Contax must haves

[kminov]

Hi all,

I just acquired a contax rts and i must admit i love it. Its in an entirely different league of its own, and i am an ex-hasselblad-leica user, so i know quality build. Anyway, i got a 50 Planar, and i will need something very wide and another in the vicinity of 100, will be used for portraits mostly. What would you suggest?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

For a portrait lens, you can't go wrong with either the 85 f1.4 or the 100 f2. The 85 f1.4 is much more common, and less expensive, although both lenses are not cheap anymore (there was a golden age perhaps half-a-dozen years ago when you could get either lens for $5-600 in pristine condition, but the DSLR crowd found out how good these lenses are and started converting the lens mounts to use them on their Canons and Nikons). For the wide end, if your budget will stomach it, there's a rectilinear 15, an 18, and a 21. None are cheap, none are common.

 

[philosli]

Check out this site:
http://www.nadir.it/ob-fot/CONTAX_EYES.htm

I have a 85mm F/1.4 and a 28mm F/2.8. Both are superb. 21mm is a legend, and its used price reflects that.

 

[Jeff L]

I have the P100 f2 and can tell you that it's stunning. I also have the S85 f2.8 and it's quite a lens- very sharp. I haven't seen too many 100 f3.5's. Any of these or the lenses mentioned above will not fail to please. Good luck. Have fun.

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to own the 100 f/3.5 and the 25mm. Both were great lenses. I don't think you can go wrong with any of the Contax SLR Zeiss lenses.

 

[kminov]

Thanks guys. Has anyone used 135 for portraits?

 

[jjphoto]

Thanks guys. Has anyone used 135 for portraits?

Yes. I have the Contax 135/2.0. Actually, I've had 2 of these over about 20 years. It's a great lens for portraits but possibly a bit longer than most people would like. I think most people find the 80-100 focal length more comfortable for portraits but it depends on how tight you want to shoot and the perspective you want so sometimes it's nicer to get a bit of distance.

The 135/2.0 is very sharp wide open at longer distances but is slightly soft (wide open) at portrait distances. Some would consider this an advantage when shooting portraits, it just depends on what you like.

 

[kminov]

Yes. I have the Contax 135/2.0. Actually, I've had 2 of these over about 20 years. It's a great lens for portraits but possibly a bit longer than most people would like. I think most people find the 80-100 focal length more comfortable for portraits but it depends on how tight you want to shoot and the perspective you want so sometimes it's nicer to get a bit of distance.

The 135/2.0 is very sharp wide open at longer distances but is slightly soft (wide open) at portrait distances. Some would consider this an advantage when shooting portraits, it just depends on what you like.

thanks, now I know I need to get one

 

[Trask]

I've used Contax SLRs since the 1980s -- primarily a 167MT and a Yashica low-end that has the same mount as a back up. I've also got two RTS II cameras that I'm still trying to find someone to repair.

I used my Contax kit extensively while traveling as part of my career, using the 50mm f/1.4, 28mm, 80-200 zoom and 28-85 zoom (all Contax lenses). The 28-85 is a great travel lens as it is so versatile; together with the 80-200 you can get a lot done, and done well. I've recently picked up a Made in Germany 25mm which has an excellent reputation.

Oddly -- and this has nothing to do with Contax per se, could have happened with any other SLR -- it was while trying to take photos in dim light at a wedding reception with the 28-85 that I realized what a tough time I was having determining proper focus while at the wide setting. This led me back to rangefinders, which I find seem to be easier for my 63-year-old eyes to focus. I actually find the 25mm easier to focus than the zoom even though it is wider -- YMMV.

 

[Daire Quinlan]

Oddly -- and this has nothing to do with Contax per se, could have happened with any other SLR -- it was while trying to take photos in dim light at a wedding reception with the 28-85 that I realized what a tough time I was having determining proper focus while at the wide setting. This led me back to rangefinders, which I find seem to be easier for my 63-year-old eyes to focus. I actually find the 25mm easier to focus than the zoom even though it is wider -- YMMV.

Actually, it's funny you might mention this. I have practically the same pair of cameras, Contax 167 and a Yashica FX-D and for some weird reason I find them really difficult to focus both at wide and also shooting the 1.4 wide open. Much more so than the brace of Nikons I have with splitscreens. I had kinda assumed that the split prism on the C/Y cameras wasn't as sensitive or something (the two halves of a split prism can be inclined more or less) or maybe the VF magnification isn't as good or something.

 

[Xmas]

Actually, it's funny you might mention this. I have practically the same pair of cameras, Contax 167 and a Yashica FX-D and for some weird reason I find them really difficult to focus both at wide and also shooting the 1.4 wide open. Much more so than the brace of Nikons I have with splitscreens. I had kinda assumed that the split prism on the C/Y cameras wasn't as sensitive or something (the two halves of a split prism can be inclined more or less) or maybe the VF magnification isn't as good or something.

Confirmed: the angle of the rangefinder (or micro prisms) and

the aperture of the lens
the focal length of the lens and
the exit pupil size of the viewfinder

Can all make a difference note the prisms or even Fresnel can black out (as well).

You may need a dioptre in low light but get away without one in good light.

 

[kminov]

Ok

 

[kminov]

Are you saying varios are as good as primes? Or at least very very close?

 

[Trask]

If you're asking me, kminov, I would say that for general photography the vario-sonnars that I have used are very, very acceptable. Of course I can't get f/1.4 shallow depth of field with a f/3.4 zoom, but neither can I zoom with my 50mm lens (and yes, I know I can walk toward or away form the subject on some occasions, but there are many where that's not an option). The 25mm may have a better image than the zoom when it is set full wide at 28mm, but again, the zoom may permit me to get a set of pictures that I wouldn't have been able to if I were changing lenses all the time.

A top prime should be better than a top zoom, I would think, given tolerances in zoom mechanisms and the more complex optical arrangements made in a zoom lens. But I wouldn't avoid using a zoom if you test a few rolls and find the resulting photographs meet your requirements. Lens are a means to an end, after all.

 

[kminov]

If you're asking me, kminov, I would say that for general photography the vario-sonnars that I have used are very, very acceptable. Of course I can't get f/1.4 shallow depth of field with a f/3.4 zoom, but neither can I zoom with my 50mm lens (and yes, I know I can walk toward or away form the subject on some occasions, but there are many where that's not an option). The 25mm may have a better image than the zoom when it is set full wide at 28mm, but again, the zoom may permit me to get a set of pictures that I wouldn't have been able to if I were changing lenses all the time.

A top prime should be better than a top zoom, I would think, given tolerances in zoom mechanisms and the more complex optical arrangements made in a zoom lens. But I wouldn't avoid using a zoom if you test a few rolls and find the resulting photographs meet your requirements. Lens are a means to an end, after all.

Agreed. Thanks, I had really excluded the zooms, but will reconsider.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you are considering zooms for the Contax mount, do not overlook the 35-70 f3.4 . This is one amazing lens. I had one when I was using an RX and a 167MT as my system, and it lived on my camera. I had a 35mm f2.8 and 50 f1.7, but unless I explicitly needed the speed or I was shooting something where using a prime was required, the 35-70 was my go-to. Not only is it a great lens for the range it supplies, but it has macro-focusing capability at the 35mm end of the range that will get you down to something like 1/3 life size.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I have a slew of Contax bodies and lenses. My favs are the 35/2.8 PC-Distagon, 50/1.8 Planar, 60/2.8 Makro-Planar, 85/1.4 Planar, 135/2.8 Sonnar, 180/2.8 Sonnar and 100-300 Vario-Sonnar (might be one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, too bad so big and slow). Ones I've bought, used and sold off: 50/1.4 Planar (bought cheap, sold for much more, 1.8 as good or better, though 1.4 better build "feel), 45/2.8 Tessar and 80-200 Vario (just found both nothing special).

Enjoy your RTS!

 

[kminov]

I have a slew of Contax bodies and lenses. My favs are the 35/2.8 PC-Distagon, 50/1.8 Planar, 60/2.8 Makro-Planar, 85/1.4 Planar, 135/2.8 Sonnar, 180/2.8 Sonnar and 100-300 Vario-Sonnar (might be one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, too bad so big and slow). Ones I've bought, used and sold off: 50/1.4 Planar (bought cheap, sold for much more, 1.8 as good or better, though 1.4 better build "feel), 45/2.8 Tessar and 80-200 Vario (just found both nothing special).

Enjoy your RTS!

Great info and thanks

 

[Mark Crabtree]

The 85 1.4 is a great lens, but I didn't use that focal length much so traded mine off. The 35 f2.8 Distagon has been my favorite lens in the system and the main reason I haven't moved out of Contax so far. I was initially disappointed not to get the 35 1.4 with the outfit I bought, but the 2.8 really won me over with its lovely image quality. It has a very crisp, but not harsh look that I really like. It actually reminds me an awful lot of the original 35 Summicron for Leica, but with better coating.

I haven't found a Zeiss lens I didn't like thus far, but the 50 1.4 is also a standout. It beats out my 50 1.4 Nikkor and Pentax lenses for sharpness, and I slightly prefer the overall look to the Pentax (Nikkor is a distant 3rd place for me).

I'm mostly using my Pentax MX now, but have had trouble letting go of the RTS outfit because of the lenses.

 

[jjphoto]

I have a slew of Contax bodies and lenses. My favs are the 35/2.8 PC-Distagon, 50/1.8 Planar, 60/2.8 Makro-Planar, 85/1.4 Planar, 135/2.8 Sonnar, 180/2.8 Sonnar and 100-300 Vario-Sonnar (might be one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, too bad so big and slow). Ones I've bought, used and sold off: 50/1.4 Planar (bought cheap, sold for much more, 1.8 as good or better, though 1.4 better build "feel), 45/2.8 Tessar and 80-200 Vario (just found both nothing special).

Enjoy your RTS!

Re the Contax 50/1.4 vs 50/1.7. I had the 50/1.7 (which I assume you are referring to) and 50/1.4 (and the 45/2.8) about 20 years ago and found myself consistently using the 50/1.7 over either the 45/2.8 or 50/1.4. At the time I didn't really like the 50/1.4 at all but looking back now I think that I was the problem, not the lens. I suspect I may not have been focusing accurately, or maybe there was focus shift, not sure. Nowdays I shoot digital (oops) and find that I can accurately focus the 50/1.4 quite easily (I have both AE and MM versions and find them virtually identical except the shape of the aperture blades of course). Now I consider the Contax 50/1.4 one of the best fast 50's around and use it at pretty much every opportunity (in in preference to a late Leica R 50/2 ROM which has it's own qualities but that's another matter). The 50/1.4 (either the AE or MM version) is razor sharp wide open at close range and at distance, in the central area. It's bokeh is a little funky and interesting wide open but is smoother when stopped down than many slower 50-55mm lenses I've compared it to at identical apertures. It would be interesting to compare the Contax 50/1.7 and 1.4 bokeh but unfortunately I no longer have the 50/1.7 so I have never compared the two lenses directly where focusing accuracy can be assured. Given the choice of the 50/1.7 and 1.4 lenses I would have no hesitation choosing the 1.4, if cost was not a consideration (weight certainly isn't as there is only 85grams in it). I know the 50/1.7 is an excellent lens but unless cost was a major factor, I see no other benefit from using it.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Yes, sorry, I meant 1.7, not 1.8. As for the differences the prices between the two is huge lately. And I believe photodo rated the 1.7 slightly sharper than the 1.4. That said I'm one of the first who says after a certain degree of sharpness is achieved that nitpick of sharpness is by far NOT the most important aspect in a lens.

 

[kminov]

Sharpness is good, but for me much more important is the rendering. I was blown away by the Leica glass, it makes a shot almost a 3D experience, you can SEE the depth in the picture. I hope Contax lens are close to that.

 

[Jeff L]

If you're considering zooms, consider the VS 100-300. In my experience its was noticeably shaper than the TT300 f4's that I owned. A fantastic lens even if it's a bit slow.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

For the ultimate in that 3D look it's the Contax G2 (or G1) and its 21/28/45/90 set of lenses.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In the Contax SLR family, the 85 1.4 will definitely give you that effect, shot at relatively wide apertures (say f4 and wider), as will the 50 f1.4. But that also depends on your basic skill in composing and focusing.