Contax S2B

[RattyMouse]

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]

To quote Ken Rockwell:

... Unlike the oddball 16mm, the 21mm is a real, practical lens. Just like the rest of the lenses, you get autofocus and TTL metering for flash and ambient light, screw-in 55mm filters, and it's three stops faster than the 16mm.

... The only gotcha is that you have to compose through a separate finder slipped into the hot shoe. The finder is nicer than the finder of the Mamiya 7 43mm lens because its focus is fixed, but the Zeiss finder lacks a level.

The Zeiss 21mm has no visible distortion, although the separate finder sure does.(emphasis mine).

... The Zeiss 21mm is super sharp, even wide-open at f/2.8.

The Zeiss 21mm is so sharp that you have to pay attention to depth-of-field at f/2.8, even for distant subjects.

Unlike most 21mm SLR lenses that are soft at f/2.8, this Zeiss is ultra sharp. Because this Zeiss is so sharp, areas that are slightly out-of-focus at f/2.8 will be obviously out-of-focus compared to the in-focus areas.

Softer lenses seem to have deeper depths-of-field at f/2.8 because they lack a hard, sharp, in-focus core. With softer lenses, the out of focus area seems more acceptable because there is no significantly sharper in focus area to call it out. Cheaper lenses often are seen as having deeper depths-of-field because their overall softness misleads our eyes to perceive a sloppier, and thus deeper, area as "in-focus."

Because of this, I thought my first test shots of real subjects with the Zeiss 21mm were soft in some areas of the image at f/2.8, even though my tests on the mountain at infinity were sharp edge-to-edge at f/2.8. I first thought I might have a bad sample with some mechanical wobble. NO! What I was seeing was a lack of depth-of-field at f/2.8 because of the extreme sharpness of the narrow in-focus area. When focused at 20 feet (6m), objects that are a few feet (1m) closer or farther away are softer, due to limited depth of field at f/2.8.

I've never used a 21mm lens this sharp or this fast to be able to notice selective focus effects for distant subjects before!

Be sure to stop down if this is going to bother you. This Zeiss 21mm is good enough to show off sloppy focus technique.

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

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

And about the 28mm Biogon:

The corners are still sharp wide open, but they do lose the slightest contrast compared to f/4. This lens is as good as Leica's 28mm f/2.8 ASPH; the two are identical in performance; I've shot tests between them.(emphasis mine)

 

[RattyMouse]

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]

Is using that external finder as much of a pain as I think it is? That's sort of a turn off to me.

No, actually, it's pretty easy to get used to. Let me dig up some images I made with the lens and you'll see why it is worth any hassle it might impose.

 

[RattyMouse]

No, actually, it's pretty easy to get used to. Let me dig up some images I made with the lens and you'll see why it is worth any hassle it might impose.

Thank you...........i think........:confused:

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

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]

Are you judging from minilab prints or from something else?

 

[RattyMouse]

Are you judging from minilab prints or from something else?

Scans today, prints in the past...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

That first shot looks nice. My images look more like your 2nd and 3rd, which to my eyes, is not attractive color.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

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]

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

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]

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

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]

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]

Why don't you buy a Zeiss for your FM2n? I actually think the FM2n is the better body

 

[pdmk]

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]

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.