Contax vs Leica

[RobC]

I have a Contax 35mm slr sytem with various lenses including 85mm F1.4 and 135mm F2.8.
I was looking at the specs of the leica M series lenses and see that their equivalent lenses, the 90mm F2 and 135mm F3.4 are both slower than the zeiss lenses on my contax but only a stop or a half stop or thereabouts.

My question is really only for those who have actual experience of these two systems as anything else will be pure speculation. So, have you observed any practical difference in image quality across these two system and specifically the lenses mentioned above?

My speculative guesstimate would be that the Leica might just be a tiny bit better but that it would only be noticeable under exacting testing circumstances.

 

[matti]

On an SLR a large aperture is great to use for focusing. That doesn't mean the lens gives you a better image stopped down to what to use for taking.
But I think it would be more fruitful to discuss the differences in handling of the equipment since the differences are really really small, compared to stepping up to mf.
/matti

 

[RobC]

If I had wanted to know about the differences in handling I would have asked. But even though I specifically asked for responses from people who have the actual experience I was looking for, you can guarantee that someone will give completely irrelevant answers leading to further useless answers which don't address the question.

 

[matti]

I suppose I was a bit confused about you talking about how fast the lenses were and then using the word "better". I suppose people who have used all four lenses and compared them will have different opinions. I find it difficult to compare my Leica M-lenses with my Nikon-lenses since the cameras and systems handle so differently. The Leica images always comes out sharper though. But I think it is a matter of handling and using the cameras.

Sorry for wasting more of your time. But if you don't want opinions, why not just look up the MTF:s?

/matti

 

[Mick Fagan]

Leica lenses are quite astounding in their resolution and are of a lower contrast than Contax lenses.

Contax lenses are higher contrast and slightly lower in their resolution.

I have seen this from developing trannies from 5 photographers for close to a year.

I would equate them (Leica) to Hasselblad lenses which are lower contrast to RB67 lenses, which are higher contrast.

I have seen this from developing trannies from 7 Hasselblads and about 12 RB/RZ67 in a studio situation.

You can literally tell which system shot the trannies as you are walking to the vertical light box where the trannies are hanging prior to being sleeved. It is that obvious.

Mick.

 

[RobC]

Mick, are you talking colour neg, tranny, B+W or all?
I'm primarily interested in B+W and given dev is tailored, then lens contrast is evened out so the resolution would be the main difference for me. I think but I could be wrong because I never understood why one lens should be contrastier than another except for reasons of lens flare.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Rob

You are comparing apples to orangutans when comparing SLR glass to rangefinder glass. You should be comparing your Contax glass to Leica R glass.

If you don't understand all the reasons for lens contrast, other then controlling lens flare - and believe me lens contrast mean much more then controlling flare - why bring it up? You can not use a B&W developer to add contrast to your film that the lens contrast brings to the film.

Why put down a person who is trying to explain why SLR glass can be engineered with more light transmitting power. You included this observational difference between SLR and rangefinder lenses in your original post.

But the bottom line is what do YOU mean by 'better?' What is it you are trying to do with your photography? Or do you simply wish to hang a version of 'male jewelry' from your shoulder so you can say 'my camera is better than yours?'

It all comes down to you photographic voice. Does one camera system and its lenses give you the ability to 'speak' through your photographs better than another system? There are times when my Holga has better 'glass' then my entire Leica M system because it always me to say what I want to say better.

I've used, but do not own, a Contax 35mm SLR system. I'd rather use my Leica M system, or my Nikon SLR system, or my Hasselblad system, or my Mamiya 7 II system, or my Arca-Swiss 4x5 system, or my KB Canham 8x10 system, or my Minolta CLE system, or my set of large format pinhole cameras, or my crazy collection of toy cameras, then the Contax. Why? It's not that the Contax is bad or inferior, it's is just that it is a system that I do not have a complete mastery of, and thus, would rather not learn a new system.

I go through this time and time again with my college students who all think 'if only I had this other camera system my pictures will be better.' They are always wrong.

So to answer your question, I ask another question. What are you planning to do with your photography that a Leica lens would make 'better' then your Contax glass?

 

[RobC]

Pinhole,
The reason I ask is because I would like a rangefinder for some wedding photography. Why? For three reasons. Firstly I believe the time lag between pressing the shutter release and the shutter actually firing will be shorter, therefore I'm more likely to capture facial expressions as I see them. Secondly, because I don't lose the view as the mirror goes up, as in an SLR, I can actually see if something changes as I fire the shutter and thirdly because it will be quieter with no whizzing motor drive.
The down side is that it is manual wind on which is maybe too slow if I want images in quick sucession but thats not my style so I don't see it as a problem.
So why ask the original question? Because I already have a very good contax system and if the leica doesn't produce better resolution then I'm not sure that I want to re-invest in another very expensive system for the benefits it would bring. At least not in the short term. On the other hand, given that we are talking 35mm system where resolution is very important even for moderate size enlargements from hand held exposures, then if the leica gives that over the contax, I would be more inclined to take that route sooner rather than later. I have a 4x5 system and I have medium format system but the Leica would be for grab / documentary images rather than traditionally posed images. The contax lenses referred to allow greater control of selective focus (shorter DOF) than the leicas which gives them the edge there but that is only one consideration.
I can assure you that the consideration of the leica has nothing to do with branding or strapadictomes. It just happens to be acknowledged as a highly reliable piece of equipment and is one of the few still available range finders.

I didn't bring lens contrast up. Mick did and I wasn't putting him down in anyway. The put down was for the answer which didn't address the question.
So please explain lens contrast because that may be another consideration that I have to make.

 

[sbelyaev]

I have both Contax N and Leica M systems (I used to have C/Y lenses). For practical purposes there is no difference. You won't be able to tell whether a picture was taken with leica glass or contax (same aperture). If you like mechanical RFs or want to boost your ego then Leica is a way to go, if not stick with contax. There are too many talks about bokeh, glowing and magic. All this exists in minds only. Avoid thinking about resolution, MTF and so on. Take some pictures and select the lenses that you like. I ended up doing this after having spent considerable amount of time and money chasing the "best-on-paper" lenses. I can tell from my personal experience that contax glass is as good as leica.
New ZF/ZM lines are very similar to regular CV lenses. Don't bother with new zeiss. C/Y glass is as good or better.

 

[Ian Grant]

I never understood why one lens should be contrastier than another except for reasons of lens flare.

This is purely down to design criteria when comparing Leica M lenses to many Japanese equivalents for SLR's.

Leitz lenses are sharper and more tonal but the slightly contrastier Japanese lenses can appear to have more apparent sharpness due to the greater micro-contrast between ones.

I'm not sure how different they would be to the Zeiss lenses for a Contax, most likely far less than compared to a Nikon or Canon lens. In my own experience my 50mm Summicron is far sharper and more tonal than a Pentax or Canon 50mm lens.

Ian

 

[Pinholemaster]

Well Rob, your three reasons have nothing to do with the lens design.

"The reason I ask is because I would like a rangefinder for some wedding photography. Why? For three reasons. Firstly I believe the time lag between pressing the shutter release and the shutter actually firing will be shorter, therefore I'm more likely to capture facial expressions as I see them. Secondly, because I don't lose the view as the mirror goes up, as in an SLR, I can actually see if something changes as I fire the shutter and thirdly because it will be quieter with no whizzing motor drive."

The Leica rangefinder system works far better as a stealth camera then an SLR. Great for low light work as well. But for telephoto work, an SLR works better. I use a 75mm f/1.4 and a 135 f/3.4 on my M6 cameras. The window in the viewfinder for the 135mm is very small, even with a magnifier attached to the viewfinder. If the subject is moving, you'll have a devil of a time follow focusing compared to an SLR. The Leica M series is a much finer system when using wide angle lenses.

That said, the selective focus of all the Leica f/1.4 glass is fantastic.

For weddings, I recommend the Leica M series for lenses no longer than 75mm (f/2.0 or f/1.4). If I had a Contax system, I'd use your 85 and 135, and add a Leica for a 35mm or wider set of lenses. Then you have the best of both worlds. But I was trained as a photojournalist, not a wedding photographer. I've never had to please a bride, only publications such as The New York Times Magazine, Sports Illustrated, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, to name a few.

The resulting B&W prints from each system would look fine together.

 

[RobC]

I hadn't considered the size of the focussing area and frame area for the telephotos. Thats one very big negative for the leica considering my intended purpose. I'll stay with the contax.

Thanks.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Rob

I think you made the right decision.

 

[naaldvoerder]

New ZF/ZM lines are very similar to regular CV lenses. Don't bother with new zeiss. C/Y glass is as good or better.

I this really true? Do you know from first hand experience?

I only ask this because I fancy a Zeiss Ikon + ZM for a while, allthough admittingly largely for the "jewelry factor". I am very much an amateur snapper and swapped my Minolta SLR system for a Contax SLR system a couple of years ago. Some years wiser I realize I probably have taken my most satisfying shots with the Minolta, probably because I have been using it for 20 odd years. It seems the expected benefits of spotmetering, vacuum presure plate, mirror lock-up, and what have you still has to grow on me. The biggest contribution to sharper pictures was not the Zeiss glas, however pretty, but the realisation, that a tripod was the most important photographic tool.

It makes my realize that new gear is unlikely to improve my shots all that much, but it does satisfy the occasional bout of GAS.....

Jaap Jan

 

[sbelyaev]

I this really true? Do you know from first hand experience?

I only ask this because I fancy a Zeiss Ikon + ZM for a while, allthough admittingly largely for the "jewelry factor". I am very much an amateur snapper and swapped my Minolta SLR system for a Contax SLR system a couple of years ago. Some years wiser I realize I probably have taken my most satisfying shots with the Minolta, probably because I have been using it for 20 odd years. It seems the expected benefits of spotmetering, vacuum presure plate, mirror lock-up, and what have you still has to grow on me. The biggest contribution to sharper pictures was not the Zeiss glas, however pretty, but the realisation, that a tripod was the most important photographic tool.

It makes my realize that new gear is unlikely to improve my shots all that much, but it does satisfy the occasional bout of GAS.....

Jaap Jan

Yes, from personal experience.
Agree with what you said re tripod.
For handheld photography either lens will produce similar results. I don't typically use tripod with 35mm cameras. If I feel like using tripod I take a MF camera.

 

[DanielOB]

I never liked that M6. It is said thet Leica M lenses are "better" because in designing no mirror and no lens length restriction....
However, Apo-Macro-Elmarit 2.8/100 made for R Leica is very best lens Leica ever made in their history. Than comes 2.
8/180 (Apo)...
So do not take it so easy.
Now Contax lenses comes from Zeiss, and beleive or not nothing behing Leica. I do not have Contax lenses but have Zeiss ZF-Macro F2/100 for Nikon. Comparing to my Leica 2.8/100 "no difference" in the way that both are equally good, just everyone with its own specificity, say in bokeh. As for "sharpness" (acutance), resolution, flare, ... you already know that Zeiss is not new in that field, and that rhey know to make THE "lens".
As for difference in M/R camera design no "picture" difference, only you will find a lot of restrictions with M (say no close up if you do not invest in special equipment).

Daniel OB

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Most Zeiss marketed "M" mount rangefinder lenses are actually made (under Zeiss supervision and quality control standards) at Cosina/Voigtlander in Japan. They still have to meet Zeiss quality standards or are rejected. Rather than say the Zeiss "M" mount lenses are "like" Cosina/Voigtlander "M" mount lenses, I would think that the Cosina/Voigtlander lenses are getting better all the time, due to the training and skill of the workers in making the Zeiss brand lenses. In any case, Zeiss, Cosina/Voigtlander & Leica all together make some of the sharpest, best lenses for 35mm photography.
Never has there been so much choice in "M" mount, ever.

 

[35mmDelux]

long lenses are not Leica forte. Leicas are some of the sharpest 35mm lenses made. The 135 Elmar 3.4 is considered by the Leicaphile guru, Erwin Putts, to be a masterpiece of engineering. The 90mm/2.0 Aspherical to many as good as it gets.

"New ZF/ZM lines are very similar to regular CV lenses." Not so. I've owned a slew of VC and while I like them they lack in comparison to Zeiss ZM.