Tell me your Contax SLR glass experiences, feed my GAS

A

Archiver

Veteran
Local time
9:05 AM
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
2,892
Hello fellow GASoholics,

I have a Panasonic S5 on the way, with the intention of using it primarily for stills, and as a digital back for legacy lenses. Minolta and Leica M adapters are on the way for my existing lenses, and I've been doing a bit of reading about Contax lenses. Contax as a brand has long had an emotional cachet in my eyes, starting from the early 2000s when I discovered the G2, and a bit later when I bought my T3. At secondhand shops, there are often those Contax boxes with their distinctive focal length numbers, but I have yet to hold or physically see a Contax C/Y lens as yet.

Feed my GAS! Tell me stories of your Contax kit, past or present! Regale me with tales of rendering, colour and contrast!
 
I used Contax SLR lenses made by Zeiss :
- all lenses are very well made a bit heavy and results are second to none, color on the warm side, T* coating is very effective,

less "neutral" than R/M Leitz/Leica lenses that I use.
- Distagon 2.8/25mm is a lens to try
- Distagon 1.4/35mm with asph. lens elements was one of the best I use
- Planar 1.4/50 nothing to complain really, it does what I want
- Planar S 2.8/60 is at top even at 1:1
- Planar 1.4/85mm if we don't care the Ninja Stars "things", very nice lens
- Sonnar 2.8/180mm with it's close focus is a "must have in 180mm"


For more, you can find some infos,
https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-kit/zeiss-contax-catalog
 
I love Contax SLR lenses. I have no stories, but maybe some photos.
Planar 85/1.4:

51041121041_e79eb1d912_z.jpg


Distagon 28/2.8:

50267153256_06e1cf3e1f_z.jpg
 
It's easier to list the less than stellar lenses, of which there aren't many. :)

Favorites: 35/2.8, 28/2, 28/2.8, 45/2.8, 85/2.8, 100/2, 135/2.8, 80-200/4, 60/2.8 C.

I don't consider them heavy, they are a lot lighter than Leica SLR lenses and more similar to equivalent Nikkors in terms of weight.

The Yashica lenses are no slouches, either.
 
sir,

In contrast to other manufacturers Zeiss actually measures physical lenses for their MTF curves rrather than calculated ones, and they publish data for distortion etc., so you will get a fair impression by looking at the datasheets.

Their antireflex coatings are performing very well and the mechanics are very robust .

The Kyocera C/Y mount versions that I own show no sign of lesser quality than German made alternatives.

p.
 
My take:
- 50 f/1.7 is very, very good
- 85 f/2.8 far more convenient that wider cousins in any mount
- And, I've just decided to get the 60 f/2.8 Macro

I commend to you this review and rundown of lenses which I think is excellent, by Nick Morrison circa 2012.

Nick offers four lists, with comments:
- The "Standard Primes"
- The Contax "Supers"
- The "Bonus Babies"
- The "Curious George's"
 
Archiver said:
I saw this disturbingly GAS inducing video which kicked my urges up a notchx.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMi5iUTB9qY

And then there's this epic and fascinating video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUjUxKvXgpw

Photographically, I'd like to get a 28/2.8 or perhaps the 28/2, and definitely the 50/1.4. The 85/2.8 looks pretty good, too.
Click to expand...

I only have the Contax 50mm f/1.4 and use it (when I take photos any more. I use other lenses if I want with an adapter.

I have used 1.7 50mm f/1.7 lenses from other lens lines. I think the difference between those f/stops is minimal, despite advertising hype. The 4 or five f/1.7 I have used seemed to deliver good photos. I used to crave other Contax focal lengths but couldn't afford them. I eventually decided I had enough screw mount lenses that I thought were good
enough not to need the Contax glass.

I don't mean to take anything from the Contax 50mm f/1.4. But my Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 stands against it well.
 
I have and use (I go by heart because right now Contaxes are not with me):
50 1,7
50 1,4
60 Macroplanar
35 2,8
28 2,8
85 2,8
100-300 (Incidentally my avatar was rtaken with this zoom)
All fantastic lenses
The problem are not the excellent lenses.!
The problem are bodies!
Still now I have the RTS III and the S2
The RTSIII is like new (I bought it new) BUT THE VIEWFINDER IS UNREADABLE OUTDOOR!
FADING LCDs!
The S2 has the sliding mirror which I hope to have fixed.
Word has it that the only body that has no sliding mirror is the Aria, but even disregarding any other consideration on the Aria, I have read of some users complaining the the viewfinder info is not readable in bright sunlight.
A mint Aria will cost 1k, and for what? If I cannot read the viewfinder info I will be better off with my RTSIII (and the dirty trick to press the DOF button to read the leads).
So for me the only way out is to stick with the hopefully fixed S2.
It is a very sad epilogue for what was once by far my favorite system. For example in 2007 I took the RTSIII and a good number of lenses including the 100-300 in my trip to Maui.
 
Ultimately if I were you I would quell your GAS and think twice.
Unless you are so lucky (luckier than me) and find a good solution to the body problem
 
A story goes with the avatar.
A put thhe RTSIII on a terrace overlooking the sea with the 100-300 at 300 on my Manfrotto tripod and with wired remote.
I set exposition and focused at infinity and told my dear friend lady Ann to press the remote button from time to time while I was at the sea.
The avatar is a somewhat cropped too, because of the distance.
I can't say who really took the photo.
It is a photo in cooperation
 
This summer I purchased the S2, the 50mm f1.4 AEJ, the 28mm f/2.8 AEJ, and the 100mm f/2 MMJ. I like the handling, viewfinder, and meter operation of the S2 very much. I’ve only gotten one roll developed from the S2 and C/Y lenses, and I only had the 50mm and 28mm when I shot roll one, but I am stunned by the results I’ve gotten. I’ve lusted after the 645 for a long time, and the shots I got out of the C/Y lenses strike me as possessing the characteristics I’ve lusted after in the 645 shots I’ve seen online.
 
PaulDalex said:
I have and use (I go by heart because right now Contaxes are not with me):
50 1,7
50 1,4
60 Macroplanar
35 2,8
28 2,8
85 2,8
100-300 (Incidentally my avatar was rtaken with this zoom)
All fantastic lenses
The problem are not the excellent lenses.!
The problem are bodies!
Still now I have the RTS III and the S2
The RTSIII is like new (I bought it new) BUT THE VIEWFINDER IS UNREADABLE OUTDOOR!
FADING LCDs!
The S2 has the sliding mirror which I hope to have fixed.
Word has it that the only body that has no sliding mirror is the Aria, but even disregarding any other consideration on the Aria, I have read of some users complaining the the viewfinder info is not readable in bright sunlight.
A mint Aria will cost 1k, and for what? If I cannot read the viewfinder info I will be better off with my RTSIII (and the dirty trick to press the DOF button to read the leads).
So for me the only way out is to stick with the hopefully fixed S2.
It is a very sad epilogue for what was once by far my favorite system. For example in 2007 I took the RTSIII and a good number of lenses including the 100-300 in my trip to Maui.
Click to expand...

Have you considered the Contax 167. I really like the one I have. I don't know what more one could like in a camera, nothing I have missed.

The 139Q and the 167 as well as others I would guess have an incredibly accurate auto flash when using Contax flashes dedicated for that.

One other story I have is that I bought the 139Q for something like $80 or less, and two of the 50mm lenses for $20 each, at the PX about 1980. Everybody apparently didn't know the Contax line, only Nikon and Canon, and considered the Contax some kind of cheap knock off brand. Lucky me.
 
Thank you for your advice Oftheheard!
I have not considered the 167.
Is it immune of the sliding mirror and the fading lcds?
Anyway I first want to load a roll on my S2 and see if my fixing works.
If not I will take a look at the 167.
I love my contax lenses I won't give up until I find a solution
 
I don't know about the sliding mirror problem. I think I have heard there was only one Contax that didn't have it and I don't think it was the 167. I haven't had the problem. I also have read it is an easy problem to fix but I don't know, never having had the problem.

Something else to consider is some of the Yashica cameras that used the bayonet lens mount. I did that when I was planning a trip to a place I was afraid might be more theft prone. Worked out well. One Yashica was surprisingly full of features.
 
Mirror slip is an easy fix. I use a 159MM which is the same small size as the 139 except for a rubberized covering (instead of the 139 leatherette that distintegrates) and 1/4000 shutter. It had mirror slip that revealed itself when the mirror wouldn’t return with some lenses mounted. Ten minute fix. The viewfinder also uses an LED readout for aperture which I really like, it won’t ever fade or bleed like an LCD.
 
splitimageview said:
Mirror slip is an easy fix. I use a 159MM which is the same small size as the 139 except for a rubberized covering (instead of the 139 leatherette that distintegrates) and 1/4000 shutter. It had mirror slip that revealed itself when the mirror wouldn’t return with some lenses mounted. Ten minute fix. The viewfinder also uses an LED readout for aperture which I really like, it won’t ever fade or bleed like an LCD.
Click to expand...

Yep, Yashica really messed up for a several year period with the Contax and Yashica cameras, and some accessories like their auto winder. I expect they lost some sales for the mistake.
 
I had an S2 for a while, and found it to be a very well-made but astonishingly loud camera. Loved the spot meter, and the 45mm. And, strangely, I also had a Yashica-branded 28mm (same mount, of course) that was the best-rendering 28 I've ever used, including my Zeiss 28 in M-mount.
I did eventually sell the camera. Even after a good CLA, it had too much mirror vibration to be used at 1/30 hand-held, and 1/60 was problematic. That was a deal breaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom