monochromejrnl
Well-known
I'm considering investing some money in a WA lens for my Contax IIa. I've borrowed a VC25/4 SC from a friend (thanks Bob/notraces) and expect it to be an excellent performer, however it is fairly large and 25 might be a bit too wide for me. I'm also still trying to get use to the ergonomics and handling of the 25/4. I don't like the lack of DOF markings and the very long focus throw. I'm not enthused about the aperture ring moving when focusing (got ride of a 50 Elmar because of this).
So, I'm wondering if anyone can comment on their experience with the 35 biogon, planar and 28 f8 tessar (or any other options).
I'd use it primarily as a street shooting lens - used primarily at f8 so high speed performance isn't a major determinant, but comments on performance are welcome. Most interested in something that has easy to use DOF marking and an aperture ring that doesn't rotate when focusing (not sure if this exists in zeiss contax mount lens). Also prefer something that is compact and doesn't require a hood or has a shallow hood for good performance.
The 21/4.5 is intriguing but I think it might be too wide for my liking for regular street use.
Thanks in advance for your input.
So, I'm wondering if anyone can comment on their experience with the 35 biogon, planar and 28 f8 tessar (or any other options).
I'd use it primarily as a street shooting lens - used primarily at f8 so high speed performance isn't a major determinant, but comments on performance are welcome. Most interested in something that has easy to use DOF marking and an aperture ring that doesn't rotate when focusing (not sure if this exists in zeiss contax mount lens). Also prefer something that is compact and doesn't require a hood or has a shallow hood for good performance.
The 21/4.5 is intriguing but I think it might be too wide for my liking for regular street use.
Thanks in advance for your input.
dexdog
Veteran
I have all three, and prefer the 35/3.5 planar. Sharp, medium contrast, excellent color rendition, very little distortion. The biogon is a good performer too, but not quite as sharp in the corners as the planar. Both the biogon and planar have an aperture ring that rotates when focusing. I routinely use both of these lenses without a hood, and never have seen the need to use one due to the deeply-recessed front elements. I am not big fan of the tessar-old uncoated lens tends to be flare-prone. Also not as sharp in the corners as the biogon and planar
The 35mm Nikkors in 1.8, 2.5 and 3.5 flavors are options for the contax IIa. All are very good lenses
The 35mm Nikkors in 1.8, 2.5 and 3.5 flavors are options for the contax IIa. All are very good lenses
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
The postwar 35mm Biogon is an excellent lens, although it has a tendency to flare because a) it's single coated, and b) the front element is right out in the front. A lens hood definitely helps.
The lens is very compact when mounted to the body, and I've never felt hampered by the f/2.8 maximum aperture.
It's a heavy lens: Lots of glass, brass and steel without any plastic in sight.
It works best if you have an auxiliary viewfinder. Just a great lens.
By the way, you can't use the prewar Biogon with this camera.
I've not used the 28mm Tessar, and I sort of see it as a collector's item first. But maybe that's only because I don't own one!
The 21mm Biogon is another great Carl Zeiss design.
A shot in Cape May, N.J., taken with the 21mm Biogon using the Rollei infrared film.
The lens is very compact when mounted to the body, and I've never felt hampered by the f/2.8 maximum aperture.
It's a heavy lens: Lots of glass, brass and steel without any plastic in sight.
It works best if you have an auxiliary viewfinder. Just a great lens.
By the way, you can't use the prewar Biogon with this camera.
I've not used the 28mm Tessar, and I sort of see it as a collector's item first. But maybe that's only because I don't own one!
The 21mm Biogon is another great Carl Zeiss design.
A shot in Cape May, N.J., taken with the 21mm Biogon using the Rollei infrared film.
Last edited:
monochromejrnl
Well-known
dex - thanks for that... do you have any experience with the inexpensive jupiters for contax mount?
dexdog
Veteran
I have never used the J-12, and as zeissfan notes, the J-12 cannot be used on the Contax IIa because the large rear element will hit the shutter curtain.
monochromejrnl
Well-known
thanks for that...
which Nikkors have you used and can recommend?
which Nikkors have you used and can recommend?
dexdog
Veteran
I have used the (legendary) Nikkor 35/1.8 and the 35/3.5. Both are highly recommended, but if you plan to shoot mostly at f8, get the 3.5 because it will be a lot cheaper than the 1.8, probably half the price. The Nikkor 28/3.5 is a pretty good lens too-I remember a Tom A post about this lens, with lots of pics. Might turn up in a forum search
monochromejrnl
Well-known
which of the lenses you mention have the most easily readable dof indicators and do any of them offer fix aperture ring (ie does not rotate when focusing?)
thanks for all your input
Just a couple of points (hopefully others will correct me if I'm wrong)
* the CV 25/4 in SC mount is pretty darn small to start with
* all external mount old-Contax-mount and Nikkor lenses have the same very long focus throw
* almost all external mount old-Contax-mount (actually I'm not sure about the these lenses but expect they handle the same as the Nikkors) and Nikkor lenses have an aperture ring that moves when focusing (there are exceptions such as the Nikkor 50/1.1)
furcafe
Veteran
You are quite correct on all your ergonomic points. I don't have the CV 25/4, but do have the 28/3.5 Skopar SC & am pretty sure they're similar in size (the 28/3.5 does have DoF markings, though). I would also echo ZeissFan's point that the Zeiss-Opton/Carl Zeiss 35 Biogons & Planars are considerably heavier than my CV 28/3.5 (the Biogon is even heavier than the Planar). I don't have a scale, but I think the later, black version of the 35/2.5 W-Nikkor is a little lighter than my CV 28/3.5 (the chrome 35/2.5 I used to have was almost as heavy as the Planar & Biogon).
Bottom line: they're all pretty much the same size, though I would think the modern multi-coated CV (& the "new" 35/1.8 for the Nikon SP 2005) glass would perform better without hoods, all have the same long focus throw (because they connect to the focus helical built into the camera), & none have a double helical so all have front elements (& aperture rings) that rotate as you focus. Amendment/Edit: the 28/8 Tessar is smaller because it's scale-focus only & lightweight (no hardware to couple to the body helical), but the optical quality is not comparable--it's uncoated glass will give you results that are closer to a Holga/Diana (without the light leaks from the body, of course).
Bottom line: they're all pretty much the same size, though I would think the modern multi-coated CV (& the "new" 35/1.8 for the Nikon SP 2005) glass would perform better without hoods, all have the same long focus throw (because they connect to the focus helical built into the camera), & none have a double helical so all have front elements (& aperture rings) that rotate as you focus. Amendment/Edit: the 28/8 Tessar is smaller because it's scale-focus only & lightweight (no hardware to couple to the body helical), but the optical quality is not comparable--it's uncoated glass will give you results that are closer to a Holga/Diana (without the light leaks from the body, of course).
Last edited:
Thanks for the confirmation, Chris. You're right about the size of the CV lenses. I've owned a CV 25/4 and CV 35/2.5, and still have a CV 28/3.5 and CV 21/4, and they're all pretty much the same size (and weight). I just checked my lenses and sure enough there's a DOF scale on them.
monochromejrnl
Well-known
how does the W-Nikkor 35/2.5C compare in size and weight with the VC25/4SC?
The VC SC mount lens don't have DOF lines but do have aperture markings on the barrel.
The VC SC mount lens don't have DOF lines but do have aperture markings on the barrel.