the 28/2 to either of the 2.8s, but they all look excellent on film - the basic lens design parameters ensure that the coarse image structures are rendered with very high mtf. They don’t resolve fine structures as well as more modern lenses, but remember that the designs are mostly 50+ years old. And on film they still look great - the tonality on medium speed film or slides can be quite exquisite. I like the way the photos taken with them look better than most modern SLR lenses. But you may see some decreased fine structure contrast on high resolution digital sensors.

Thanks, very helpful, this would be for use on film.

The Hollywood is out of my price range now, I had one a few years ago that I acquired for $50 but unless fortune strikes twice I’ll be sticking with f/2.8s.😛

After doing a bit of research, 25s appear to be selling for more than I anticipated. Hmm.

 

[PaulDalex]

I have both.
I bought the RTSIII new. It is a fantastic camera, rather heavy though. It eventually developed fading LCD in the viewfinder and now it is almost impossible to use.
Before the RTSIII I had the RX. The first one notice, the one with the focus indicator, which was removed in the subsequent series. I swapped the RX with the RTSIII, not because I was unhappy with the RX, but for the stupid reason I wanted the top of the line. Well The RTS has some additional features like MLU, the ceramic film plate with the vacuum system and the flash exposure meter.
After the RTSIII failed, I bought again an RX.
If you have some specific question I will be glad to help
Cheers
Paolo

 

[santino]

rumour has it that the 25mm is actually a 26mm and the 28mm is actually a 27mm.

 

[Freakscene]

rumour has it that the 25mm is actually a 26mm and the 28mm is actually a 27mm.

The 25 and 28mm f2.8 are definitely close in focal length. The 28mm f2.8 is noticeably wider than the 28mm f2.

 

[splitimageview]

If the actual focal lengths are that close: I have a really nice 28 AEG so I may just stick with it, unless a super nice 25 comes along at a below-market price.

Looking at bodies, the only one I haven’t tried that I’d consider is the RTS II. The III is too big as is the AX…