Help choosing a one film camera/lens setup

L

littleearth

Well-known
Local time
2:59 PM
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
220
View My Gallery
I have sold all of my gear and I am trying to simplify things when it comes to 35mm film photography.

I like a modern, contrasty look in my images, and my decision will be mostly based on the lens not the camera.

My budget allows me to buy either the Contax G1 + 45mm G Planar or a
Nikon FE2 + Ultron 40mm f2

The Plan B would be a Yashica FX3 + 28mm Distagon + 50mm Planar for versatility, but I would prefer just one lens.
Unfortunately I can't afford the 35mm f2 Distagon ZF, which would make my decision much easier.

Anyone had experience with these lenses ? Can the Ultron keep up with the 45mm G ?
 
They're both modern lenses & you can tweak any contrast variances w film/developer choices and style of printing. My bias is to choose the Nikon, not because i favour SLRs but because of the tedious focusing for the G1. The Voigtlander lenses are superb, but admitting that, many of us favour character lenses.... shooting with everything from old Elmars & Tessars, to the fabled Pentax 50mm 1.4...... . I personally don't do back flips over 'sharpest'... 'asph' etc. Yes Zeiss lenses are great, but i'll take a great photo from a pre-Ai nikkor to a ho-hum snapshot with a Leitz Asph or Zeiss. Yes Edward Weston, HCB, Abbas.... Koudelka.
Also given that you've sold everything else.... buying that one Zeiss for the Nikon won't break the bank in the long run.
 
These are really different beasts, for me the main factors would be if you want close focus and precise framing that an SLR provides.
I've been tempted by the Contax Gs with their flawless glass myself and regret not having bought one a few years ago when they were cheaper. Points against them: small VF with low coverage, no dof scale (I like to zone focus).
Sorry, no experience with the lenses. I think the differences, at least in sharpness, should be very small if any, certainly nothing to worry about unless you print optically very large or scan at ultra high resolution.

With older Cosina Voigtländer lenses, look out for haze! I have not heard anything about the SLR 40, but reports abound about the earlier RF lenses.
 
Same vote go for the FE2 + 40/2 Ultron. Top notch quality and more importantly very reliable. The Ultron is a gem you'd never regret getting. A true and elegant Ultron diagram, with ASPH element to boot, which makes it sufficiently modern. I'm tempted to say it betters the Planar in some aspects but lack concrete proof.

This setup will also open you up to the extensive portfolio of F mount lenses. Plenty of highly regarded lenses like the 28/2.8 AIS will be available at not so hefty cost.
 
I don't think you'd be disappointed with either of those choices for rendering, I have both of them.

The latest version Ultron focuses to 0.25m without the need for close-up lenses, and the FE2 has a fantastic viewfinder/focusing screen.

The G1 has a very narrow exit pupil on the viewfinder, with a bit of practice it becomes second nature to position the camera so the eye is in the proper location. Just make sure to look at the distance indicator in the viewfinder and AF shouldn't be an issue.

For me it would come down to the differences in the cameras: AF vs manual focus, SLR viewing vs RF-style viewing, manual wind vs auto wind. The FE2 also has a faster shutter speed if you want extra margin shooting at f/2.
 
A Yashica FX3 Super 2000 with Zeiss 35mm f2.8 is a nice combination in my experience and would give a single lens set up. The Zeiss C/Y 45mm f2.8 would be a compact alternative.
 
The Contax is much different than the slr's, so it might be a good idea to decide this first. All manufacturers make good, contrasty lenses so I think the body is actually more important. Are you planning to get a lot of lenses or one or two? If a lot then the Nikon; if one or two then ergonomics of the bodies should be the deciding factor.
 
ACullen said:
A Yashica FX3 Super 2000 with Zeiss 35mm f2.8 is a nice combination in my experience and would give a single lens set up. The Zeiss C/Y 45mm f2.8 would be a compact alternative.
Click to expand...

Second this... And, if going this route, I believe you could be using one of the compact Contax SLR bodies for not that much more money.
 
Thank you all for the replies.

Shooting one of the best lenses ever made for 35mm film at an affordable price, makes the G1 very tempting.

Camera wise I do prefer the Nikon, no doubt ! It does sound like a better long term investment and I can always add a few more lenses later.

The Contax SLR line has amazing glass, but the electronic problems and mirror slip issues always made me stay away from those cameras (I had a mint 139Q in the past and it died on me).

Now leaning more towards the Ultron and a Nikon. Who knows, maybe I'll come across a great deal for the G1 one day.
 
littleearth said:
I like a modern, contrasty look in my images, and my decision will be mostly based on the lens not the camera.

My budget allows me to buy either the Contax G1 + 45mm G Planar or a
Nikon FE2 + Ultron 40mm f2
Click to expand...

I have no experience with the Nikon FE2 body or the Ultron 40mm f/2 lens.

However, I do own and use the Contax G1 with the 45mm f/2 G Planar lens and love its modern, contrasty images.


Contax G1 by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
My set-up analgous to your desired situation is a Praktica MTL5 + Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron. Probably a 35 mm or 40mm would be a little better- 50mm is a little narrow of a view. I have been shooting my Contax iia a lot, and I am getting a hankering to shoot an SLR again.
 
For BW use contrast filters on the lens and for prints.
For color use as new lens as possible.

Using exotics with no repair base as the only camera is going to be problematic and soon.
Canon EOS or latest Nikon with their not expensive modern lenses is best choice, IMO, for one and only camera, lens.

Like EOS300 with 40 2.8 EF pancake. They have rechargeable batteries for theses cameras now.
 
I'm considering putting a few items up for sale, might include a G1/45 and possibly the 40/2 Ultron. Also have a Contax 159MM (that had mirror slip but has been serviced) and a 45/2.8 Tessar. The 159 is the same size as the 139, they accept the same winders. 1/4000 top speed instead of the 1/1000 of the 139. Message me if you're interested.
 
littleearth said:
Thank you all for the replies.



The Contax SLR line has amazing glass, but the electronic problems and mirror slip issues always made me stay away from those cameras (I had a mint 139Q in the past and it died on me).

.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that about your 139Q . I’ve had mine since 1983 without incident. I relatively recently added an FX3 Super 2000 and an Aria just in case....

I also a handful of Nikon’s (FM, Nikomat, F70) and vastly prefer the Contax / Yashica bodies and lenses.
 
I would get the Nikon since it's more repairable. The Contax G1 is a risky purchase, so I would only choose that if a backup body is in your budget.
 
I would buy a Nikon F3 with a 35 mm lens...
Those FM2 or FE2 have always disappointed me because of their build quality, bought 2 on Ebay and there was always someting wrong: film transport, self timer.
Also had the G1, if you manage to convince it to autofocus the way you want, it delivers exceptional quality - it it focusses right.
I would go for an F3...
 
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
Jamie Pillers
One camera, one lens?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
2K
38Deardorff
38Deardorff
ecowarrior
Is this really a worthwhile Leica lens upgrade?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
rfaspen
rfaspen
gzisis69
Help with new street photography setup
Replies
3
Views
841
ddutchison2
ddutchison2
M
Is there an M (or LTM) lens that 'renders like' the Zeiss 45mm/f2 Planar for Contax G-series?
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
11K
RexGig0
R
Back
Top Bottom