Contax T2 look for M mount?

M

MadsJaeger

Member
Local time
11:51 AM
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
15
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
View My Gallery
I have a Contax T2 and I love the lens on that little thing (38mm Carl Zeiss Sonnar f/2.8). Sharp, great microcontrast and that Zeiss "3D look" which I really like.

However, being a P&S the T2 isn't really suited for manual control, and I'm looking for an M mount lens (35mm) that would give me a similar look on film with my M6. I was thinking about the Zeiss 2/35 Biogon ZM but would appreciate inputs you might have on whether this lens has a similar rendering (i.e., Zeiss look)? Zeiss also makes a 2.8/35 ZM which should be great but, living in a country that's dark most of the year, I'd appreciate the extra stop provided by the 2/35 ZM.

Any input appreciated 🙂
 
MadsJaeger said:
I have a Contax T2 and I love the lens on that little thing (38mm Carl Zeiss Sonnar f/2.8). Sharp, great microcontrast and that Zeiss "3D look" which I really like.

However, being a P&S the T2 isn't really suited for manual control, and I'm looking for an M mount lens (35mm) that would give me a similar look on film with my M6. I was thinking about the Zeiss 2/35 Biogon ZM but would appreciate inputs you might have on whether this lens has a similar rendering (i.e., Zeiss look)? Zeiss also makes a 2.8/35 ZM which should be great but, living in a country that's dark most of the year, I'd appreciate the extra stop provided by the 2/35 ZM.

Any input appreciated 🙂
Click to expand...

I've used both. The 35/2 Biogon is a more modern lens, sharper and with more bite. It is also bigger than other 35/2 lens for the m-mount system.

Another lovely option is the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar. It is a stop slower, but the rendering is just lovely!
 
Thank you for the responses!

Sepiareverb: This could be done but I'd hate to kill my T2 🙂. If it dies on me some day I might consider getting a Frankenstein job done on it.

DrMcCoy: I do know of the 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar ZM but am looking for a 35mm (I have a 50 cron which I tend to use much less than my 35 cron V4. 35 just works best for me). I know the Biogon is a different design but wondered if it would produce the Zeiss look similar to the T2 Sonnar (I don't mind the modern look). Images on Flickr suggests that it does.

Anerjee: Thank you for suggesting the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar. I didn't know that one but will surely check it out.
 
Hm. I can't think of any 35mm Sonnar in M mount. Would there be any offerings from MS Optical perhaps?

FWIW, the Biogons (either f/2 or 2.8) are sure nice lenses.
 
I was blown away by that little lens when I got the camera - it's so freaking sharp in the center! I'm sure this is not purely resolution but extremely high micro contrast but I liked it a lot. It starts to fall off a lot in the corners tho. I sold my T2 in a act of madness and like you I'd love a similar lens for the M, but I guess with that money spend for something like that I might buy another T2.
The Rollei 40mm is a collectors item now .. no chance to get it for a sane price. I believe I've read somewhere it's the Rollei 35 Sonnar in M mount.

You might want to consider the biogon-C, it's supposed to wipe the floor with most other lenses for center resolution.
 
Not sure about the lens of the T2, and can only comment on the T3 (I own a T too, with the 38mm). The 35mm on the T3 is not a real Sonnar, and closest in the ZM setup is the 2.8/35mm Biogon (acc. to a Zeiss employee). I used both the 2/35 and 2.8/35mm on the M6, and do not like them as much as the Contax T3 or T results. One characteristic of the T3 and T lenses is the gentle fall-off from in-focus to OOF, which sometimes reminds me of medium format (I still use the T3 a lot along digital and MF). The 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar is OK but nothing like that.
I suspect that the mentioned Rollei 40/2.8 maybe an option - else Biogon 2/35. The latter is top-notch in all aspects.
 
I agree that the lens on the T2 is a top lens with a unique look. As you say, sharp with superb micro contrast. Really special. I have no idea which M lens would give this look but I strongly suspect it would be a Zeiss not a Leica one.
 
There will be a user conversion of the T3 lens this fall by the same outfit that is making the 50/2.4 Summarit conversion of the Minilux. And the same for 35/2 Hexar AF. I've already acquired a dead one for optical donation...
 
I'm not 100% sure if the Rollei 40mm 2.8 will be the most similar, it's actually supposed to be an Ernostar rather than a Sonnar and has HFT coatings rather than T*. To my eye the Rollei is a little dreamier than the T2 but I haven't used a T2 much. Maybe more importantly it's pretty hard to find and expensive when you do. If manual control is the most important thing to you, then I'd suggest a Rollei 35S or SE - they're really great cameras and a total bargain ($120-200 for a good one).

Otherwise I think MS optical actually sells T2 lenses ready-converted, or at least did.
 
The Rollei 40/2.8 LTM lens is also very prone to haze, and I've heard from several techs, including DHW that the lens cannot be opened to work on. One US tech tried to open up one copy I had and severely scuffed up the barrel and the faceplate ring around the front element without actually opening it up.
 
KismetSky said:
I believe Hamish Gill may still have his Nikon L35AF converted lens still for sale. Here's the listing on his site: http://35mmc.com/shop/product/ms-optical-converted-nikon-l35af-lens/

A quick google search reviews that it is a Sonnar design, but I have no idea how it compares to the Contax lens.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's nothing like the Contax lens unfortunately

The Modern Zeiss ZM lenses are going to be the best option I'd say, if for no other reason than that they are so easy to obtain.

Else yeah, a Ms converted t2 lens will give you exactly what you're after - you should be able to find a t2 for £100 ish if it's buggered. Add £400ish for a conversion and your golden!

I'd probably still go for a Zeiss Biogon over a converted lens if it was my main lens though. The same sort of high contrast, with even nicer, more contrasty colours. But then, I'm completely smitten with ZM lenses... So I would say that 🙂
 
Peter_S said:
Not sure about the lens of the T2, and can only comment on the T3 (I own a T too, with the 38mm). The 35mm on the T3 is not a real Sonnar, and closest in the ZM setup is the 2.8/35mm Biogon (acc. to a Zeiss employee). I used both the 2/35 and 2.8/35mm on the M6, and do not like them as much as the Contax T3 or T results. One characteristic of the T3 and T lenses is the gentle fall-off from in-focus to OOF, which sometimes reminds me of medium format (I still use the T3 a lot along digital and MF). The 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar is OK but nothing like that.
I suspect that the mentioned Rollei 40/2.8 maybe closest to the T/T2.
Click to expand...

This is interesting - I often feel that the ZM Sonnar looks like MF. It's funny how different we all perceive ...
 
hamish_gill said:
This is interesting - I often feel that the ZM Sonnar looks like MF. It's funny how different we all perceive ...
Click to expand...

Indeed. I find the transition from focus to OOF to be way too harsh in the 1.5 Sonnar. MF is smoother.
Anyhow - to go back to the initial question. I gave up on the T3 "look" in M-mount and just use the T3 within its limitations - and got a T (RF) as backup or addition (manual focus) when I want to shoot something in 135 format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shab
A 35mm lens for a Nikon FM3A
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Dogman
Dogman
M
Servicing a Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 1:2 f=5cm T "v3b ZE CR arrs" for Contax
Replies
9
Views
907
mhw
M
tortellini_man
first M mount film body
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
JohnGellings
J
P
"Contax look" M lens?
Replies
19
Views
2K
bluesun267
bluesun267
J
  • Article Article
Scale-focusing full frame 35s: A cherished bygone breed. Part 1Simple, ubiquitous, and charming, they flourished for over a century!
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
ChrisPlatt
ChrisPlatt
Back
Top Bottom