What Are The Lenses To Die For In C/Y Mount?

B

bwcolor

Veteran
Local time
12:33 AM
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
2,346
I just picked up a Contax Aria and Zeiss 100-300mm lens. A bit crazy mounting a large lens on a small camera, but I wanted to shoot my kids soccer and didn't want the ease of autofocus. The Zeiss lens looked like a great lens optically and the Aria was suggested by some folks that seem to know what they are talking about.

I've been reading reviews of the various Zeiss/Contax C/Y lenses and have noted that many of them were not that well received. The 100-300mm zoom lens seemed to be universally praised.

What are the lenses to die for in the C/Y mount?
 
Quite subjective, but

Distagon 21/2.8
Distagon 28/2 aka 'Hollywood'
Distagon 35/1.4
Planar 50/1.4
Planar 85/1.4
Makro-Planar 100/2.8
Apo-Sonnar 200/2 (not that I'd actually want to own one, just an interesting lens)
 
The 50/1.4 is a fantastic 50.
The 85/1.4 is classic portrait lens. Many people buy into the system just to use this lens. There is some debate/comment about the difference between earlier Germany-made versions and later Japan-made ones...
The 35/2.8 is a sleeper, with fantastic corner-to-corner sharpness and brilliant Zeiss color.
The 45/2.8 is a classic tessar pancake design, very small, but lacking some of the overt tessar qualities.
The 85/2.8 is bitingly sharp, good for things like flowers. The 85/1.4 wide open gives a dreamier look that may suit portraits better.
Both the 135/2.8 and the 180/2.8 are classic sonnar designs. The 135 makes a wonderful portrait lens, and is relatively cheap.

The 35/2.8, 85/2.8, 50/1.4 and 45/2.8 all fit very well on the small Aria body. The 135/2.8 and the 85/1.4 already feel to me unbalanced on the Aria, any bigger is...well, you know since you're doing it already.

For one lens, get the 50/1.4, unless you really have to have a 35, but that 35/1.4 is a big piece of glass on the Aria...
For a two set lens, I'd go for the 35/2.8 and the 85/1.4, but some will prefer the 35/1.4. Still, most people who like the Aria want a camera/lens combo that is light and small.
For a three lens set, I'd choose between adding either one of the 85s to the two above, my preference being for the 85/1.4.

I don't have any experience with the wides. The Distagon 21 is obviously a famous and still very expensive lens.
 
I shot with an Aria for a good while. My favourites were the 50/1.4, the 28/2.8, and the 35-70/3.4 (best zoom I've ever used). I lusted after the 35/1.4, but the one I really wanted to try was the 100/2.

I sold most of my Zeiss lenses when I sold my RTS-III. In addition to keeping a trio of Zeisses (28, 50, 85), I kept a couple of Yashica ML lenses that are well worth looking out for as they offer excellent price/performance: 24/2.8 (big filter size, but solid performer and seriously cheap when compared to the Zeiss 25mm), and the 35/2.8 (out of all the Yashicas that have a Zeiss equivalent, this is said to be the hardest to distinguish from its more prestigious brother).
 
You could try to get hold of any of the original Mirotars, not the 500mm f8.

Zeiss created three monster mirror lenses:

1000mm F5.6
http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/cy/Mirotar5.6_1000mm_e.pdf

500mm f4.5
http://www.zeiss.co.uk/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Mirotar4.5_500mm_e/$File/Mirotar4.5_500mm_e.pdf

and the image-intensifier 210mm f0.03 N-Mirotar
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/contax/contaxrts/index3.htm#owl

For an almost complete list of Zeiss lenses for the Contax/Yashica range, have a look here:

http://www.zeiss.co.uk/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/8401A54783ED1154C12570F90049667D

As you can imagine, all of these three lenses are going to be very rare and very expensive. I've seen estimates of only 300 N-Mirotars being made, but whether that's true I don't know.

Nick
 
I have the Planar 100 f2 and think its amazing. The other lens that I love, but some others don't is the 25mm. I had a 300 f4 and got rid of it. I found it just wasn't very sharp. I got the 100-300 and it's a great lens - blew away the 300 f4.
 
I would add that the 35 1.4 can be difficult to get hold of and prices are high usually with a bidding frenzy to get your hands on one. So if you want a 35 lens and see a 35 2.8 I would go for it untill you can lay your hands on a 35 1.4 (if thats what you want)
 
I have used a number of C/Y lens: 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.7 While they are all sharp and wonderful, the one magical lens is 35-70/3.4 The IF/OOF rendering is just amazing.
 
Great choice getting into this system. Many gem lenses here. The f2/100 Planar is my favorite as I am primarily Portrait shooter. The macro Planar f2.8/60 (1:1)is fantastic as is the "compact" (1:2) version of this lens. The only one lens I owned and did not care for was the Planar f2/135. The lens really heavy and not worth the extra 1 un-usable stop from the lighter, smaller, and superb Sonnar f2.8/135. For wides the f2.8/21 Distagon is everything "they" say good and bad. Including poor for Architecture with it's difficult to fix "mustache" distortion. For landscapes it's great with amazing sharpness and contrast. It does vignette a fair bit at wide open in a pleasing way if you want to make use of that. The lens is huge and heavy be warned. I also like the Yashica ML f2.8/24 that was mentioned in previous post. Evey bit as good as the Distagon 25.
 
I have the 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 85/2.8, and the 100/2 Planar is on the way. I really like the 85 but probably will sell it in favor of the 100/2 as the focal lengths are so close. But the 100 is a lot larger (the 85 is about the size of a normal 50.)

The 100/2 appears to be 'the' C/Y lens on fredmiranda.com. There are some incredible sample images in the alternative gear forum.

The 35-70/3.4 has a 780(!) post thread there, too, looks like an amazing zoom.

100/2 review here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
35/2.8 Distagon
135/2.8 Sonnar

Your Aria is probably quite unbalanced for most of the C/Y glasses, yes, they are very good, and yes, they are quite heavy.

Good news is, there are lots of choice when it comes to Contax SLR camera bodies. Some of them are really ahead of their time.
 
Note that the earlier AE "Germany" type of lenses have a differently shaped aperture. Some like it, some dont.

2320ninjastarshape1.jpg


The issue with Contax is: Too many fans in the Canon EOS camp -> ridiculous prices for used lenses.
 
Does anyone know why kyocera suddenly stopped making zeiss cameras and lenses? I've always wondered about this and how it was that they managed to hold onto the contax brand name until now.
 
tlitody said:
Does anyone know why kyocera suddenly stopped making zeiss cameras and lenses? I've always wondered about this and how it was that they managed to hold onto the contax brand name until now.
Click to expand...

They announced that Contax would disbanded (however, they never gave up the rights to the contax brand, meaning they can reinstate it whenever. At least that's what the fans hope).

The reason being that Contax made the N series, followed by the N digital which was the first full frame digital camera. However, it had a massive price on it because of this. What's more, kyocera didn't market the Contax ND very well and it fell under the radar just as Nikon and Canon were running ahead on the digital market.

So they said, why fight and lose money? And henceforth it be told that contax was shut down and CZ concentrated on making the lenses.

The Contax rights are still with Kyocera, it can be revived from the grave very easily. Though I doubt it will happen, but they still did repairs on the Contax 645 series for many years after, in fact they may still offer repairs.
 
I think that the rights have just passed back to Zeiss. There was some discussion about this a few months ago. I guess that it doesn't matter who owns the rights if they keep the name in the closet.
 
OP, Thanks for asking this question. I enjoyed the responses. I just bought a Contax RX a few weeks ago, and have been shooting with the 50/1.7 that came with it. I just bought a 28/2.8 off KEH -- it's not here yet. Next up for me is probably the 35-70/3.4.
 
Neare said:
They announced that Contax would disbanded (however, they never gave up the rights to the contax brand, meaning they can reinstate it whenever. At least that's what the fans hope).

The reason being that Contax made the N series, followed by the N digital which was the first full frame digital camera. However, it had a massive price on it because of this. What's more, kyocera didn't market the Contax ND very well and it fell under the radar just as Nikon and Canon were running ahead on the digital market.

So they said, why fight and lose money? And henceforth it be told that contax was shut down and CZ concentrated on making the lenses.

The Contax rights are still with Kyocera, it can be revived from the grave very easily. Though I doubt it will happen, but they still did repairs on the Contax 645 series for many years after, in fact they may still offer repairs.
Click to expand...

Well don't forget that contax are in partenership with sony now. So it would be quite feasible for sony to make a digital M-Mount body under the Contax brand and/or a contax mount digital slr. Just wishful thinking maybe...
 
bwcolor said:
What are the lenses to die for in the C/Y mount?
Click to expand...
Congrats on the new SLR! CZ lenses to-die-for can include the expensive, the heavy, and the rare. My Aposonnar 200/2 is all three. :) The VS100-300 is pretty hefty for the diminutive Aria, which prefers the smaller primes. Therefore, I recommend my favorite travel set of the D28/2.8, P50/1.4, and the S100/3.5. These are first-class optics at a decent price. If you really want lenses to-die-for, also consider the P100/2, D21, and FD16 (fisheye). Not to be ignored are certain Yashica ML primes like the 24/2.8, 55/2.8 macro, 100 macros, and 200/4.
 
I knew the 100/2 would come up sooner or later. I've successfully ignored the existence of that lens so far, and I'm just gonna stop reading this thread now, thank you very much :angel:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom