Thinking of jumping into the Contax SLR world. Where to start? The RX sounds quite nice. And then of course those Zeiss lenses. Probably start with the 50 mm. 1.7 or 1.4? Am I crazy?
Thinking of jumping into the Contax SLR world. Where to start? The RX sounds quite nice. And then of course those Zeiss lenses. Probably start with the 50 mm. 1.7 or 1.4? Am I crazy?
....the newer zeiss lenses with canon/nikon mounts are better than the older zeiss contax lenses...
Having said all that, the newer zeiss lenses with canon/nikon mounts are better than the older zeiss contax lenses...
Rob, can you define "better" here please?
MTF charts indicate significant improvements. Lens design has improved with material/glass improvements.
I know you can only use MTF as a guide but if for example you compare the ZF Planar 1.4/85 to the Contax Planar 1.4/85 you will see the difference.
And again if you compare the ZF Planar 14/50 with CY Planar 1.4/50 you will see the difference. Particularly towards the edges of the frame where the resolution is improved on the newer lenses.
So sharpness?
So sharpness?
Thinking of jumping into the Contax SLR world. Where to start? The RX sounds quite nice. And then of course those Zeiss lenses. Probably start with the 50 mm. 1.7 or 1.4? Am I crazy?
I think a Contax S2 sounds pretty nice too.
I term it as resolution but that equates to better sharpness towards the edges, especially corners
BTW, why haven't you already gotten a Contax? The previous push wasn't enough -> (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Ha. He'll ask again in three years maybe.
Unfortunately for me, that S2 is looking good . . .
Thanks. No offense to you but this propensity of people automatically describing a lens with more contrast and/or sharpness as "better" is a bugaboo with me.
I get it. And it probably goes way back to early days when tolerating certain flaws and imperfections in lens design may have had more immediate meaning in terms of better designs eliminating such flaws or lack of sharpness, especially in corners, and contrast improvements vs obviously and easily flared characteristics from earlier but those days are long past. I guess I'm also subjective based on my shooting being mostly B&W and finding many modern lenses too sharp and contrasty and to look too "digital" and sterile to me.
Don't get me wrong I like to shoot old petzval lenses and the like but do not mean that extreme by any means. Or even a certain uncoated LF Tessar I have. But one reason I love old 1960's glass particularly the Nikkor lenses is for their more tamer contrast and even more reasonable sharpness. The more modern Zeiss line for the 1970-90's Contax SLRs is about as sharp and contrasty as I want, the newer Zeiss lenses mostly being over the top in my book.
Again a personal thing. That all said my two favorite Leica M mount lenses are the moderate contrast but bitingly sharp 50/2 Summicron DR and the more modern 35/2 Zeiss Biogon. And a very close third the uncoated 35/3.5 Elmar! Go figure. Haha.
Yes I understand what you mean the clinical look and I tend to agree for 8x10 prints. But if you like to print big from 135 film, say 20x16 or even bigger, then every bit of extra resolution on film counts providing you can keep the camera still enough.
I've been using the Contax Aria for a few years...started with the 50mm, then the 85mm, then the 28mm. I haven't a single complaint about this setup. I ignore all the "which is better" "which is sharper" chatter, and just go out and shoot BW knowing I,m using some of the best lenses in the world. I print to 8X10. My 55mm filters fit all three lenses. The bracketing feature is important for me, as are the three meter modes (including spot). I shoot only in aperture priority, so no comment about manual shooting or otherwise. The rig is relatively lightweight, relatively compact, and it all carries easily. I think there's a 110mm macro available, and in hindsight, that lens might be more flexible than the 85mm (and cheaper). I prefer not to use zooms. Once I got over my fling with Nikon and Leica, settling in with the Contax was easy, comfortable, economical, and gratifying.
Why contax? If its really for the lenses then as I say, I think there are better options for using the zeiss lenses. But of course there is the price consideration too.
If its just becasue you want a contax camera, then contax it has to be. The Contax Zeiss lenses are very good and I suppose its an apparently cheap entry into zeiss lenses if you are looking at the short term. But in the long term zeiss lenses which fit nikon or canon are probably a better buy since they will fit nikon/canon bodies for the forseable future. Just saying...
These Contax lenses can be used on cameras with the Canon EF mount.
It means that if you are using ultra sharp high resolving film - like Kodak Techpan, and the scene has the details to distinguish (like test charts) and you are either scrutinizing the results under a microscope and/or printing wall size prints, you might see the difference . . .
Thanks. No offense to you but this propensity of people automatically describing a lens with more contrast and/or sharpness as "better" is a bugaboo with me.
I get it. And it probably goes way back to early days when tolerating certain flaws and imperfections in lens design may have had more immediate meaning in terms of better designs eliminating such flaws or lack of sharpness, especially in corners, and contrast improvements vs obviously and easily flared characteristics from earlier but those days are long past. I guess I'm also subjective based on my shooting being mostly B&W and finding many modern lenses too sharp and contrasty and to look too "digital" and sterile to me.
Don't get me wrong I like to shoot old petzval lenses and the like but do not mean that extreme by any means. Or even a certain uncoated LF Tessar I have. But one reason I love old 1960's glass particularly the Nikkor lenses is for their more tamer contrast and even more reasonable sharpness. The more modern Zeiss line for the 1970-90's Contax SLRs is about as sharp and contrasty as I want, the newer Zeiss lenses mostly being over the top in my book.
Again a personal thing. That all said my two favorite Leica M mount lenses are the moderate contrast but bitingly sharp 50/2 Summicron DR and the more modern 35/2 Zeiss Biogon. And a very close third the uncoated 35/3.5 Elmar! Go figure. Haha.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?