Krosya
Konicaze
135/2 looks like a very cool lens too.
What Are The Lenses To Die For In C/Y Mount?
- Thread starter bwcolor
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 75
- Views 55K
tlitody
Well-known
Go on, you know you'll never be satisfied until you've owned one. You may as well give in now. Resistance to GAS is futile.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I forgot to rave about the 2 mid tele sonnars. The 85 f2.8 and 100 f3.5. Both are already perfect at wide open. These are compact little gems. The 100mm is getting really hard to find anymore. I have a spare 85mm (late MM German version not West German) if someone would like to pick one up I might let it get away.
My most-used is by far the 85/2.8...KEH has some 100/3.5s.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Of course you're right, but since I didn't read this this this $#@%#$ thread, it's not a problem 😉
I ran a test of the 100/2 Contax vs Canon some time ago on a 1Ds. I still have it somewhere on my harddisk. The results were less exciting than you may think... The Contax has less light falloff wide open but is overall softer.
sahe69
Well-known
Like already said above, most of them are really good. I had the 28/2.8, 35/1.4 and 2.8, 45/2.8, 50/1.4 and 1.7, 85/1.4 and the 35-70/3.4 and none of them disappointed me. Excellent optical and mechanical quality.
Speaking of the 45/2.8, that makes a wonderfully light travel combo with the Aria.
Speaking of the 45/2.8, that makes a wonderfully light travel combo with the Aria.
Neare
Well-known
Ahh alright, yeah whatever I suppose.
It would be nice for them to make a comeback. Contax needs credit for having some of the most well designed cameras ever. Ooooo I just thinking about my old RX's shutter... 🙄
I loved the S2 for the short time I had it, just wish there was a little less mirror slap. Don't know why but that thing hits hard.
oftheherd
Veteran
That surprises me. Any chance you just had a less than stellar Contax lens example? For curiosities' sake, did you test it against a Hexanon?
In my case, I have the 50mm f/1.4 which I love. I have always wanted more but couldn't justify the cost since I have Fujinon glass as well.
Kent
Finally at home...
2.8/21
2.0/28
1.4/35
1.4/50 (but the 1.7/50 is not bad either!)
1.4/85
= dream set!
2.0/28
1.4/35
1.4/50 (but the 1.7/50 is not bad either!)
1.4/85
= dream set!
Maybe. It looked pretty mint though. This finding is in line with several other Contax lenses btw. The new ZE / ZF 50/1.4 is not better than manufacturer lenses. The ZE / ZF 85/1.4 is hazy compared to Canon / Nikon lenses.
No. They dont mount on Canon EOS anyway. The fastest 100mm Hexanon is a 100/2.8.
The Contax Zeiss 50/1.4 is a very nice lens, agree. I also liked the 28/2.0 and 35/1.4 (although a bit bulky and heavy).
Hazy? lol.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Wide open or nearly so, versus Canon's 50L and 85L, the ZE 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 aren't as sharp. Comparatively, better flat field performance stopped down generally from the ZEs, especially versus the 50L.
The ZEs to have imho are the 21/2.8, 35/2, and the 50/2 and 100/2 makro planars.
Last edited:
Neare
Well-known
sharpness sharpness blah blah... it's the character, the character! 😀
bwcolor
Veteran
I've got the Zeiss 21mm f/4.5, 35mm f/2.0 and 35mm f/2.8 for my rangefinders. I was thinking of 40-135mm range. The M3 does a fine job with 90mm. It looks like the 35-70 f/3.4 zoom might make a nice second lens. I don't normally shoot zooms, but from what I have seen in this post and elsewhere, this lens is very good. The 40mm as a carry sounds interesting. I won't get the camera until next week. Maybe I will love it and sell all my rangefinders. Who knows?
bwcolor
Veteran
Thanks for all of the help. I had to work hard rationalizing buying more equipment. Obviously, all of you are experts at this and I'm right with you.
I ended up with an Aria, Zeiss 100-300mm and the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4. I'm hoping to use the zoom to photograph my kids soccer and the 50mm f/1.4 for use with polarizer and Velvia 50. Rangefinders for all else. Now, I need to find rationalization to buy an EOS 3, or 1V so that I can use my 'L' glass.
I ended up with an Aria, Zeiss 100-300mm and the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4. I'm hoping to use the zoom to photograph my kids soccer and the 50mm f/1.4 for use with polarizer and Velvia 50. Rangefinders for all else. Now, I need to find rationalization to buy an EOS 3, or 1V so that I can use my 'L' glass.
"As I mentioned in the beginning of this review, very high image quality is what Zeiss lenses are renowned for. So, I was very excited to see what this one could do. After very carefully shooting the ISO 12233 resolution chart in my studio/lab, uploading the files and opening them in DPP, I was very disappointed with my results - they were not very sharp even stopped down. My only conclusion was that I was doing something wrong. So, I carefully aligned everything and shot the test again. I used zoomed Live View, computer-attached Live view, focus bracketing ... with a large number of test samples and the results were the same."
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx
Ronald M
Veteran
I did a few shots with a 80 1.4 and they were a nice a Leica, just a bit different but nice. They are not as well made as Leica R.
Pablito
coco frío
no lens is to die for.
Spud10
Member
I'm gonna revive this thread to ask anyone's opinion on the Makro-planar / S-planar 60mm (1:1) lens.
A shop nearby has an S-planar version for a good price and I'm tempted to snag it. Here's the catch, I don't really do any macro work at all. The lens would mostly be used for portraits and a little bit longer reach than my 50mm. I'm not concerned about the size/weight difference. Just the optics, OOF rendition, etc.
A shop nearby has an S-planar version for a good price and I'm tempted to snag it. Here's the catch, I don't really do any macro work at all. The lens would mostly be used for portraits and a little bit longer reach than my 50mm. I'm not concerned about the size/weight difference. Just the optics, OOF rendition, etc.