Is a Contax G2 a good investment for me?

[Keith Evans]

I have two 35mm cameras that I use regularly: Minolta XD-11 and Canon EOS Elan 7N. I enjoy using them both but I use the Canon more, since I like autofocus, along with a Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens. However, the Canon does not spark that much of a joy when using it, even though it gets the job done.

For the last few weeks, I have been drooling over the Contax G2 on eBay. I am very close to convincing myself that I must have this camera, even though it costs upwards of two thousand dollars with one or two lenses. I am aware that the camera contains electronic parts that may not be repairable if it breaks, and that some find the viewfinder to be rather small. I am okay with that since I love how it looks and the fact that it's supposed to be able to take good pictures.

My question for the forum is this: Is the Contax G2, along with its supposedly sensational Zeiss glass, enough of an improvement over the Canon? Will pictures taken with a Zeiss lens look that much different from pictures taken with my 40mm f/2.8 Canon lens? I realize that the answers to these questions are probably very subjective, but I am interested in hearing what the forum members have to say about this.

 

[Huss]

The Canon 40mm 2.8 is a superb lens, so you're not going to notice much difference, if any, in your images. Differences will be down to technique, camera shake etc. The AF in your camera is much faster and more accurate than in the Contax.

The question really is, can you afford it and will it make you happy? The Contax is so nicely made, lovely to hold and a pleasure to look at. If it makes you take pics because you like it so much (and you can afford it), then get it.

I'd only get one lens to start off with (45mm) so you can 'bond' with the camera and concentrate on what you have and really get used to it.

 

[Craig75]

I had a g1. Looks awesome, felt awesome, but was just a dog to use. I know they very quickly realised their mistake and updated it to g2 but... imo its really a very big interchangeable lens point and shoot. You cant manual focus, just zone focus so its limited as a camera.

Your canon is far more flexible as a system and as a tool.

Lens are cool for sure but then you realise there is no manual focus, the autofocus is pretty basic and then that glass isnt so cool any more. I havent used a Canon but Id imagine their autofocus will destroy contax aurofocus.

Imo 2k... not a chance is it worth it. It might be great for you though but try before buy.

 

[blockend]

What the others said. You might look for a more upmarket Canon 35mm SLR to fit your 40mm 2.8.

 

[film_man]

The Canon 40/2.8 is a great lens and if you consider the price it is just outstanding. Now, I love Zeiss glass, I have Zeiss for my SLR, I have Zeiss on my Leica. I owned a G1 briefly. Briefly because I had to send it back as the focus screw (or lens?) was broken, it was stuck and would only engage after 5-10 mins of trying to focus (which I assume eventually would fry the motor). The results were very good, what you expect from Zeiss. The camera itself though I just didn't like. Operation-wise I would rather have that Canon 40 on my cheapo EOS 300. It is lighter, just as small, costs nothing, if it breaks I don't care and I can actually tell what it focused on.

But that is not to say that you should not try a G2. I know very well what you mean by using the Canon does not spark joy. The problem is that the G1 didn't spark joy either and it cost 5x as much. The G2 will be 10x.

 

[narsuitus]

I really enjoy shooting with the Contax G1. I was so impressed with the Zeiss glass that I ended up buying Zeiss lenses for my Nikon SLR and my Leica rangefinder.


Contax G1 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[halfaman]

Contax G1/G2 is the smallest 35 mm camera with AF and interchangebale lenses that I have seen ever. If you care for all three things (35 mm, AF and interchangeable lenses) and size is also an issue, you can't never go wrong with a Contax G.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I see a lot of people buy into the G system, hang on to it for a few months, and then sell out of it. Luckily they don't lose value at this point as long as you take care of it.

Beautifully designed camera, with amazing lenses (on film). But expect that on every single roll you'll have a few images where the camera misses focus. The G2 AF is really good, but not perfect, and you have not all that much in the way of checking focus in camera. If you shoot wide open a lot, I'd say no. If you don't mind 2.8-5.6, knock yourself out!

If you want to save about $1k and get roughly the same experience and IQ but with the ability to see focus, pick up a Pentax MZ-S and the FA Limited lenses. They are very similar to Zeiss lenses in performance, and even similar in focal lengths.

On the other hand, if you're in the $2k territory, you can afford an F6 and some top notch Nikon glass.

 

[Huub]

I do have and use both a Pentax LX and a Contax G2. When it comes to wide angle shooting, both the 21mm and the 28mm Biogons for the G2 are amazing and outperform the Pentax primes with ease... especially the 21mm is a gem. But when doing portraits or work where longer focal lengths are needed, i prefer the accuracy of ground glass focussing the LX offers. Both the 45mm and the 85mm on the G2 are good, but not that much better then the Pentax equivalents. And when going longer then 85mm the G2 is no option of course.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I do have and use both a Pentax LX and a Contax G2. When it comes to wide angle shooting, both the 21mm and the 28mm Biogons for the G2 are amazing and outperform the Pentax primes with ease... especially the 21mm is a gem. But when doing portraits or work where longer focal lengths are needed, i prefer the accuracy of ground glass focussing the LX offers. Both the 45mm and the 85mm on the G2 are good, but not that much better then the Pentax equivalents. And when going longer then 85mm the G2 is no option of course.

I might be wrong...but you may be able to track down the ZK Distagons in 21 and 25mm. The 31mm FA Limited is probably as good as the 28mm 2.8 Biogon, as is the 43mm vs the 45. I'm guessing it would be a limited number of people who demand ultra premium wides for their 35mm camera in this day and age however. Personally, anyone wanting to shoot with a Zeiss 21mm on 35mm film, I would advise to get an M mount version and put it on an M camera. In that case you'd have the option to get the wonderful 4.5 version, assuming you don't need the 2.8 speed. I don't mean to always be throwing cold water on the G system, but these are just the conclusions I came to after owning the system. The other options out there always seemed simpler or superior in one way or another. May have been a grass is greener effect at

 

[warden]

I have two 35mm cameras that I use regularly: Minolta XD-11 and Canon EOS Elan 7N. I enjoy using them both but I use the Canon more, since I like autofocus, along with a Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens. However, the Canon does not spark that much of a joy when using it, even though it gets the job done.

For the last few weeks, I have been drooling over the Contax G2 on eBay. I am very close to convincing myself that I must have this camera, even though it costs upwards of two thousand dollars with one or two lenses. I am aware that the camera contains electronic parts that may not be repairable if it breaks, and that some find the viewfinder to be rather small. I am okay with that since I love how it looks and the fact that it's supposed to be able to take good pictures.

My question for the forum is this: Is the Contax G2, along with its supposedly sensational Zeiss glass, enough of an improvement over the Canon? Will pictures taken with a Zeiss lens look that much different from pictures taken with my 40mm f/2.8 Canon lens? I realize that the answers to these questions are probably very subjective, but I am interested in hearing what the forum members have to say about this.

A G2 with the 45mm is a wonderful combination. Get one and experiment. Buy properly and you'll not lose money if you don't get along with the camera. A G2 in the hand has been the best feeling camera of all I've had. Solid, very high manufacturing quality, precise. It's a classic.

 

[k.hendrik]

G2 (with 28 & 90mm)=silence!!
https://www.rolleiflexclub.nl/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=2856&cat=500&ppuser=373
shot in Paris Metro about 70cm; nobody heard anything. The only thing i miss with this camera is a WLF like the Nikon DW-30.

 

[Nitroplait]

Sensational Zeiss glass!! Give me a break - Myths and hype!
Stop fooling yourself - you cannot rationally argue for for a G2/G1. It is purely an emotional choice!
If that is what you crave - so be it - life is short.

 

[warden]

Sensational Zeiss glass!! Give me a break - Myths and hype!
Stop fooling yourself - you cannot rationally argue for a G2/G1. It is purely an emotional choice!
If that is what you crave - so be it - life is short.

You can't rationally argue for ANY 35mm film camera. This is not about rational need.

The G series was a niche within a niche, and offered features that other cameras didn't. And the glass (especially the 45mm) was excellent full stop, about as good as you could get in 35mm format.

 

[Nitroplait]

You can't rationally argue for ANY 35mm film camera. This is not about rational need.

Well, OP is asking for rational arguments.

The G series was a niche within a niche, and offered features that other cameras didn't. And the glass (especially the 45mm) was excellent full stop, about as good as you could get in 35mm format.

...and so much other glass is/was excellent as well.
What is your point?
OP shouldn't follow his desires?

 

[warden]

What is your point?
OP shouldn't follow his desires?

I already gave the OP my advice: go get one at a reasonable price and have fun! I agree, life is short.

 

[ph]

strictly speaking, an investment will proviide a future monetary surplus. In this case it will most probably provide a pecuniary loss, but with a gain in enjoyment while the electromechanics last.

Kyocera no longerf provides service and spares, so one is dependent on cannibalizzing other Contaxes when parts fai, but can always keep the optics for adaptation to your favourite mirrorless with a suitable focussing converter-.

I have only used the 90mm, but found it first class. The other Zeiss optics i have used have also performed well with sufficient resolution and contrast of small details.

So if this jewel from the film-era will provide pleasure compensating for the potential costs , go ahead.

p.

 

[blockend]

strictly speaking, an investment will proviide a future monetary surplus. In this case it will most probably provide a pecuniary loss, but with a gain in enjoyment while the electromechanics last.

Exactly. Enthusiasm for cameras like the G2 are stoked by internet reviewers, who extol their virtues for hits/likes/hard cash before flipping them before they fail. The best measure of a camera's ability is the opinion of someone who habitually uses them long term, as a primary shooter. The photographer Daniel Arnold uses/has used a G2. As a professional, his budget and contacts may allow him to indulge his enthusiasm for the G2 beyond the typical amateur, it's hard to say.

 

[destroya]

I bought a G1 to try out the system as it was much cheaper than the G2. as was mentioned above, its a point and shoot that has interchangeable lenses, and they are damn good lenses! I wound up buying another g1 body as a back up years ago as it was $125. both are in great condition and take great photos. the system has its quirks, mainly the focusing. but once you learn how to use it, I have not found a 35mm system that can deliver the results that it does. I have the 21, 28, 40 and 90 lenses. its a small package that with a lens or 2 can fit easily in my cargo pants pockets. I took it with me a vacation and found the portability a huge plus.

dont buy one for an investment, but it as a tool. the camera does not take the photo, the photographer does. all things being equal, the slides I shot with the 40mm lens are some of the most amazing I have ever seen projected for 35mm. 6x6 is another story.

john

 

[Down Under]

As I said to this OP on another photo web site - it's only money, so why not?

Using a G is fun. I have four and I love them all. As I did, consider saving a shipload of money and go for the G1. Same camera, fewer bells and whistles. The viewfinder apparently upsets a few people, and the top shutter speed isn't 1/4000, otherwise it's a fine camera, and heaps cheaper.

The Zeiss G lenses I cannot praise enough, except for the 90/2.8 Sonnar, which is the worst 90 I have ever worked with in terms of focusing, contrast, sharpness and everything else. Not surprisingly it's the cheapest lens in the G series. Many Contax shooters buy a G1 to use with this tele, their results are terrible, and they then blame the camera or the seller. The 90 Sonnar is a complete waste of time and money. Go for a 28, 35 or 45 and be amazed at the superb results.

 

[halfaman]

The Zeiss G lenses I cannot praise enough, except for the 90/2.8 Sonnar, which is the worst 90 I have ever worked with in terms of focusing, contrast, sharpness and everything else. Many would-be Contax shooters buy a G1 to use with this lens, their results are awful, and they then blame the camera or the seller. A waste of time in that case. Go for a 28, 35 or 45 and Bob's (or in this case Carl's) your uncle...

Any Contax G is unreliable focusing with the 90 mm, it does not matter if it is a G1 or G2. I did focus several times until I got at least 2-3 times the same focusing distance and even that I had sometimes out of focus pictures, specially at medium-long distances (more than 3 meters). At night you simply don't use it.

I agree it is the worst lens of the whole system to work with..

 

[Down Under]

I bought a G1 to try out the system as it was much cheaper than the G2. as was mentioned above, its a point and shoot that has interchangeable lenses, and they are damn good lenses! I wound up buying another g1 body as a back up years ago as it was $125. both are in great condition and take great photos. the system has its quirks, mainly the focusing. but once you learn how to use it, I have not found a 35mm system that can deliver the results that it does. I have the 21, 28, 40 and 90 lenses. its a small package that with a lens or 2 can fit easily in my cargo pants pockets. I took it with me a vacation and found the portability a huge plus.

Contax Gs are tougher than many would believe. Small things tend to go wrong as they age - the auto rewind on one of my G1s occasionally konks out but after some fiddling I found that the film can be rewound by inserting a toothpick in a small button hole on the bottom plate. Some Gs suffer from age-related LCD 'bleed' but the camera still works okay. Friends who've had their G1s pass away told me the speeds and metering stayed accurate to the very last. When one goes kaput, buy another body and go on using those superb Zeiss lenses. The 28, 35 and 45 give astounding sharpness, images look like small engravings. The only camera I own to compare with t is my 1962 Rolleiflex 3.5 E2 with, unsurprisingly, a Zeiss Planar.

 

[blockend]

When one goes kaput, buy another body and go on using those superb Zeiss lenses.

The problem is those G series lenses don't fit any subsequent film or digital body. They are excellent optics, stuck on an orphaned AF screw focus mount. Good as the glass is, Contax autofocus never went anywhere as a concept. Which was fine when G2 cameras were relatively inexpensive* and repairers had parts, but not at alternative Leica prices.

* "You'll often see a G2 body offered with a complete set of 28mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses and the TLA200 flash. Expect to pay between $800 - $1,300 for the whole load". Ken Rockwell 2014

 

[Down Under]

The problem is those G series lenses don't fit any subsequent film or digital body. They are excellent optics, stuck on an orphaned AF screw focus mount. Good as the glass is, Contax autofocus never went anywhere as a concept. Which was fine when G2 cameras were relatively inexpensive* and repairers had parts, but not at alternative Leica prices.

* "You'll often see a G2 body offered with a complete set of 28mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses and the TLA200 flash. Expect to pay between $800 - $1,300 for the whole load". Ken Rockwell 2014

Which is why I own four of these babies...

These G lenses are now living legends all their own. Converters are available to use them on digital cameras (it seems Metabones make the best and certainly the most expensive ones) but a few shooters I know who've used them say results are so-so, the 45 and 90 produce okay images but the 28 and 35 tend to flare and throw up odd artifacts. As you say, the system is now 'orphaned' and unless a manufacturer some day produces a new camera (I once had high hopes for Bessa and even contacted this manufacturer with my idea in the mid-'00s, but alas, nothing came of it) with the G Zeiss lens mount, they will all end up as expensive collectables. This is rather a shame as the 21, 28 and 45 G's are by far the best optics I've worked with.

Que sera sera.

Ken Rockwell floats ideas like leaves on a pond. His technical data is (sometimes) worth reading but his other ideas seem to originate from the top of his head. He is definitely a one draft writer and feeds ideas in his blogs as his hyperactive brain cells churn them out. If you can pick up a G2 in 2020 for his listed prices, I reckon you have a super good deal!

 

[Craig75]

You can always replace the mount on the hologon with an m mount and keep using that cheeky monkey.