• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Can I see some Contax SLR?

Latest Gallery

Daily Bread

D
Daily Bread

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Ellis Island 1976 (14)

H
Ellis Island 1976 (14)

  • Tel
  • Mar 25, 2026
  • 4
  • 1
  • 54

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,944
Messages
2,847,906
Members
101,549
Latest member
mennojim
Recent bookmarks
1
RobC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because at the end of the day, MTF charts are not the only consideration.
 
Les Sarile said:
Because at the end of the day, MTF charts are not the only consideration.
Click to expand...

That, and because I can. I enjoy using different cameras and lenses, and after almost 40 years in photography enjoy the subtle differences I see in the character of different lenses. Whether it's actually there or not. :smile:
 
RobC said:
explain how
Click to expand...

Lens mount adapters. The Canon has a shallow enough mirror box that the lens mount adapter does not push the lens too far from the film plane, therefore infinity focus is maintained. Exposure is via stop-down metering as there is no automatic diaphragm control. It's not the best process in the world but it works.
 
TheFlyingCamera said:
Lens mount adapters. The Canon has a shallow enough mirror box that the lens mount adapter does not push the lens too far from the film plane, therefore infinity focus is maintained. Exposure is via stop-down metering as there is no automatic diaphragm control. It's not the best process in the world but it works.
Click to expand...

But if I'm not mistaken, it is a permanent fixture to lens and not a bayonet type fixture. You have to replace whats on lens currently.
 
RobC said:
But if I'm not mistaken, it is a permanent fixture to lens and not a bayonet type fixture. You have to replace whats on lens currently.
Click to expand...

There are many C/Y Contax to EF adapters on the market. They are not permanently fixed to the camera.
 
RattyMouse said:
There are many C/Y Contax to EF adapters on the market. They are not permanently fixed to the camera.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were. I said they are permanently fixed to lens.

Are you saying that is wrong?
 
RattyMouse said:
I dont think that is true, but I could be wrong. Others who know more will hopefully chime in and provide an accurate answer.
Click to expand...

Well you suggested it so why don't you just point us to one of these many ones you were thinking off so we can see for ourselves.
 
RobC said:
Well you suggested it so why don't you just point us to one of these many ones you were thinking off so we can see for ourselves.
Click to expand...

I just know that there are a LOT of Canon digital users who use Contax glass. Over at FM there are thousands of photos from people using every possible Contax lens on their EF mount digital cameras. I never read about them surgically changing the lenses. I would think that would be a huge topic if every lens needed this.

You can ask in this thread.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1009161/241#lastmessage
 
RattyMouse said:
I just know that there are a LOT of Canon digital users who use Contax glass. Over at FM there are thousands of photos from people using every possible Contax lens on their EF mount digital cameras. I never read about them surgically changing the lenses. I would think that would be a huge topic if every lens needed this.

You can ask in this thread.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1009161/241#lastmessage
Click to expand...

Thats what I thought, you have no idea how these mounts work.
 
RobC said:
Thats what I thought, you have no idea how these mounts work.
Click to expand...

All that I said was that it was *possible* to use C/Y lenses on EF mount cameras. My information is factually correct.

That you are too lazy or incapable on how to find out how to do this is not my concern.
 
RobC said:
But if I'm not mistaken, it is a permanent fixture to lens and not a bayonet type fixture. You have to replace whats on lens currently.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are two types - ones you mount permanently on the lens and ones you can interchange and are non-permanent. The ones that have been reviewed as best/most successful have been the ones you permanently mount to the lens.
 
TheFlyingCamera said:
Actually, there are two types - ones you mount permanently on the lens and ones you can interchange and are non-permanent. The ones that have been reviewed as best/most successful have been the ones you permanently mount to the lens.
Click to expand...

Because of these Canon adapters the Contax SLR lenses of the 80's-90's have increased in price substantially in the last 5 or so years as Canon DSLR owners flocked to them. Especially for the wide angle lenses which do not really need AF capabilities and of which many think the Contax Zeiss glass kicks butt over Canon's offerings in those wider ranges, or at least did at that point.

But even the standard lenses went up a lot. At its lowest point just before Canon DSLRs began to really take off you could get the 50/1.7 Planar used for $60-80 USD and the 50/1.4 Planar for only a little over $100 USD. I had both for a while. Sold the 1.4 later when I saw I could get almost $300 USD for it and because the 1.7 in its mid range of apertures I think might even be sharper. That said the build quality is quite different, you can feel it just turning the aperture ring. The 1.7 using more plastic and just does not feeling as solid, however it's very well built nonetheless. In fact at today's prices (the 1.4 is now $350 to almost $500 USD at KEH depending on AE or MM) I'd always recommend the 1.7 over the 1.4.

Perhaps my fav is the 35/2.8 PC Distagon. An unbelievable over-engineered marvel and terrific performer. Big though especially with its specially designed hood. Others I have and love are the 180/2.8 Sonnar, 135/2.8 Sonnar, 60/2.8 Makro-Planar, and 85/1.4 Planar. I also own the big 100-300/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar. I swear the 100-300 is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, primes included. Quite cumbersome though so I don't use it as much as I should. Two of the Contax Zeiss SLR lenses I've owned and eventually sold were the 80-200/4 Vario-Sonnar and the 45/2.8 Tessar. Just pretty much underwhelmed with them for some reason.
 
This thread has been ruined by totally irrelevant arguments about "bestness" of lenses and adaptors.

I came here to see some Contax gear!
 
tomken said:
This thread has been ruined by totally irrelevant arguments about "bestness" of lenses and adaptors.

I came here to see some Contax gear!
Click to expand...

Got anything to add?
 
RTSIII.jpg

Here you go- RTS III with 50mm f1.4
 
Sirs,

The original qestion was whether to buy a 50mm C\Y Zeiss. No info on whether that was for film or digital use.

The answer is that for normal printouts A4, A3 ?? whether on an RTS, S2, ST...or a digital Canon, a properly focussed Zeiss will be splendid.

I do not photograph test charts or brick walls, and do not usually make larger printouts, but i do occasionally make blowups from parts of the frame. I find find that even my occasionally derided 25mm, my 50mm, my 60mm macro and my zeiss Vario Sonnar zoom are all perfectly adequate.

Since I also happen to have a stack of ancient Leica R optics, which I use with film as well as digital, I can state with confidence that for my kind of untutored snaps, the Zeiss products are not at all inferior to its other top end competitors.

p.
 
As an owner of an RTS III, and having shot with both the 50 1.4 and 1.7, I would say that if you want to get the best out of the system, the RTS III is the way to go, for the vacuum film plane. I think it really does give an edge to focus accuracy. And while the 1.7 may be sharper than the 1.4, I like the quality of the OOFAs from the 1.4 better (another way of saying it has more pleasing bokeh than the 1.7).

Someone mentioned the Vario-Sonnar. I have also had the 35-70 Vario-Sonnar before and there was a time where I have said, if I were forced to choose only one lens to keep for my Contax system, that would be it. And I'd stand by that assessment today of that lens. It's a constant-aperture f3.5 through the whole zoom range, and it will macro focus to 1:3 or maybe even 1:2.5 (I forget, it's been a while since I had the lens). It too has a very lovely quality to its OOFAs (Out Of Focus Areas).
 
F3.4

Yes I have one and it is very good. But not as good as the primes IMO
 
tomken said:
This thread has been ruined by totally irrelevant arguments about "bestness" of lenses and adaptors.

I came here to see some Contax gear!
Click to expand...
Happy now?

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Contax D_Jsogon.jpg
    Contax D_Jsogon.jpg
    716.3 KB · Views: 236
You must log in or register to reply here.
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:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom