Contax bodies, what do you think?

[kxjiru]

I've recently begun to really start a Contax (C/Y) system not for the lenses but for the bodies ( and possibly 2 of the lenses). I've read many different things but those of you that use them, what's the deal? Is it worth the plunge?

 

[Daire Quinlan]

I've got a 167 M/T and a couple of yashica bodies. The Contax is well put together, but I've never really enjoyed shooting with it as much as I do the yashica bodies, or (say) my fe-2. I also find it unaccountably more difficult to focus with the 167 compared to any of my other manual focus splitscreen bodies. I don't know why, maybe the splitscreen is less inclined and so 'splits' a little less or something.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've had a pair of 167mt's, an RX, and now I have an RTS III. I've found all of them to be a joy to use. In contrast to Daire, in my experience they're very easy to focus, especially when using the good, fast glass available for the system.

 

[rthollenbeck]

I've owned the RTS III and it was a fine body. I liked the blue backlighted viewfinder display.
The S-2 is a nice body as well.

A friend had the 137ma, I used it a limited amount and enjoyed it as well. The specimens I see for sale now generally look ruff, I suspect it had a cheaper body cover material.

In my opinion Contax manual focus SLRs were an often over looked gem. They clearly were not as mass market as Nikon or Canon. It could probably also be said that Contax did not have the tradition or snob potential of Leica but did have Zeiss lens.

 

[jbrubaker]

Hi - I have used most of the Contax bodies. My favorite is the Aria, because of the size, light weight , and features. I also have a 167MT which is very usable. The Contax cameras, I think, were the ultimate manual focus bodies. regards ---john.

 

[gone]

Depends on the model. I had a 139Q and thought it was a nice little camera. Shutter (or mirror) "klop" was a little loud for my tastes, and of course the body covering looked like hell, but I enjoyed it while I had it. What I did NOT like was the 50 Planar that was on it. That thing may have been sharp, but it had the roughest bokeh I have ever seen in what was supposedly a top rated lens. Coming from Leica R lenses, I couldn't deal w/ it. One roll and it was gone.

 

[Alan Gales]

I bought a brand new Contax 139 back in I believe December of 1983. I loved that camera. Later I owned 3 167MT's, one of which I gave my step-son and he is still using. I have also handled the RTSll and an Aria

To me Contax/Yashica excelled at ergonomics. Everything about them feels better in my hands than any other brand. I have not handled a Yashica but I believe they are very similar. The next best thing would be the Leica R series. I used to sell cameras so I have handled or used Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax models.

Of course this is just my biased opinion.

 

[kxjiru]

I'm thinking about an RTSII and/or 159mm. There's a pretty good deal on my local craigslist for one.

 

[kxjiru]

Depends on the model. I had a 139Q and thought it was a nice little camera. Shutter (or mirror) "klop" was a little loud for my tastes, and of course the body covering looked like hell, but I enjoyed it while I had it. What I did NOT like was the 50 Planar that was on it. That thing may have been sharp, but it had the roughest bokeh I have ever seen in what was supposedly a top rated lens. Coming from Leica R lenses, I couldn't deal w/ it. One roll and it was gone.

Is the Planar that bad? I really want the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4. Anything else would be gravy.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Is the Planar that bad? I really want the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4. Anything else would be gravy.

I have the 50 1.4 on my RTS III now. I think the one that had the issue was the 50 1.7. I LOVE the look from the 50 1.4.

 

[RobC]

Is the Planar that bad? I really want the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4. Anything else would be gravy.

The standard 50 1.7 was rated as the best on the market compared to allcomers in its day. people rave over the 1.4 out of ignorance. There are plenty of comments around the web about it not being as good as people think. And how much difference do you think half a stop is really going to make.
Get the 50 1.7 and save yourself a lot of money.

I have a 167MT and Aria. The 167 has smooth mirror action. The Aria less so but its smaller and lighter. I would also look at the ST if you can find one in good condition. The RTS III is big and heavy but has the big advantage of mirror lockup. The RTS II also but I don't think the original RTS does. Early RTS III had a problem with the LCD top panel going dim so lookup about it on the web to see if you can find serial nos.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The standard 50 1.7 was rated as the best on the market compared to allcomers in its day. people rave over the 1.4 out of ignorance. There are plenty of comments around the web about it not being as good as people think. And how much difference do you think half a stop is really going to make.
Get the 50 1.7 and save yourself a lot of money.

I have a 167MT and Aria. The 167 has smooth mirror action. The Aria less so but its smaller and lighter. I would also look at the ST if you can find one in good condition. The RTS III is big and heavy but has the big advantage of mirror lockup. The RTS II also but I don't think the original RTS does. Early RTS III had a problem with the LCD top panel going dim so lookup about it on the web to see if you can find serial nos.

the 50 1.7 is rated as being sharper than the 1.4. I don't know that it has better bokeh/OOFAs though. I've had both the 1.4 and the 1.7 - I currently have the 1.4. I think the 1.4 has smoother, nicer out-of-focus areas (OOFAs) than the 1.7 does. Yes, a half-stop isn't much in terms of brightness, but the two lenses are of different designs.

 

[RobC]

but the two lenses are of different designs.

They are both Planars of very similar design. Get the Lens PDFs from zeiss website and compare for yourself.

http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/service/download_center/contax_yashica.html

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Rob is right.
The Planar 1.7 seems to be a reduced (lighter and smaller) version of the Planar 5mm 1.4.
It might as well be one of the few 50mm 1.7/1.8 with 7 elements. Most are double Gauss designs with 6 elements in 4 or 5 groups.
Thanks for the PDF!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

They aren't identical in design. I didn't say they were radically different, just that they produce different rendering of out-of-focus areas, with the 1.7 having higher resolution than the 1.4. I personally find the OOFA rendering more pleasing on the 1.4 . YMMV.

This was taken with the 50 1.4 .

 

[RobC]

how many aperture blades does the 50 1.4 have? The 1.7 has 6.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

As does the 1.4 - its also 6 blades.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

The standard 50 1.7 was rated as the best on the market compared to allcomers in its day. people rave over the 1.4 out of ignorance. There are plenty of comments around the web about it not being as good as people think. And how much difference do you think half a stop is really going to make.
Get the 50 1.7 and save yourself a lot of money.

I've had both. Still have the 1.7. +1 to RobC's comment.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I've had both. Still have the 1.7. +1 to RobC's comment.

I will add that the 1.4 has better feel/fit/finish and build quality. Just turning the aperture ring you can feel a real difference between the two. That said I found no big difference between the two in actual use and performance. I obtained both back before using adapters for the CY lenses on Canon DSLRs became popular and only paid $125/$85 for the 1.4/1.7. When later I saw the prices skyrocket I sold the 1.4 for a pretty penny and kept the 1.7.

 

[RobC]

1.4 is something people aspire to without any clue of whether its actually better. Often the only real advantage is viewfinder brightness on SLRs but since the 1.7 is only half a stop difference I don't think it makes much difference.