Anyone owns contax C/Y zeiss 28mm or 35mm lenses can share their thoughts?

[Qiuhong]

Hi, I've been using the contax C/Y 50 1.4 kit lens for a couple years and love it, though I needed a wider one and bought 28mm f2.8 for its price, the results seem to be a lot granier and less details, almost like a point and shoot and I'm a little disappointed.... was wondering if anyone can confirm that 28mm 2.8 is a inferior lens or am I just a bad photographer haha.

If anyone has owned the 28mm F2 or 35mm f1.4 I'd also love your opinion, if their sharpness can match the 50 1,4 I might consider getting one despite the insane price... because I love the C/Y system.

Thank you!

 

[Loose Gravel]

I have the Zeiss versions and they are the best lenses I own. The reason to shoot Contax is Zeiss lenses. Sounds as though you are using the Yashica lenses which are supposedly very good too. Yashica learned a few things about lens coatings during their association with Zeiss.

You say your images are 'grainier'. That is not a lens property and there is nothing about a lens that is grainy. They can be softer or have distortion and aberrations. You should run a fair comparison: with camera on a tripod, photograph something like a newspaper (do they still print newspapers) at about 20 times focal length. Don't compare at wide-open. You should stop down at least two stops if you expect the corners to be sharp. And with the 50mm lens, since it is much faster, you can try f/2.8, but use equal f/# for both lenses for a fair compare. Maybe f/5.6.

 

[Qiuhong]

I have the Zeiss versions and they are the best lenses I own. The reason to shoot Contax is Zeiss lenses. Sounds as though you are using the Yashica lenses which are supposedly very good too. Yashica learned a few things about lens coatings during their association with Zeiss.

You say your images are 'grainier'. That is not a lens property and there is nothing about a lens that is grainy. They can be softer or have distortion and aberrations. You should run a fair comparison: with camera on a tripod, photograph something like a newspaper (do they still print newspapers) at about 20 times focal length. Don't compare at wide-open. You should stop down at least two stops if you expect the corners to be sharp. And with the 50mm lens, since it is much faster, you can try f/2.8, but use equal f/# for both lenses for a fair compare. Maybe f/5.6.

Hi, Which focal length and aperture do you own? and how do they perform comparing to 50 1.4? I have the distagon 28mm 2.8 and I shot a couple rolls through it and wasn't really happy with the results. But I also tend to shoot wide open most of the time so I don't know if it's just because it's soft wide open, I don;t know why they're grainier, could be wrong exposure on my end, but they do have a lot less details than the 50 1.4, And thanks, I might run a quick test.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

I have the Distagon 2.8/28mm, too. Bought new in 1988, MM version.
Even at 2.8 it isn't soft (like the Planar 1.4/50mm is at 1.4), from f/4 to 8 image quality is excellent with both lenses...

A bad filter may cause your problem - I usually use them with B+W MC filters.

Jens

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hi, Which focal length and aperture do you own? and how do they perform comparing to 50 1.4? I have the distagon 28mm 2.8 and I shot a couple rolls through it and wasn't really happy with the results. But I also tend to shoot wide open most of the time so I don't know if it's just because it's soft wide open, I don;t know why they're grainier, could be wrong exposure on my end, but they do have a lot less details than the 50 1.4, And thanks, I might run a quick test.

One possible explanation for a missed exposure is that there is something wrong with your example of the lens. I have the same pair for my RTS III, the 50 1.4 and the 28 2.8, and I have tack-sharp, perfectly exposed images from both. In fact, I find the 28 to be sometimes TOO sharp and clinical for my taste. But my exposures are spot-on for both lenses. If you don't have the option of returning the 28 to the seller, I would do some tests with setting exposure manually with an external exposure meter, to eliminate the camera meter being the issue (possible, but not likely, that the camera meter is mis-reading the lens settings and underexposing). Also dry-fire the camera with the lens installed and the camera back open and watch to see the aperture is closing/opening to the selected aperture. If you have f2.8 selected, you should see no aperture blades when it fires.

 

[dynachrome]

I have many Yashica ML lenses but my two Zeiss lenses are a 35/2.8 AEJ and a 180/2.8 MMJ. The Zeiss 35 isn't much sharper than the ML but has nicer out of focus rendition. Why might using a wide lens seem to give more grain? If you are using color print film and the 28 takes in more sky, that could cause underexposure. Underexposing color print film yields grainy images. Film camera meters are calibrated to 18% gray. To get the correct for a given scene, you need to meter off of a mid tone approximating 18% gray. Whether you are using average metering, spot metering, center weighted metering or matrix metering, you need to pay attention to the brightness of the subject a reading is taken from.

 

[ic-racer]

I have the Zeiss16/2.8 18/4 28/2 35/1.4 35/2.8 and a box of 50mm Planars. In the 1980 s these were my main lenses. I used them for all my 35mm work.

 

[Qiuhong]

Hi,

I have the Distagon 2.8/28mm, too. Bought new in 1988, MM version.
Even at 2.8 it isn't soft (like the Planar 1.4/50mm is at 1.4), from f/4 to 8 image quality is excellent with both lenses...

A bad filter may cause your problem - I usually use them with B+W MC filters.

Jens

That's so cool! 11 years before I was born haha, I did a quick test on my sony and found that at 2.8 it is sharper than 50mm at 1.4 but overall the 28mm is visably less sharp than 50mm f1.4.

the filter I have on is a HOYA skylight, I have to try using it without to see.

Thank you

 

[Qiuhong]

One possible explanation for a missed exposure is that there is something wrong with your example of the lens. I have the same pair for my RTS III, the 50 1.4 and the 28 2.8, and I have tack-sharp, perfectly exposed images from both. In fact, I find the 28 to be sometimes TOO sharp and clinical for my taste. But my exposures are spot-on for both lenses. If you don't have the option of returning the 28 to the seller, I would do some tests with setting exposure manually with an external exposure meter, to eliminate the camera meter being the issue (possible, but not likely, that the camera meter is mis-reading the lens settings and underexposing). Also dry-fire the camera with the lens installed and the camera back open and watch to see the aperture is closing/opening to the selected aperture. If you have f2.8 selected, you should see no aperture blades when it fires.

Hi, I definately didn't find the 28 to be too sharp haha, I do know my camera's meter is off sometimes because I dropped it once.

And Thanks for the tip... I did find something really strange and frustrating... the blade opening when selected at smaller apertures appear to be the same size... for example on 28mm f2.8 and f4 opens correctly to its size but anything below is the same size... meaning it would overexpose, same on the 50mm, only at f1.4, f2, f2.8 it opens correctly. when adjusted to all apertures my contax 159mm can detect it with the right aperture showing in the viewfinder digitally but just doesn't open correctly. Both lenses aperture blades can be closed to the correct size detached from camera and it works correctly adapted on digital too.

Do you happen to know what's happening....

Thank you

 

[Qiuhong]

I have the Zeiss16/2.8 18/4 28/2 35/1.4 35/2.8 and a box of 50mm Planars. In the 1980 s these were my main lenses. I used them for all my 35mm work.

Ever planning on selling ? haha

 

[reddesert]

A grainy appearance can come from under or over exposure, more likely than from lens problems (but lens aperture problems can cause the under/over exposure).

That the camera / lens was dropped is important information with respect to talking about lens issues. Maybe your lens or mount is out of alignment. Get this fixed before going off to buy more lenses.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hi, I definately didn't find the 28 to be too sharp haha, I do know my camera's meter is off sometimes because I dropped it once.

And Thanks for the tip... I did find something really strange and frustrating... the blade opening when selected at smaller apertures appear to be the same size... for example on 28mm f2.8 and f4 opens correctly to its size but anything below is the same size... meaning it would overexpose, same on the 50mm, only at f1.4, f2, f2.8 it opens correctly. when adjusted to all apertures my contax 159mm can detect it with the right aperture showing in the viewfinder digitally but just doesn't open correctly. Both lenses aperture blades can be closed to the correct size detached from camera and it works correctly adapted on digital too.

Do you happen to know what's happening....

Thank you

I'm not sure, but sounds like there's a problem with the body - might be the aperture control mechanism in the body isn't moving more than a certain amount when stopping down for the exposure. Since you mention the camera was dropped and has given bad exposures since then, I'd suspect that the issue is with the camera body, not the lens. And quite possibly the lens mount is out of alignment, showing more with the 28 than the 50 due to the fact that wide-angle lenses are retrofocus lenses on SLRs. You might be able to compensate visually when focusing with the 50 but not with the 28. I'd have your camera checked out. Unfortunately, there is a good chance the 159 is beyond economical repair if you are having exposure metering errors AND film plane issues due to a misaligned lens mount. I hope I'm wrong, but you may be in the market for a new-to-you camera.

 

[ic-racer]

Ever planning on selling ? haha

Actually I have recently increased my number of useable bodies for those lenses. I had 4 but am now up to 8 after fixing a few.

 

[Qiuhong]

I'm not sure, but sounds like there's a problem with the body - might be the aperture control mechanism in the body isn't moving more than a certain amount when stopping down for the exposure. Since you mention the camera was dropped and has given bad exposures since then, I'd suspect that the issue is with the camera body, not the lens. And quite possibly the lens mount is out of alignment, showing more with the 28 than the 50 due to the fact that wide-angle lenses are retrofocus lenses on SLRs. You might be able to compensate visually when focusing with the 50 but not with the 28. I'd have your camera checked out. Unfortunately, there is a good chance the 159 is beyond economical repair if you are having exposure metering errors AND film plane issues due to a misaligned lens mount. I hope I'm wrong, but you may be in the market for a new-to-you camera.

I tested the body with 4 C/Y lenses and similar issue happens with all 4 of them, I'm suspecting the lenses are okay I hope, but not the body. Thank you.

 

[JensH]

That's so cool! 11 years before I was born haha,...

So you are younger by 27 years...

 

[craigclu]

I tend to grab a rangefinder rig when doing wide stuff but can give you a short summary of my C/Y Zeiss experience. I had the 25, 28 and 35 (all in the ƒ2.8 versions). I seemed to be using the 25 and 35 and hardly had the 28 in use. It was my last AEJ optic and I decided to sell it but never replaced it. The 28 was quite decent in performance. My wide duties seldom had me at wide apertures so perhaps that explains that it was a solid performer for me? The 28 is supposed to be a notch better than the 25 but I could not see a difference. The 35 is a known performer and I've only had nice results from it.

 

[Qiuhong]

I tend to grab a rangefinder rig when doing wide stuff but can give you a short summary of my C/Y Zeiss experience. I had the 25, 28 and 35 (all in the ƒ2.8 versions). I seemed to be using the 25 and 35 and hardly had the 28 in use. It was my last AEJ optic and I decided to sell it but never replaced it. The 28 was quite decent in performance. My wide duties seldom had me at wide apertures so perhaps that explains that it was a solid performer for me? The 28 is supposed to be a notch better than the 25 but I could not see a difference. The 35 is a known performer and I've only had nice results from it.

between the 28mm and 35mm which one is sharper? what about comparing to the 50mm 1.4? Thanks

 

[craigclu]

between the 28mm and 35mm which one is sharper? what about comparing to the 50mm 1.4? Thanks

In my memory, I don't recall differences that I was very conscious of. When a 28 is my choice, I use a ZM Zeiss on my M bodies and I can't imagine a sharper optic and was a big reason the C/Y Zeiss got very little exercise. My 35mm film activities are 95% black/white so color renditions might matter more to you if you do color work.

 

[ic-racer]

If you are interested in the performance of the Zeiss lenses for 35mm cameras, the MTF curves for them were all available on the internet with a little searching.

 

[craigclu]

The 35...