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?
Can I see some Contax SLR?
-
A
- Thread starter kivis
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Manfrotto 502AH Pro Video Head
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Light Impressions Archival Slide Storage Boxes
- Started by Jon Shiu
-
For Sale SPECIAL BOXED SET OF 14 PHOTOGRAPHS 1972
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Ricohflex TLR CAMERA
- Started by Peter Schrager
Forum statistics
No, you aren't. All good. Pick any. I have 4 Contax SLR bodies (RX, AX, RTS, RTSII), the G2 and a T2. Plus about 8-9 Contax Zeiss SLR lenses. None bad.
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?
Probably.
I have a contax Aria and a 167MT, both really good cameras and a selection of zeiss lenses.
The 50mm 1.4 lens does not have a particularly good reputation but people are obsessesed with a 1.4 lens for nothing other than kudos. Well the 1.4 is only half a stop faster than the 1.7 and its MTF shows only a tiny marginal improvement over the 1.7. In practice you'll see no difference between the two lenses so save yourself a bundle of money and get the 1.7.
I would get the ST body if you can find one in good condition. The Aria is small and light and has good matrix metering if you need it. The RTSII and RTIII both have mirror lock up which is good if you are doing tripod work. Both big and heavy.
The 85 1.4 is a stunning lens and even more so the 135 2.8 which has beautiful sonnar bokeh.
Having said all that, the newer zeiss lenses with canon/nikon mounts are better than the older zeiss contax lenses and it is really the lens system/mount you are buying into. So consider canon or nikon bodies and get the zeiss lenses to fit on those cameras. That also gives a much wider range of plentiful lens options from canon and nikon too which also fit on their DSLR cameras. i.e. a plethora of options whereas contax is pretty much limited these days with no new lenses being made for them.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
So sharpness?
I term it as resolution but that equates to better sharpness towards the edges, especially corners
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 . . .
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
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...
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.
Just don't confuse the ST with the S2, they are very different beasts.
You could test the waters cheaply with a Yashica manual-focus SLR. If the Zeiss glass takes your fancy then trade up; if not, you're only out a few quid on the body and you can probably resell the lenses for what you paid in the first place.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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 . . .
Which one?
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.
Have you determined your print size limitation to film brand/type, film size, scene, shooting conditions, output workflow, paper type or the lens itself?
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
There's a 60mm macro in two versions, one that goes 1:2 and one that goes 1:1. The 1:1 version is much bigger and heavier than the 1:2 version. There is also a 100 mm macro which will give you 1:1 focusing without extension tubes. But it's also a lot bigger and heavier than your 85mm f2.8, and more expensive.
These Contax lenses can be used on cameras with the Canon EF mount.
explain how
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 . . .
And only when using a tripod.
So why do you bother with Zeiss glass which is expensive. Their MTF charts aren't much better than nikon/canon? Why do zeiss bother with further development? Why do any lens manufacturers bother with further devlopment if its all plenty good enough already.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |