scottgee1
RF renegade
OK. I'll call myself a heretic right up front to save everyone else the trouble.
I suppose you could call me worse things, but this is a family forum.
I have a 'G' kit that consists of a G2, GD-2, 28/45/90 and case.
I love the results I can get with it, but have finally had to break down and admit that I prefer reflex viewing systems.
Of course my first thought is to trade it for a Contax SLR kit, likely with an RX and comparable lenses.
Has anyone else made this comparison? What similarities/differences am I likely to notice if I make the change?
If we already have threads that address this, please point me to them; couldn't find them using the search engine.
TIA!/ScottGee1
I suppose you could call me worse things, but this is a family forum.
I have a 'G' kit that consists of a G2, GD-2, 28/45/90 and case.
I love the results I can get with it, but have finally had to break down and admit that I prefer reflex viewing systems.
Of course my first thought is to trade it for a Contax SLR kit, likely with an RX and comparable lenses.
Has anyone else made this comparison? What similarities/differences am I likely to notice if I make the change?
If we already have threads that address this, please point me to them; couldn't find them using the search engine.
TIA!/ScottGee1
jlamarca
jlamarca
Have you tried using any rangefinders other than the contax g2? I looked at one once and found the viewfinder to be a horribly small tunnel, with manual focus very difficult. I guess the advantage of it is autofocus, but that kind of defeats the purpose of a rangefinder. You don't realize how easy manual focus is on a normal rangefinder until you try it.
scottgee1
RF renegade
jlamarca, I've owned Leicas RFs and a variety of fixed lens RFs over the years and simply prefer to compose with ground glass.
Compared to other RF VFs, I like the one on the G2 because it shows only what the mounted lens sees (yes, a bit more) rather than having to suss out what is actually included by using VF brackets.
Thanks for the suggestion!/Scott
Compared to other RF VFs, I like the one on the G2 because it shows only what the mounted lens sees (yes, a bit more) rather than having to suss out what is actually included by using VF brackets.
Thanks for the suggestion!/Scott
jasonhupe
Established
I have used both
I have used both
I have used both the G system and the Contax SLR systems and liked each very much. What I noticed most with going between the two cameras is the size and weight difference. The RX is a very solid camera, it feels sturdy and capable. The lens are very solid as well, even a little more than the G lens in my opinion. Other Contax bodies are great as well. I used a 139 and it is a great manual camera and the viewfinder was very good. At the end of the day I could not get over the fact of the automation with the G, even though like you said I loved the results. At the end of the day my 139 with my 28 Distagon was just too perfect. If you like slr systems of viewing than you will sure to love the Contax line.
I have used both
I have used both the G system and the Contax SLR systems and liked each very much. What I noticed most with going between the two cameras is the size and weight difference. The RX is a very solid camera, it feels sturdy and capable. The lens are very solid as well, even a little more than the G lens in my opinion. Other Contax bodies are great as well. I used a 139 and it is a great manual camera and the viewfinder was very good. At the end of the day I could not get over the fact of the automation with the G, even though like you said I loved the results. At the end of the day my 139 with my 28 Distagon was just too perfect. If you like slr systems of viewing than you will sure to love the Contax line.
jgran
Member
Zeiss is Zeiss
Zeiss is Zeiss
I've also used both systems. The G2 was my first exposure to Zeiss glass. Loved what the lenses did, but didn't like how I got there. As much as I liked the feel of the camera (lovely to hold), the auto focus sound was rather rough - I just couldn't get used to it.
I picked up a Contax 139q with 50/1.7 and there was no turning back. I'm a bit of a camera whore - I've used alot of the Contax SLRs. There's a fantastic assortment of bodies to try,- you won't go wrong if you like the SLR approach.
Re: similarities/differences - there's just the obvious style changes, but the bodies have a similar solid feel, though the SLRs have a more "plastic" cover. Aside from the obvious differences of rf vs slr, the elements you like about the G series are mostly there in the SLR series. (The AX even has a similar layout to the G2).
From what you've described, I suspect you'll like the change. I did.
That didn't mean I left rangefinders completely. I picked up a Contax IIa recently and have been having a great time with the old lens series for that camera. Zeiss glass is Zeiss glass no matter what body it's on. Have fun!
Jorge in MN
Zeiss is Zeiss
I've also used both systems. The G2 was my first exposure to Zeiss glass. Loved what the lenses did, but didn't like how I got there. As much as I liked the feel of the camera (lovely to hold), the auto focus sound was rather rough - I just couldn't get used to it.
I picked up a Contax 139q with 50/1.7 and there was no turning back. I'm a bit of a camera whore - I've used alot of the Contax SLRs. There's a fantastic assortment of bodies to try,- you won't go wrong if you like the SLR approach.
Re: similarities/differences - there's just the obvious style changes, but the bodies have a similar solid feel, though the SLRs have a more "plastic" cover. Aside from the obvious differences of rf vs slr, the elements you like about the G series are mostly there in the SLR series. (The AX even has a similar layout to the G2).
From what you've described, I suspect you'll like the change. I did.
That didn't mean I left rangefinders completely. I picked up a Contax IIa recently and have been having a great time with the old lens series for that camera. Zeiss glass is Zeiss glass no matter what body it's on. Have fun!
Jorge in MN
Berliner
Well-known
I have used both G2 & RX systems, N-system too. The RX is in classifieds here now. All Contax bodies I've used are very solid machines. The T* lenses are amazing all around IQ, and mechanics. The Contax bodies are very high spec/very solid feel, and there ARE consistiencies between platforms..., BUT The two are so different, it's hard to comment. I do find the Leica/Hexar/ZI finders so much more easier to use than the G system--but if you like the G's finder, it's a great alternative to an M-mount.
The RX has a great viewfinder, but it's an SLR-- I personally think that whatever Contax you end up with, will be have one of the best in it's competition set.
The RX has a great viewfinder, but it's an SLR-- I personally think that whatever Contax you end up with, will be have one of the best in it's competition set.
jaap
Jaap
I use both systems and the quality of both is one of the highest If you use mainly wide angle keep the G system! You also better avoid the cheap contax bodies like the 139q aria etc. The quality of the viewfinders are not so high as that of the rx. The viewfinder of the RX in combination with high speed lensen is wonderfull!
R
rich815
Guest
I have a G system and after I got it about 10 years ago sold my entire Nikon SLR kit as the G-lenses were so superior in what I was after. Later I did miss certain SLR features such as macro and longer tele lenses so I got an RX and set of Zeiss SLR glass. Results are difference but for me much better than anything I got with Nikon glass and the few times I've tried Canon too. Personal thing completely but I happen to light the signature and color I get with Zeiss glass.
Do you really need to REPLACE the G? They are completely different in feel and approach to photography and to me anyway the results in both that approach and the glass are enough to justify having both. You will never find anything in SLR lenses that come close to the 28 Biogon and 45 Planar in the G kit, IMHO.
Maybe sell off just 2 of the G lenses you use least to finance a good Y/C body and a couple lenses?
BTW, my Contax SLR lens set-up is the 35/2.8 PC-Distagon, 50/1.7 Planar (I like it better than the 1.4), 60/2.8 Macro Planar, 85/1.4 Planar and 100-300 Vario Sonnar. Amazing stuff!
Do you really need to REPLACE the G? They are completely different in feel and approach to photography and to me anyway the results in both that approach and the glass are enough to justify having both. You will never find anything in SLR lenses that come close to the 28 Biogon and 45 Planar in the G kit, IMHO.
Maybe sell off just 2 of the G lenses you use least to finance a good Y/C body and a couple lenses?
BTW, my Contax SLR lens set-up is the 35/2.8 PC-Distagon, 50/1.7 Planar (I like it better than the 1.4), 60/2.8 Macro Planar, 85/1.4 Planar and 100-300 Vario Sonnar. Amazing stuff!
Last edited by a moderator:
fbf
Well-known
I believe it's the 50/1.7 planar. I have owned many c/y lenses and they are amazing. IMHO, the c/y series is totally different from g series lense, the color rendition, the bokeh are just so different. Personally, I enjoy the c/y lenses much more than the g series lenses. If you don't need the AF and have other rf cameras to use, I would go head trade for contax c/y set-ups.
R
rich815
Guest
fbf said:
Right. Thanks for the correction. I've edited my post.
navilluspm
Well-known
I have never used the Contax G, but I do have a Contax 167MT. My camera is a little quirky in the electronics and sucks up batteries fast, but it is what I can afford. The biggest mistake I ever made was selling a Sonnar 85 to purchase a Canon 85 1.8. After 1 month, I sold the Canon and was able to get another Sonnar 85mm. (Thank God!)
My current lens line up is the Sonnar 2.8/85 (which is an excellent, light weight lens), Planar 1.7/50 (a great lens even wit hthe scratches mine has), a Distagon 2.8/35 and, (my newly aquired crown jewel) a distagon 2/28mm "Hollywood". KEH gave me that later for an excellent deal after they sent my the wrong lens by mistake.
My current lens line up is the Sonnar 2.8/85 (which is an excellent, light weight lens), Planar 1.7/50 (a great lens even wit hthe scratches mine has), a Distagon 2.8/35 and, (my newly aquired crown jewel) a distagon 2/28mm "Hollywood". KEH gave me that later for an excellent deal after they sent my the wrong lens by mistake.
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
I have an older Retina Reflex S kit I'm thinking of trading for a kit like yours. It has 4 lenses, one new.
jaap
Jaap
I fully agree with this one the 35mm f2.8 is fully open very sharp and contrasty like the 85mm sonnar really small jewels !navilluspm said:
myoptic3
Well-known
I second the idea of getting another camera and hanging onto the G. I have had probably a lalf dozen of the G1's. After a while I get frustrated w/ the AF (never knowing quite where it has decided to focus), and the small viewfinders. The 90 is a trial to focus too, especially w/ the 90 lens. Then I go thru my photos and look at the G shots and start looking for another G. So I think I will be getting yet another one. It is just impossible to find that one do-everything-camera system. Believe me, I've tried.
scottgee1
RF renegade
More questions . . .
More questions . . .
As an owner of the EF 85/1.8, I'm curious about the differences you saw between the two.
I still have questions about how the RX (and other bodies) control the lenses. I know MM lenses allow bodies with Program and Shutter Priority modes to use those features. How is aperture setting controlled? Is it strictly mechanical? Or can it be controlled by the body?
For example, I have a Pentax ZX-L body. When I use it with 'A' mount lenses I lock them at their smallest aperture and the body controls the aperture setting. This works even when I use my Tamron Adaptall lenses with PK/A adapters. BTW, would I need an 'MM' Adaptall to do this on Contax bodies?
Thanks for all the helpful replies!/Scott
TIA!/Scott
More questions . . .
As an owner of the EF 85/1.8, I'm curious about the differences you saw between the two.
I still have questions about how the RX (and other bodies) control the lenses. I know MM lenses allow bodies with Program and Shutter Priority modes to use those features. How is aperture setting controlled? Is it strictly mechanical? Or can it be controlled by the body?
For example, I have a Pentax ZX-L body. When I use it with 'A' mount lenses I lock them at their smallest aperture and the body controls the aperture setting. This works even when I use my Tamron Adaptall lenses with PK/A adapters. BTW, would I need an 'MM' Adaptall to do this on Contax bodies?
Thanks for all the helpful replies!/Scott
TIA!/Scott
jgran
Member
There are AE and MM C/Y lenses. You can distinguish by looking at the aperture markings - the MM have the smallest aperture printed in green. The AE can only be used in aperture priority or manual. The MM does that plus shutter priority and program. There is no lens adapter TIKO that 'upgrades' an AE to MM. The RX will control an MM lens aperture in shutter priority (and program) when you dial in TV (or P) and set aperture ring to the green number (smallest aperture).
I agree, the sonnar 85/2.8 is a sweet lens and very reasonably priced. It's a great walk about lens.
here's a good link that covers the RX:
http://www.cdegroot.com/photo-contax-rx/
have fun
Jorge
I agree, the sonnar 85/2.8 is a sweet lens and very reasonably priced. It's a great walk about lens.
here's a good link that covers the RX:
http://www.cdegroot.com/photo-contax-rx/
have fun
Jorge
navilluspm
Well-known
First of all, my disappointment with the Canon 85 was more the fault of my camera, and not the lens. I used a Canon Elan II. The 85 would constantly back focus. When shot with someone else's digital 30D, there was absolutely no problem. So the only solution was to recalibrate the lens for the Elan II, get a new camera, or sell the lens.
Another things I like about the Sonnar 85 is that it is wonderful small and light. I don't think many people would suspect that you are using and 85 when you use the lens: it looks more like a 35 or 50.
Here are reviews (by the same person) comparing both lenses. He likes the Canon better, but what can I say: I like the Zeiss (and the Zeiss was cheaper)
The comparison of the 85s together:
http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/421/131/
The Sonnar 85 2.8 review:
http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/407/51/
The Canon 85 1.8 review
http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/64/56/
BTW - I put the Hollywood Distagon up for sale. It was just too much lens for me and I could not justify owning such an expesnive lens when a smaller, and lighter 28/2.8 could do the same job that I would use it for at 1/3 of the price. Plus I could use the cash to by more film, or another camera or lens or both.
Last edited:
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Ach jee. You sounded so happy when you got it. What you write makes some sense though.