Contax SLR lenses vs. C/V RF lenses?

P

photophorous

Registered User
Local time
8:32 PM
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
383
I'm currently using a Bessa R2A with a couple of Voigtlander lenses. In particular, I really love the look I get from my Heliar Classic 50/2. The quality of these lenses is probably the single biggest reason I shoot with an RF. A lot of people say, and I tend to agree, that the Heliar Classic lens has kind of a 3D look to it and I hear the same thing about Zeiss lenses. That, combined with issues I’m having adjusting to image parallax with an accessory 25mm viewfinder, has me thinking about getting a Contax or Yashica (evil) SLR body and a couple of Zeiss lenses...probably the 28/2.8 and 50/1.4 to start. I've looked at lots of samples on flickr and I've liked what I've seen, but I'd still like to hear opinions from the lens connoisseurs on RFF. I’m about ready to push the button and at this point my only concern is how the image quality will compare to what I’ve grown used to with my Voigtlander RF glass. Any opinions?

Thanks,

Paul
 
I have don't use an RF at the moment. (All of mine a broken to some degree and not worth fixing). But I do own a Contax 167MT with three lenses: Distagon 28/2.8, Planar 50/1.7 and the sonnar 85/2.8. If you don't need fast lenses, I recommend all of them. If you like an 85mm, the sonnar is a sweet, compact lens. It is sharp across all aperture ranges. It does not have the nice bokeh of the Planar 85/1.4, nor the destinctive Planar look, but it has it's own signature which seems to be drawing some attention as of late from the Canon DSLR crowd.

I like the Planar 50/1.7 and have a Yashica ML 50/1.4 if I need a faster aperture. The Yashica ML 50/1.4 is not slouch either. It has a different look - especially when it comes to color rendition wide open when adapted to a Canon DSLR (My Yashica has a really sticky aperture so I can basically use it wide open with film, or just use it on my Canon with stop down metering).

I never owned or used a Planar 50/1.4. I am sure that it is a great lens, but 1.7 is not that far behind on performance, and I would imagine that they are probably equal when stopped down.

Check out these sites for more information:

http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/TestZ.htm

http://slrlensreview.com/content/category/17/65/94/

The second site has good review on the Sonnar if you look under Carl Zeiss telephoto.
 
BTW - DO NOT BUY A CONTAX 167MT. I have had nothing but trouble with mine. The only reason I tolerate that camera is because of the lenses. The electronics on my camera are as glitchy as all get out.
 
Hi navilluspm, thanks for commenting. The main reason I want the 50/1.4 over the 50/1.7 is because I want to be able to use it on my DSLR too. Right now I have a 450D with a 1.6x crop sensor, so the extra half stop of aperture helps with more shallow DOF. Small sensors are challenged in that regard. In the future I plan to upgrade to a 5D, with a full frame sensor, and I've read that the 50/1.7 has interferance issues with the mirror. So, it seems like the 50/1.4 is best for me. I actually just found one for a good price and ordered it a couple of hours ago.

Thanks for the warning on the 167MT. I've been researching camera bodies and I noticed that most of the newer Contax bodies rely heavily on electronics. Realiability is a concern, so I'll probably go with one of the older simpler bodies...maybe even a Yashica.

Paul
 
photophorous said:
Thanks for the warning on the 167MT. I've been researching camera bodies and I noticed that most of the newer Contax bodies rely heavily on electronics. Realiability is a concern, so I'll probably go with one of the older simpler bodies...maybe even a Yashica.
Click to expand...

I can't help recommending a Contax or Yashica body.

Any FR or FX body (with its mechanical shutter, in case electronics scares you or if you run out of batteries) have almost everything you will ever need. But I also have a 139 Q which has proven to be very reliable. All of them run on available SR44/LR44 batteries, by the way. Maybe the 167 MT is particularly prone to failure, dunno.
 
Regarding Contax bodies: I hear good things about the Aria and the RX - as well as the RTS III when talking about newer bodies. Those who have the 139 Q seem to like it. I never never tried any of them: just my 167MT.

I have heard others complain about the 167 MT too, but also those who like it. I don't know if I just have a bad copy or what.

I almost bought a Yashica FX 103 program to use instead of my Contax, but the only reason I did not is that I too am saving up for a 5D II, which I hope to purchase in two years. Every little bit helps, so in the mean time I am living through the glitches - or just using my Pen Ft which is a camera that is truly fun to shoot.

BTW - how do you like shooting your Contax lenses on your 450? I have a 400 and it is really hard to focus because of the slop in Canons AF sensor. (I have AF confirm adapters because my wife does not want me to put a split focusing screen in the camera). Do you use live view? I bet that would help a lot.
 
navilluspm said:
...

I never owned or used a Planar 50/1.4. I am sure that it is a great lens, but 1.7 is not that far behind on performance, and I would imagine that they are probably equal when stopped down.
...
Click to expand...

I don't have the 50 f/1.7, but I have the 50 f/1.4, and it is indeed a superb performer. Sharp as a tack. I don't recall that I would talk about its 3D performance, but at f/1.4 it may well do so. It just wasn't anything that I looked for after I was stunned by its sharpness.

navilluspm said:
...

I almost bought a Yashica FX 103 program to use instead of my Contax, but the only reason I did not is that I too am saving up for a 5D II, which I hope to purchase in two years. Every little bit helps, so in the mean time I am living through the glitches - or just using my Pen Ft which is a camera that is truly fun to shoot.

...
Click to expand...

I too had a Contax 139Q, and I loved it, right up to the moment it died. That was after about 6 or 7 years. In its defense, it had been in the house where we had the house fire.

I couldn't afford to get it fixed, but some time later, I found the Yashica FX 103 was sort of its Yashica twin. It has the same otf flash metering which is astounding in its performance when using dedicated flash. It also has aperture preferred, and plain shutter preferred and the shutter preferred where it picks the best combination on shutter preferred. All in all a very nice camera. They usually sell for a good price, but expect the ebay prices to spike for a while as soon as people read this. That happened twice after I praised the FX 103 on another forum.

BTW, if you like, the FX 103 also takes a winder, just like the 139Q. I have a couple for the Yashica as well as a Contax for when that worked. Personally, I don't care much for them. They don't work any faster than my thumb, if as fast, and add weight.

I really like the FX 103's I have. They have already lasted longer than the 139Q did. Of course they haven't been through a house fire while I had them, but no telling what they were through before that.

They tend to suffer from the same covering problems as the 139Q and other Contax cameras of the time. I just peeled the thin part all the way off and used shoe dye to make it all look the same. Some day maybe I will give them another coat but don't see any reason to now. The mechanics and lenses are what I was after.

The 50 is all I have been able to aford in T* lenses. But as has already been mentioned, most of the Yashica Yashinon lenses are quite good. So are many of the old Vivitar TX lenses.
 
I have often recommended the 137 MA (not 137 MD) for a choice body, so one more time won't hurt ;)

It seems to be overlooked by a lot of people, but to me, that's the most balanced SLR I've ever used. Everything just feels right. Not too light, not heavy either. Go check it out, they are cheap nowadays.

Yashica FR-I is also cool, but most of them has busted film counter, not sure if it's repairable easily.

Also, I had both 50/1.4 and 50/1.7, at comparable apertures, I can't tell the difference so I sold the 1.4 :)
Distagon 35/2.8 is also nice.
 
Hey Everybody, Thanks for the continued advice. I have a 50/1.4 AE on it's way. As for bodies, I think what I really want is a 139Q, but I found an FX-D for cheap on ebay and it's in the mail. I figured I'd play with it for a while and then decide if I want to buy something nicer. But just this morning I went a little crazy and sprung on a $45 buy-it-now price for a 137MA with a planar 50/1.7. Both the body and lens have some issues, but I'm pretty sure I can fix and resell the lens for a profit, and the problem with the 137 seemed minor too. I'll just have to see when it arrives, but it seemed worth the risk. So far all my ebay risk taking has worked out well. Hopefully this one will too.

navilluspm, I have not tried these lenses on my 450D, because my adapter has not arrived yet. I ordered one with AF confirm, but I'm considering a split screen if that doesn't work. However, I just got a plain M42 - EOS adapter for a Fujinon 55/1.8, and I tried it out a few nights ago. It is very hard to focus at f/1.8, but it is possible. I have to really concentrate. I haven't tried live view yet, but that would probably work great for tripod shots. Here's one extremely boring example photo of the girlfriend's V-day flowers, if you're interested: http://www.flickr.com/photos/photophore/3286010875/ Not a bad lens for $9.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Zeiss (Contax) are very close to Leica-R lenses without their ridiculous prices. ;)
(I still prefer Leica glass, though.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom