Contax S2B

OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
The Distagon is a retrofocus design, whereas the Biogon is not. The Biogon is the better lens, optically.

Why does the 21mm Distagon have such a legendary reputation? I've been in photography for decades have have always heard about the legendary Zeiss 21mm Distagon, but never once ever hear much about a 21mm Biogon. Why the discrepancy?
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
To quote Ken Rockwell:


http://www.kenrockwell.com/contax/g-system.htm#21
 
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
Is using that external finder as much of a pain as I think it is? That's sort of a turn off to me.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format








All from the 21. The one from the workshop at the Sagrada Familia was hand-held, 1 second@ f2.8 or f4, through a sheet of plexiglass. The subway shot was I think 1 second @ f4, but I could be wrong. All three were shot on Reala. These are scans from mini-lab C-prints - if I scanned the original negatives they would look better. I can tell you the workshop shot enlarges to 16x20 and still looks tack-sharp.
 
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
Very nice images. God I love Reala film. There isnt a day gone by when I dont curse Fujifilm for finishing off that film.

Sigh.........I hate GAS.
 
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
Although they're different, I now like Ektar 100 better than Reala. Reala used to be my go-to 35mm film. Between the arrival of Ektar and the demise of Reala, I'm actually glad I made the switch.

I just got a roll of Ektar film back from the lab today. I don't know why I return to this film. Every roll makes me swear off ever using it again. The color is just so "off" compared to Reala, or 400H.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
I'd blame your lab then for not profiling the film properly.







All these were shot on Ektar 100, and scanned by me on my Epson V750, which is really just a so-so scanner. The shot of Notre Dame was on film processed by a minilab (but scanned by me). The others were processed by me and scanned by me. Proving that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to get good results from Ektar 100.
 
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
That first shot looks nice. My images look more like your 2nd and 3rd, which to my eyes, is not attractive color.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
The middle shot may or may not be your cup of tea - it is night photography and the color temperature of the various light sources may seem weird. The last one, Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, is absolutely spot-on natural, from my monitor's perspective. If you don't like it, though, you don't like it. I suspect you've been psychologically ruined by Fuji's over-the-top greens - they super-saturated the green dyes in their films for some reason.
 
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format

Heh heh.....yes, I have been ruined. Maybe it is because I shot Fuji digital cameras for many years. That might have planted what is "right" or not right with color and me.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,351
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Just to give some perspective on this ...

When Kodak was predominant in large portions of the world, their different international labs had slightly different targets for ideal colour balance, contrast and density. Those differences reflected the preferences of local markets.

They also produced motion picture film at more than one location, and the characteristics varied slightly depending on location.

My father had some experience assisting a film crew in Vancouver Canada who were attempting to complete a partially completed film, where the original footage was shot on Kodak Pathe materials - apparently that was an interesting challenge for Kodak Canada.

That being said, I expect that the differences observed by RattyMouse have way more to do with scanning than any other factor.
 
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format

To be honest, I rarely ever shot Kodak film, even back in the day (the late '80s and 90's). I just never cared for Kodak color, instead strongly liking Fuji's interpretation of color. Last week I did buy 3 rolls of Kodak film, 2 Ektars in 120 size and one Portra in 135 size to try again. Every so often I give it another go, but have always come to the same conclusion.
 
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
Well, today I held the Contax S2 in my hand. I was in the store, with the camera in my hand with my wife telling me it was OK to buy it. Damn that was hard but my head won out over my heart and I handed it back to the shop keeper and instead bought a new lens for my Nikon FM2.

Ouch.

The Zeiss itch remains unscratched.
 

NJH

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
702
Location
Dorset
Format
Multi Format
Ratty what sort of time of day are you shooting Ektar? I have been getting mine developed and scanned by a local lab and it comes out fine when shot in the day, can get a bit to magenta if shot in the evening though and the colour casts look much worse on my el cheapo PC monitor than my Macbook Retina, the later probably only half way good in this regard. Deep reds and yellows in the sun look fantastic on Ektar.

I am just about to sell an M7 body at a considerable loss after only a few months. Trying lots of different bodies is fun but feels like a mugs game looking at the bank balance, like you're decision I am sticking to buying more lenses or books or large print jobs.
 
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format

All times of day, but mostly around high noon as I rarely can get out during more interesting light.

Why would you sell a Leica at a loss? I thought those cameras held their value better than any!
 

NJH

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
702
Location
Dorset
Format
Multi Format
They do hold their value but there is always a gap between dealer price and private sale/trade in etc. I have tended to do much better in the past selling lenses privately where the risk to the buyer is much lower and hence higher prices can be asked. I am happy using my minty mega deal M6 anyway, the benefits of one M body other an other are so tiny as to be photographically meaningless IMHE so lesson learned no more time, learning effort and money blown on different bodies.
 

GarageBoy

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
993
Format
35mm
Why don't you buy a Zeiss for your FM2n? I actually think the FM2n is the better body
 

pdmk

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
38
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Sorry I dont want to start new thread, but can somebody give me advice please which camera to choose if I have choose from these two Contax RTS (first one) or Contax 139Q?

Thanks
 

Taslim Abdani

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
28
Format
35mm
I had the Contax S2B and I liked it but, the film advance kept on breaking down and it ended up costing me more to repeatedly have it fixed so I traded it in for something else. I still own and use the Contax Aria and RX -- Great cameras. The Nikon FM2 is a great camera by the way.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…