Y/C Zeiss 50 1.4

[Takkun]

I am a little amused that between Yashica, Kyocera, and Cosina, Zeiss hasn't made their own small format lenses in who knows when... 😉

But I've got a Contax RTS (first iteration) and the aforementioned Planar lens. Don't get me wrong, its a solid camera and I've always admired the build quality and aesthetics of the revived Contax brand, but it's such an incredibly awkward camera. The shutter speed dial is under the rewind crank, the ISO dial looks like a shutter dial, the shutter release is scarily sensitive, and the cable release socket is one of the three unlabeled PC sockets dotting the body. But man, is it a pretty piece of metal.

I was given the kit secondhand from my father in high school, but by that time I was graduated to the F100 and doing the whole journalism thing, so I was more wrapped up in zooms, AF, TTL flash, and the like, and now, years later, I'm back shooting MF/manual exposure, mostly on RFs.

What kept this thing in my closet, however, is the Zeiss lens. Is this worth keeping at all? Of the handful of rolls I've ran through it, nothing really stood out; I've even tracked down a flickr group dedicated to it, but the findings were inconclusive.

Thoughts or pictures appreciated!

 

[KoNickon]

I'd say try it some more and see what you think about the lens. I do know it's always been held up as about the best SLR 50 made, though I admit I can't say it's clearly better than anything else I've used.

I've got the same setup and enjoy using it; the quirks you mention about the RTS aren't anything too crazy (the OM-1 has a similar film speed dial, for instance). You can bet folks here would be interested in taking it off your hands....

 

[rbelyell]

youre not alone in not seeing anything special in that lens. its fine, dont get me wrong. but compared to the truly 'special' c/y zeiss lenses: the 28/2 hollywood, the 35/1.4 distagon, the 85/1.4 planar, no imo the 50 is quite ordinary, even for the price.
tony

 

[redisburning]

I dont drink the 50/1.4 planar kool-aid either. Yes I do think it's better than most of the 50s out there, but it sits in a space between ok lenses like most other makers 50/1.4 and the really good SLR 50s like the E60 Lux, ZE/ZF 50MP, Zuiko 50/2 Macro, etc.

the C/Y 50/1.4, and now the ZF 50/1.4 which is slightly better near wide open, is a lens that requires a certain level of patience and understanding.

mainly, it's awful close up. really, it hemorrhages contrast as you move closer to MFD. once you get out to about 3m it goes back to being sharp. also, OoF rendering near MFD is not what you would call "smooth" if you have any specular highlights or objects close enough to retain some shape definition.

over on FM's alt board there is an ongoing debate between the relative merits of the 50/1.4 and the 50/2 from the current ZF lineup. Most there, myself included, go with the 50MP because it's better behaved.

the 50/1.4 C/Y IS a lens deserving of it's repuation. it's just that lenses have moved forward.

 

[j j]

I use an Aria and a 139Q and my 50mm is the 1.7 so not the exact same but the principle/style remains.

When shooting aperture priority the ISO dial is placed perfectly for me as it is the exposure compensation dial and I want that accessible to my right hand. The shutter speed dial is far less important for my shooting.

Assuming your 50 1.4 is the same age as the camera it is a 1970s lens. As such it wouldn't be so contrasty as a modern lens but it is a fine lens by any definition.

But you don't seem to favour the camera or the lens so unless they have sentimental value you may as well pass them on and get something you like.

 

[Dirk]

When the 50/1.4 C/Y Planar came out sometime in the 70's, the German photo magazine ColorFoto tested it. I vividly remember reading the article, authored by Alexander Borell and his conclusion: Nice, but doesn't live up to its pre-launch hype.

 

[Takkun]

Thanks. It's reassuring that I'm not the only one not knocked out by this lens and I wasn't sure if I just wasn't using it to its full potential. The camera/lens that reall has sentimental value is my fathers old Nikon F and nikkor-H. Now that's a knockout lens. But I've never quite had a connection with the RTS in particular, and briefly considered trading it in, if only the lens was worth keeping. Eh. I'll sell it to finance my lust for a 135 Elmarit.
Though I might look into the ZM series.

 

[philosli]

I also have a 1st-gen. RTS, Zeiss 28mm F2.8, 50mm F1.7, and 85mm F1.4. I don't have the 50mm F1.4. I also have a Canon system (85mm F1.8, 50mm F1.4, 17-40 F4L, EOS 3). Let me tell you one thing: once I assembled my RTS system, I almost abandon my Canon. The only time I used it again was when my RTS was in repair. Yes, focusing can be a pain in low light and tedious if my subject is moving. But in terms of IQ (sharpness & contrast), the Zeiss lineup beats up my Canon's in all three focal lengths.

 

[redisburning]

Thanks. It's reassuring that I'm not the only one not knocked out by this lens and I wasn't sure if I just wasn't using it to its full potential. The camera/lens that reall has sentimental value is my fathers old Nikon F and nikkor-H. Now that's a knockout lens. But I've never quite had a connection with the RTS in particular, and briefly considered trading it in, if only the lens was worth keeping. Eh. I'll sell it to finance my lust for a 135 Elmarit.
Though I might look into the ZM series.

maybe look into the ZF instead?

I'd recommend the 21/2.8, 25/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/2, 100/2 and 135/2.

 

[cpc]

I've played with a 50/1.4 and I've extensively used (and still use) a 50/1.7. The 1.7 is one of my all time favorite lenses. Saw no reason to keep the 1.4. The 1.7 is sharper up to f4, but not significantly so; similar rendering. I mostly shoot it at f2 and f2.8, there are some CAs at 1.7, especially at longer focus distances. It is also beautifully small, and that's why it has traveled quite a lot with me.

OOF is ok with the 1.7. But it CAN go busy with extremely piercing OOF highlights, probably in combination with some particular camera-background distances. In my tests with the 1.4 I didn't see any noticeable difference in OOf rendering.

(All smaples with the 1.7 with a 1.5x crop DSLR)
Sample with somewhat busy background (f2.8):

click for larger

It also pops decently (f2):

click for larger cause google resize compression kills pop

And a long distance sample (f5.6, most likely):

click for larger

 

[GarageBoy]

The C/Y 50 1.4 is nice, but nothing to go chasing after
If you have it, use it. Commands a decent amount on the secondary market, though

 

[1joel1]

Actually, the 45mm Tessar is a very nice lens and if you don't need the speed, it renders a nicer image imho.

Joel