The under valued winner hands down

[JimDE]

I just got back from the photo store with my prints made with my G2 and various lenses and was once again amazed at the detail and color this camera system and film produce. Film slows me down and forces me to concentrate on the process more than I do with digital but even if I focused as much with my digital I haven't seen results like these.

Can't believe this system sells so cheaply on todays market!

 

[M. Valdemar]

I think the color is more a function of the film and processing rather than the lens. If you took any well-exposed film to the same photo store you'd get just about the same color.

PS: Only look at your digital photos at 4"x5" onscreen and adjust the color with Photoshop. Voila.

 

[peterm1]

I think the color is more a function of the film and processing rather than the lens. If you took any well-exposed film to the same photo store you'd get just about the same color.

PS: Only look at your digital photos at 4"x5" onscreen and adjust the color with Photoshop. Voila.

I cannot agree with you M. Valdemar. I am afraid I have to go with Jim on this one. Although I do not have the G2, I do have the Contax T2. When I first got it the results blew me away. The shots were sharper and more contrasty, with better color than anything I had ever shot before - and that includes my Leica glass. This little camera produces such shots over and over. The lenses made for these cameras a very good indeed and do produce lovely images. I can vouch personally for that. If the G2 lenses are similar then what Jim says is absolutely accurate and on the evidence of my eyes from other cameras in this stable, I am happy to give the benefit of the doubt.

 

[RF-Addict]

Jim is right - I shoot slides exclusively when I shoot color and the Zeiss lenses are superior to even my Canon L glass. The colors just pop with the G2 - there is no doubt that it's the lenses. I don't use the camera as much as I should, but every time I am amazed by the outcome. Plus the meter in the G2 is 95% spot on. It is the perfect camera for people who want to shoot slides. And yes, it is very much under-valued -except for the 16mm Hologon - I am still on the hunt for a good bargain🙂

 

[Doug]

Jim, I agree there's something special about those lenses... I had not used my G2s for a while, but took them on vacation last month, and I'm now going through over a dozen rolls. There are some quick shots with missed focus, but otherwise the color, contrast, and sharpness - and maybe something more - is impressive.

 

[KoNickon]

Sure, there will be some variations in print quality based on freshness of chemicals, competence of the operator, etc. But you get to know what the "normal" standards are, and if there's a consistent better quality to the prints from a certain piece of camera equipment, that's valid enough evidence for me. I use the same lab (local Walgreens) for all my C-41 and I do see the difference with certain equipment, including the Contax G stuff.

 

[shadowfox]

Agree with Jim, those T* coating has a lot to do with the lovely contrast rendered by the lens. It's up to the film to record it, but man, them Zeiss glasses are top notch.

I got the 50/1.7 Planar for Contax SLR's. It rocks.

But, G2 undervalued? ehm, it's more than $1200 to own a kit nowadays 😉

 

[lic4]

I'm always amazed by the color and bw images from my Contax T3, but yes, like Will implies with the g2, the T3 is priced high too.

 

[DavidH]

I just got back from the photo store with my prints made with my G2 and various lenses and was once again amazed at the detail and color this camera system and film produce. Film slows me down and forces me to concentrate on the process more than I do with digital but even if I focused as much with my digital I haven't seen results like these.

Can't believe this system sells so cheaply on todays market!

Well done Jim - and glad you're enjoying the results...

The G2 is a superb system and the lenses are fabulous. Whilst there may be some variations in commercial process and printing of negs, I tend to get mine process-only at pro labs and then scan and post process in Photoshop...the G2 lenses perform marvels and there is no doubt that a punchy neg is the result. The 45mm and the 21mm have given me some of my best images ever.

The only drawback you'll find with the G2 system is that there isn't a huge amount to buy...leaving us short of gear talk and forcing us to then go out and take photos instead... 🙂

Have fun

 

[raid]

The G1 is undervalued. The G2 is still a little costly. I have been using Zeiss glass for many years. It is special somehow.

 

[JimDE]

David, I have to get a 21mm. Every shot that draws me in on ContaxG site is shot with the 21mm. Recently, the photos done with the 16mm have caught my eye as well.

 

[niblue]

My first rangefinder system was a G1 with 28, 45 and 90mm lenses. The lenses were very good, up there with my Pentax FA* lenses, however the G1 body really was very frustrating so I got rid of the system as the results were too inconsistent.

I wouldn't mind trying the same lenses with the better G2 body however by that point I didn't feel inclined to spend more cash on a system that I wasn't using so sold up instead.

 

[kuzano]

I'm glad that was "tongue in cheek"

I'm glad that was "tongue in cheek"

The only drawback you'll find with the G2 system is that there isn't a huge amount to buy...leaving us short of gear talk and forcing us to then go out and take photos instead... 🙂

Have fun

I have the G1 (no green sticker) so with even less equipment to buy, I consider that a real plus on the wallet, and on learning to use those 3 lenses moreso than if I had all the lenses in the G2 quiver.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I certainly agree with Raid about the G1 being undervalued. I have used both the G1 and G2 bodies for about five years and believe the G1 is better. I'm amazed how many are convinced the G2 must be better just because it was introduced later and costs more.

Jim DE: yes you must get the 21mm Biogon. It is spectacular. You can justify the system just to be able to use that particular lens.

 

[Doug]

28 Biogon on G2... Ponce, Puerto Rico.

 

[Doug]

Fred, all the G lenses have a conventional aperture ring...

I agree the G1 is a neat little camera, and I bought one as the least-expensive way to use the excellent 21 Biogon that brought me to the system. As it turned out, my G1 had a film-transport problem and went back to KEH. The G1's top-mounted manual focusing dial was easy to move inadvertently, so I chose a G2 replacement. But carrying the G2 in a bag often means its far-left mode dial moves off the desired position inadvertently... Oh well!

That 21 Biogon is small, fast, and optically fine, but it also shows vignetting even at medium apertures, more noticeable for some shots than others... like this one (maybe not the greatest composition, but the typeface used for the "My Disease" name is one I designed years ago):

 

[Meleica]

A Contax G Information and price guide is here


http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/contaxg.htm

 

[Cron]

a G2 with lenses is my camera for travel - small, light and excellent results (from the camera ;-)).
I only shoot slide film and like sharpness and colour rendition of the G-lenses. But there is one lens, which is slightly visible different - the 2/35. Not so sharp and not so contrasty as the other G-lenses. I see a difference in projection. It is good, but different.
Nevertheless the G-system is a real gem to buy and use nowadays. I'm happy to have one.

 

[raid]

The 45mm lens is one of the best lenses, and it sells for "pennies". Buy a G1 with this lens for $300-$350.

 

[Cron]

....... and the 21, 28 and not to forget the 90. Last one is the cheapest, easy to find at about 100 Euro