Is a Contax G2 a good investment for me?

[blockend]

Ken Rockwell floats ideas like leaves on a pond.

Yes, I wasn't citing Ken as an authority, just showing prices have moved on a little since 2014, if they were true even then. Screw AF was anachronistic when Canon had already moved to electronic autofocus, as Nikon found to their cost. The G was technologically somewhere between a last hurrah and a promising infant.

No surprise Contax wide angles adapt less successfully to digital than longer focal lengths. That's true of film era lenses generally. Various theories on the reason why, last I heard it was the thickness of the glass protector over the sensor dispersing light. Someone (Leica?) introduced a much thinner screen and performance of old lenses improved.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

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

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.

Wrong end.....

 

[ph]

I must take exception to the statement above that the 90mm sonnar does not give goodr esults. I used it with a Kipon focussing adapter on my PenF with good results. Not on brickwalls or test charts, however, but if measurement is needed, the Zeiss MTF curves look quite good, and they are measured reults, not the usual calculated ones. The other CX optics also measure well.

I have not used the contax Hologon variety which is reputed to be reasonably good,, but I did not find that the original one in its Leitz wrapping had sufficient edge sharpness.

p.

 

[Craig75]

I must take exception to the statement above that the 90mm sonnar does not give goodr esults. I used it with a Kipon focussing adapter on my PenF with good results. Not on brickwalls or test charts, however, but if measurement is needed, the Zeiss MTF curves look quite good, and they are measured reults, not the usual calculated ones. The other CX optics also measure well.

I have not used the contax Hologon variety which is reputed to be reasonably good,, but I did not find that the original one in its Leitz wrapping had sufficient edge sharpness.

p.

from memory there is a way to focus the 90. the focus point isnt actually the focus point - its ever so slightly offset which led to a lot of people complaining it was soft or not a good lens when it was just the G1s slightly wonky focus that was the problem. Im sure there is a bracketed focus test on the web somewhere showing all this

 

[weasel]

I have a contax g2 with 28,45,90mm lenses that I bought If i remember right about 2002. It took me a while to learn its quirks, but I can say once I did it is a phenominal system. Really, there are no better lenses. Once I learned how to focus with it correctly I have never had out of focus shots that were not my fault. I just hope it doesn't die before I do.

 

[Huss]

I have a contax g2 with 28,45,90mm lenses that I bought If i remember right about 2002. It took me a while to learn its quirks, but I can say once I did it is a phenominal system. Really, there are no better lenses. Once I learned how to focus with it correctly I have never had out of focus shots that were not my fault. I just hope it doesn't die before I do.

How do you focus with it correctly?

 

[Autonerd]

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.

There are a lot of people who are really into having the sharpest-possible lenses; I prefer composition, and to me, if a photo is compelling, the viewer won't notice if the lenses are the sharpest possible. (To put it another way: If you have to zoom way in to decide if a phot is any good, it isn't.) So -- from my perspective, which I realize isn't anyone -- no, the pictures won't be any better. Great photographs are made behind the camera, not in them. 'Least, that's the way I feel about it.

I understand what you mean about Canons -- I blame my loss of interest in photography (fairly or unfairly) on the Canon Rebel 2000 I bought in '97 or thereabouts. Someone just gave me one and I have no desire to use it. I find most autofocus, auto-wind cameras a little uninteresting, though for some reason I can't explain, I rather enjoy shooting my automatic Minolta SLRs. I still prefer manual-focus, manual-wind... slows me down a bit.

To be fair, I can't afford to spend $2000 on a camera, so that might cloud my opinion and/or make me a camera-doesn't-matter snob. But I did just pick up a perfectly good Sears KS Auto (aka Ricoh XR-2s) with a 50/1.7 lens for $7.00 plus shipping...

Aaron

 

[weasel]

How do you focus with it correctly?

This is a pretty good read on the subject. http://www.botzilla.com/gearhead/2005/02/28/Fastest-Thumb-in-the-West.html
Also, you need to play around and find exactly where in the focus patch your camera is focusing. Mine hits most accurately about a third of the way down from the top indicator line.

 

[Craig75]

This is a pretty good read on the subject. http://www.botzilla.com/gearhead/2005/02/28/Fastest-Thumb-in-the-West.html
Also, you need to play around and find exactly where in the focus patch your camera is focusing. Mine hits most accurately about a third of the way down from the top indicator line.

This is how i remember it too. There is a sweet spot in the focus marks that will get it to focus but you have to shoot around the marks to find out exactly where it is.

 

[weasel]

This is how i remember it too. There is a sweet spot in the focus marks that will get it to focus but you have to shoot around the marks to find out exactly where it is.

When I bought the camera, I was really thinking about making the dive into an m leica, but decided i needed to get out of my shell and make the plunge into the 21st century. It was my first auto focus camera, first all electronic marvel, and for some time I struggled with that. Once I figured out how to use it, and how to get the most out of the fantastic lenses, it grew on me. To this day I keep my dslr set up with a single center focus point, and dont see any need for anything else.
Really the only thing I would change if I could would be have depth of field scales on the lenses.

 

[Huss]

This is how i remember it too. There is a sweet spot in the focus marks that will get it to focus but you have to shoot around the marks to find out exactly where it is.

But you can't tell what that is until you get your film back, right?

 

[Craig75]

But you can't tell what that is until you get your film back, right?

exactly. then you know what section of the cross hair (it is a crosshair? long time since i used one) is actually the focus point.

some people are adamant it doesnt focus, others are adamant it does focus but just takes some grind to learn how to do it. there was a long blog post showing the effects of using different points around the crosshair but its either lost to the ether or drowned out in "focusing the 90mm on a mirrorless camera" blogs.

but yes you need to compare prints / scans with the crosshair in different places to find the sweet spot and lifes probably too short for that unless the camera is the dream set up and you want to use all the lenses.

 

[k.hendrik]

G2+90mm
Is "Contax G2 & a good investment" an oxymoron?

 

[Huss]

but yes you need to compare prints / scans with the crosshair in different places to find the sweet spot and lifes probably too short for that unless the camera is the dream set up and you want to use all the lenses.

ooftah, hard pass for me on a cheap set up let alone one that pricey! AF is meant to make things easier not harder.

 

[btaylor]

Hmmm different strokes for different folks. Regarding diving into M Leica vs the Contax G, I had a G1 with 28-45-90 lens set that I spent less than $1k for. I was yearning for a Leica M2, but just a body was at least $1k and simply not affordable at the time. I was really after a manual rangefinder. I liked the Contax moniker, as I had a IIa growing up. But I just couldn’t get used to it and I had trouble using the autofocus. Ended up with the M2 in the end which I will never part with.
Scratch the itch. Get the G2 and see how you like it- you’ll never know unless you try it.

 

[Craig75]

ooftah, hard pass for me on a cheap set up let alone one that pricey! AF is meant to make things easier not harder.

no you want to keep working with that rollei (imo) rather than arsing around trying to find exact focus point on a 90mm g sonnar.

 

[GarageBoy]

Is the 90 sonnar as good as the contax yashica mount 85/100?