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

the Planar 85 f1.4 is quite a lens.

85f14.jpg
 
The OP already has the 50mm f1.4, but the 50mm f1.7 is really no slouch. I was surprised by how good it is and how nicely it fits with the Aria. The only problem I have at the moment is that the prices for the CZ lenses are a bit high, so apart from the 50mm I'm mostly using Yashica or Adaptall-2 lenses with mine.
 
matt_mcg2 said:
The OP already has the 50mm f1.4, but the 50mm f1.7 is really no slouch. I was surprised by how good it is and how nicely it fits with the Aria. The only problem I have at the moment is that the prices for the CZ lenses are a bit high, so apart from the 50mm I'm mostly using Yashica or Adaptall-2 lenses with mine.
Click to expand...

I'll pile on here w/ a question: What's the general difference in the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.7? I've heard some mixed things, but one that stuck w/ me is that the 50/1.4 can be better than the 1.7... if you get a good copy. The 1.7 apparently is more consistent. That might just be the internet talking...

I have the 1.7, but haven't used it too much. I just got it for a good price... but am busy w/ other gear.
 
I am reviving this thread because I purchased a Contax RTX which so far seems to
be a great film camera, so I'm decided between two lenses a 35mm f2.8 or a 28mm
f2.8, I need to know the good and bad of both?

Range
 
I especially like the '3D' image quality of Zeiss C/Y. They render depth especially well, not just in terms of bokeh but in the way depth seems to 'jump out' within the in-focus area.

I believe C/Y prices went up a bit when folks found they were great on Sony A7/r, and quite a bit cheaper than Leica R.

Kirk
 
I had the 50mm 1.4 and 1.7; preferred the 1.7 due to its less harsher bokeh and lighter weight, which balanced it better on the 139Q I had at the time. Sold off both after I got an 85mm 1.4, which had even smoother bokeh and insane shallow depth of field.

Filled in the blanks with the superb 35-70mm 3.4 Vario-Sonnar. This lens is so pleasing, and compact for what it does. Now looking for a 25mm 2.8 (and maybe a 135mm, too) to round off the range.

The el-cheapo 50/1.7 was good enough to give me that Zeiss "3D pop" -- some frames I shot with it on Portra 160 reminded me of Contax 645 images I'd seen online. Incidentally, another Zeiss lens that easily gave this 3D-ness is the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm 3.5, on Pentax K5. The 85mm has been rather hit and miss for me so far on my RTS-II (more miss than hit, sadly).
 
While I do not have any C/Y cameras, I own Rollei cameras that acceptQBM mount lenses that are very similar to the lenses that were made in C/Y mount.

My preferred lenses are Zeiss 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4. They may be unsurpassed lenses.
The QBM 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 each has only three aperture blades. The OOF shows triangles. Zeiss used this design to minimize spherical aberrations, Brian told me. DAG is currently working on the 85/1.4 to replace the broken blades with cudtom made new blades.


I also own the Zeiss 35/2.8 and 85/2.8 in addition to Zeiss 50/1.8 and Tessar 135/4. They may also have been issued in C/Y mount.
 
An old post but I thought I'd contribute... I use a fujifilm xe2 with y/c adapters (and many others) I have the 100f2 planer (ae) West German made. I find it is prone to flare on digital sensors.

I used to have the 85/1.4 and think I prefer it.
 
Oh I should say that if you are carefull about flare the 100/2 is sublime... It has a wonderfull glow as a portrait lens. I have never subscribed to the idea that portraits lens should be soft... I like to see what I would see if I was standing in front of the subject, and the 100/2 is super sharp with great bokeh.
 
I had the 60mm C Makro Planar. Primo...today, 28/2, 50/1.7, 35-70. Trying to decide whether to go with the 135/2.8 or the 80-200....
 
vytasn said:
Going through this thread again reminded me that no one has mentioned the excellent Zeiss 35mm 2.8 PC shift lens or the Zeiss 100-300mm Vario-Sonnar f4.5-5.6 zoom.
Click to expand...

I was just about to mention the 100-300. Don't let the fact that it is "slow" put you off. It yields beautiful results. One of my favorite C/Y lenses. Possibly the best lens for the money that I own (though a SMC Takumar 50/1.4 at around $50 is hard to beat in the bang for the buck sweepstakes).
 
Yes, I've heard the 100-300 is great, but so is the price. 🙂

The 135/2.8 and the 80-200 are much closer in price, and I've had the 135 before. Also, the 85/2.8, 100/2, and 100/3.5 for that matter. Bang-for-buck = 135mm it appears.
 
kiss-o-matic said:
I'll pile on here w/ a question: What's the general difference in the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.7? I've heard some mixed things, but one that stuck w/ me is that the 50/1.4 can be better than the 1.7... if you get a good copy. The 1.7 apparently is more consistent. That might just be the internet talking...

I have the 1.7, but haven't used it too much. I just got it for a good price... but am busy w/ other gear.
Click to expand...

I had the 1.7 with the 139Q, and later got the 1.4 with the RTS II. I liked the 1.7 better -- lighter, sharper, and it tends to give you those "Zeiss 3D pop" easier than the 1.4, for some reason. The 1.7 is better balanced on the smaller bodies like the 139Q. The 1.4 is better on bigger bodies like the RTS II.

Used both with Kodak Portra almost exclusively. Eventually sold off both after I got a Pentax K5 and discovered that with a 50mm Summicron R the output looked very Portra-like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom