Opinions on Zeiss C/Y 85mm Planar?

[Richard S. (rich815)]

BTW what's the top shutter speed on the 139? Shooting wide open in even semi-bright conditions will need a pretty slow film or 1/2000th or faster at least...

 

[brucemuir]

I'll be using a 159mm (1/4000) and a 5D1 via adapter

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Holy crap! Just scanned my first roll shot with the 180/2.8 Sonnar! Another amazingly sharp lens from Zeiss. I'll try to post forward some examples soon. The 135/2.8 is calling me.....

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The 135 is not bad, but it's not in the same league as the 180. The 180 is legendary, like the 85 1.4 .

 

[brucemuir]

I have nothing wider than the 50 planar so will need to be investigating one in the future.
What are your guys favorites?
The 28 f/2 looks interesting but may be too steep to justify.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I have nothing wider than the 50 planar so will need to be investigating one in the future.
What are your guys favorites?
The 28 f/2 looks interesting but may be too steep to justify.

As mentioned before, the 35mm 1.4 is fantastic.
The 18mm isn't the sharpest in the corners by today's standards, but gives a wonderful Zeiss 3-D look.
I have the 35mm and 85mm 2.8 in Rolleiflex version: they are both tiny and very sharp (high acutance), though their optics may be different from the C/Y versions.
The 60mm is one of the great macro lenses.
The 25mm is often maligned (apparently they changed the optical formula at some point), but a later version I have (after two poor earlier ones) has sharpness + the 3-D look.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you can scrimp and save for the 28 f2, do so. That's another legendary optic. The 28 f2, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 100 f2, the aforementioned 60 macro and the 100 macro, 180 f2.8, 200 f2 are all in that legendary category. There's also the 15(?) rectilinear, but that's in the "if you have to ask..." price range. For the ultimate performance in wide-angles, the G-series optics for the rangefinders are the bees knees. I have the 21 f2.8 for my G2 and you can pry that lens from my cold, dead hands.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

The 135 is not bad, but it's not in the same league as the 180. The 180 is legendary, like the 85 1.4 .

Ah,thanks. I'll likely control myself then. Like the Contax G lenses, I find the 21/28/45/90 amazing but the 35 while good, just not having the same magic......

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I find the 35/2.8 PC-Distagon to be a simply phenominal performer. I got an UG one for $800 or so many years ago. Seems they are going for a ransom these days in almost any useable shape. The build quality, the feel and sound of the aperture clicks, and the PC movement, is simply divine. Sounds crazy but if you held one and tweaked it you'd see exactly what I mean.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Yeah, the 35 for the G, were it not in such august company, would be considered an outstanding lens in anyone else's lineup. But when you're going head-to-head with the likes of the 21 or the 28, well... I think I remember reading somewhere that it was actually a better lens, optically, than the equivalent Leica M 35 f2. But it just doesn't render transitions between sharp and soft as pleasingly as the Leica or the 45 f2 for the G. It kind of reminds me of this Bausch & Lomb Tessar II b I have for my 11x14. In theory a great lens, but just doesn't quite measure up to the hype.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

If you can scrimp and save for the 28 f2, do so. That's another legendary optic. The 28 f2, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 100 f2, the aforementioned 60 macro and the 100 macro, 180 f2.8, 200 f2 are all in that legendary category. There's also the 15(?) rectilinear, but that's in the "if you have to ask..." price range. For the ultimate performance in wide-angles, the G-series optics for the rangefinders are the bees knees. I have the 21 f2.8 for my G2 and you can pry that lens from my cold, dead hands.

The 100 macro and 200/2 are on my lust list. Although I will say my 60/2.8 macro is amazing. Ever tried the 100-300 Vario-Sonnar? It's sharpness is truly jaw-dropping. Said to be sharper than the 300. I owned and later sold the 80-200. Was not that impressed with it.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Yeah, the 35 for the G, were it not in such august company, would be considered an outstanding lens in anyone else's lineup. But when you're going head-to-head with the likes of the 21 or the 28, well... I think I remember reading somewhere that it was actually a better lens, optically, than the equivalent Leica M 35 f2. But it just doesn't render transitions between sharp and soft as pleasingly as the Leica or the 45 f2 for the G. It kind of reminds me of this Bausch & Lomb Tessar II b I have for my 11x14. In theory a great lens, but just doesn't quite measure up to the hype.

Yup. Used to have friendly arguments with some on The Contax G pages mail list (when it was around) about the 35. Some thought it performed right up there with the 28 and 45 but I just did not see it. Sharp? Yes. Decent performer? Certainly. But I used to shoot a lot of chromes then and the 28 and 45 shots were regularly mind-blowing on the light table in their 3-D rendering while the 35 was simply meh in comparison. Since I have acquired the 35/2 Biogon for my Leicas and it's got a different signature to it than the Contax G 35mm to me. I love it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

the 80-200 was fine for what it was - an inexpensive way to add some range to an otherwise limited lineup for me. Better than an equivalent Tamron/Sigma. I got some good wildlife shots down in Belize with it. It had reasonable macro focusing capability for a lens like that - I want to say it could hit 1:3. I never had the 100-300 - not only a big lens, but an expensive one at the time I was building that kit.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The 35 f2 for the G series is actually a Planar, not a Biogon. I would be shocked if they did have the same lens signature. The Biogon formulation is one of those legendary lens designs - I've been fortunate enough to have shot with several, including the 38mm Hassy Superwide and the 21mm for the G series.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

The 35 f2 for the G series is actually a Planar, not a Biogon. I would be shocked if they did have the same lens signature. The Biogon formulation is one of those legendary lens designs - I've been fortunate enough to have shot with several, including the 38mm Hassy Superwide and the 21mm for the G series.

Agreed. I keep the 35/2 Biogon on my MP as my usual go-to normal wide lens only switching to another lens now and then when using that camera. Have heard and seen great things on that Hassy Superwide, and owning the 21 for the G also agreed completely. Being more of a normal and short-tele shooter I sometimes struggle with wider lenses much to my chagrin knowing what an awesome lens that 21 is.

Now if you have not you must try the Jupiter-12! Supposedly a Biogon copy. I like mine since I got it so cheaply and it's quite the novelty though its very awkward to use with its interior aperture ring and such. Pretty lens for what it is.

 

[pstake]

I have nothing wider than the 50 planar so will need to be investigating one in the future.
What are your guys favorites?
The 28 f/2 looks interesting but may be too steep to justify.

The 28 2.8 is first class as well, and smaller and less expensive than its Hollywood counterpart. If you can do without the extra stop, it's well worth it. The size of the Hollywood is more in line with the 21mm ... the 28 2.8, on the other hand, shares filters with the Planar 50's (55mm).

This photo was taken with the 28 2.8 ... easily a default lens.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[ContaxRTSFundus]

If you can scrimp and save for the 28 f2, do so. That's another legendary optic. The 28 f2, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 100 f2, the aforementioned 60 macro and the 100 macro, 180 f2.8, 200 f2 are all in that legendary category. There's also the 15(?) rectilinear, but that's in the "if you have to ask..." price range. For the ultimate performance in wide-angles, the G-series optics for the rangefinders are the bees knees. I have the 21 f2.8 for my G2 and you can pry that lens from my cold, dead hands.

I agree with all the lenses you mention except the 200 f2 which I have always found soft wide open although the 300mm is pin-sharp. I still love my early AE 135 f2 and 180mm f2.8 but spend most of my time using the 55 and 85 1.2 Planars; I find the AE 85mm provides a more neutral colour rendition than the later 60 year version. Looking through the entire Zeiss Contax range of prime lenses, the only turkey ever made was the initial version of the 25mm; this being quietly corrected towards the end of the AE production. One other prime I would add is the 21mm - the first lens to truly lay to rest the claim that the Zeiss glass made in Japan was not as good as those produced in Oberkochen. Zeiss made the 2 best zooms in their respective focal ranges (imho) in the guise of the 70-210 and 100-300 lenses. If you have to sell your granny, grab the 70-210: sharp, distortion-free and a macro capability and close focus that defies logic. I also love the 35-135 for its versatility but it's a cumbersome beast. My Zeiss (and Yashica 15, 21, 24 and 100 macro) lenses have been enjoying an additional lease of life on digital cameras along with my G-series 28mm (with a little baffle surgery) and 45mm lenses. Long live the old glass - though since the ROHS Directive here in the EU, the amazing T* coatings, such as those on the C/Y 21mm, have been banned and have had to be modified as lead was used originally.

Going back to the original question, you won't be disappointed with the 85 1.4 (I prefer the AE West German version for its neutral colour rendition), especially for portraiture as it is sharp edge-to-edge wide open and so gives you a lovely shallow depth of field to focus on the sitter's eyes. Of course, the 1.2s make the 1.4 look pedestrian in such matters but whether they are truly worth 7 times the cost is a matter of debate. Enjoy the 85 1.4 - it's a stunning piece of glass in a well-engineered body. It'll outlast any camera..

 

[brucemuir]

Okay pugsters this is the convouoluted thinking of my distorted mind :alien:

I went with a bgn Germany made AE ninja star version thinking I was utilizing every drop of my Scottish blood.
I also told myself I could live with the few times the star showed up in highlights.

Received the lens and took it for a short spin around the house in poor lighting.
I was floored.
Very good wide open and once you start stopping down it gets you near nirvana if sharpness and clarity is what you crave.
Truly astonishing.
Shot a few backlit trees to see what transpires in the highlights.

Now the not really bad news.
An ex version MM with caps pops up for only around 90 dollars more.
I never use MM features really so my entire reason was to get a less obtrusive aperture shape at 2.8-4.
I'll post some shots when it gets exchanged but my Scottish ancestors are cursing me for incurring additional shipping fees.


btw: KEH was super accommodating and pulled the newer MM version to verify it had not been owned by Kwai Chang Caine previously

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

A few years from now the MM one will have an issue and you'll wish you kept the AE one..... ;-)

 

[brucemuir]

A few years from now the MM one will have an issue and you'll wish you kept the AE one..... ;-)

Thanks Rich


Believe me I waffled on this but not as much as my normal OCD when it comes to gear.
There is internet hyperbole about the superiority of the German plant but I am skeptical.

All I can say is the Kyocera boys have a lot to maintain because as I said, the AE version I tested was a stunner but I couldn't get next to the ninja star pattern.
Only other time I was INSTANTLY wowed when evaluating a lens was with the 135L wide open
That one did it too.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Bruce - I know what you mean about the 135 L lens - I had to get one too after I saw what it could do. It's an AWESOME lens. The closest thing in image quality I've found to the 85 1.4

 

[brucemuir]

Bruce - I know what you mean about the 135 L lens - I had to get one too after I saw what it could do. It's an AWESOME lens. The closest thing in image quality I've found to the 85 1.4

I hear the 200 f/2 L is like this too.
Hope I get to try one someday...

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Not to drag open an old thread but I finally snapped and got the 135/2.8 Sonnar on the way. KEH had one for only $159 and I bit!!

 

[brucemuir]

Thumbs up Rich.
I know you'll put it to good use.
I've been eyeing the f/2 version but alas... that will have to wait for another day.

Post some eye candy once you get a chance to run it through it's paces.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The 135 f2.8 is a good but not spectacular lens. For the price you can't go too far wrong, but it does have perceptible pincushion distortion - something you'd not expect from a Zeiss/Contax lens, but it's there. Thus the price. I'll content myself with shooting the 135 f2 L on my Canon rig when I want/need something in that focal length.