Since I spotted quite a few C/Y mount Contax Zeiss lenses in a local camera shop, I have been thinking about procuring one or two. The lenses available are rather affordable - all pretty much within 10.000yen bracket (from 5.000 to 15.000).
There is a constant stream of lenses and the ones I saw might have been sold out, but I realised that I have no idea which lenses I should grab.
By all means, I could simply pick a required focal range and get one, but I would rather skip mediocre to "fairly good" performers and instead obtain a definite keeper. Obviously, colour reproduction, sharpness and contrast are of most interest.
I went through the Alt Image thread, but it is rather painful to find sample shots, and so I would like to take the opportunity to ask Contax Zeiss lens shooters of their opinions or perhaps for a pointer to a resource disclosing detailed performance
So far I am only aware of awesomeness of Distagon 21mm and Planar 50/1.7.
Lenses available in the shop were 135/2.8 both AEJ and MMJ, 50/1.4 and 35/2.8
I personally got 135/3.5 SMC Tak and 55/1.8 Super Tak, Canon 50/1.4 so I think I would think twice before acquiring something in that focal range.
I will keep browsing the Alt threads to try to get some more info, and obviously a true gem lens will not be avaliable for a bargain price.
Of the lenses I own I liked the 25f2.8mm (it was quite a bit better than an older 25f2.8 ae i tried); 28f2.8; 35-70f4, 100f3.5 and 100f2. I have the 135f2.8 and 85f1.4 but i'm not sure either of these are that special (esp on a digital camera; also I have no clue how the 25f2.8 would perform on a digital camera; I just liked how it rendered a bit better than the 28; but the 28 is 'sharper').
It's hard to go wrong with any of the Contax Zeiss lenses.
I have used 28/2.8, 35-70/3.4, 50/1.4, 50/1.7, and 85/2.8
All have been good lenses, though the 50/1.4 struck me as the
least "bang for the buck" lens, since it didn't perform substantially
better than my Canon 50/1.4 and had poorer bokeh.
The 28/2.8 has significant limitations at wide open (_strong_ vignetting,
corner softness) but at f/8 and f/11, the sharpness is
really amazing. Basically, I think of it as a one-trick pony, but that
one trick is very impressive. It's a landscape lens only, for me.
I use the Canon 24L or the Nikon 28/2.8 Ai-S for other work.
The 85/2.8 Sonnar is hard to fault in any way other than small
maximum aperture. It renders beautifully, is small, lightweight,
with great contrast and color performance.
The 35-70/3.4 benefits from a very fine pseudo-macro mode
and when stopped down to f/8 gives prime-like performance
all the way to the edge of the frame. Very even resolution
across a full frame sensor.
Thank you very much for your feedback!
Really great info from all of you! I will look at the glas you recommended! Perhaps skipping the 135/2.8 - your opinions about it goes hand in hand with the review at the Pebbleplace.
135/2 seem to receieve completely different comments.
If you compare the vignetting and soft corners on 28/2.8. Is it as bad as on Canon's 16-35/2.8L? If so, I'd rather skip it and saving (a larger sum of) money for a ZE 21/2.8 would be preferrable.
And should you compare 50/1.4 and 50/1.7, any optical difference?
The 21 f:2.8 is a great lens, but it comes at a great price, so what's the point? You have 135 and 50, so, again, no point in going there. I would recommend you check out 2 focal lengths: 35, either f2.8, or better, but pricier f:1.4, and 100, either f:2.0 (pricey) or f:2.8.
Basically, any 35 or 100 should make you happy.
Trumpet: Yes, the 28mm seem to be a great piece of glas! I might pick one up, if not too expensive, of course. Not entirely sure what price range is acceptable.
21 Distagon is obviously out of the reach for now..
Philber: Yepp, I skip the 135/2.8 and the 50/1.4 Albeit, I would like to improve the focal range coverage I have right now, neither of those are in the same league as Canon's 50/1.4 or 135/3.5 SMC Tak. Perhaps decently priced CZ 50/1.7 or 135/2.0 would be more of an interest.
As for 35mm, perhaps ZE 35 would be worth the investment? I heard that some people consider it to be the only lens they ever need? Well..depending on style of photography I suppose.
And for 100mm perhaps a SMC 105mm or 90mm Adaptall SP2 can be preferred?
I just don't have a clue if there is a "heavy weight" Zeiss contender in the C/Y corner..
There definitely are heavyweight contenders. The problem is that their price reflects this status. For example, a few weeks ago, I saw on E-Bay multiple C/Y Distagon 21 f:2.8 offered for more money than new 21 ZEs...
Regarding 50s, IMHO the 50 f:1.4 C/Y is miles better than the EF Canon f:1.4, except if you like to shoot wide open for creamy bokeh, where the Zeiss is even less good than the Canon.
35s: the C/Y f:1.4 is a heavyweight, and priced as such. The much cheaper C/Y f:2.8 is also very highly rated, and offers great VFM. The ZE f:2 has just this week started shipping. Everybody thinks it will be a winner, based on the ZF/ZK.
The 100 is another favorite, in whichever speed.
So, to sum it up, there are 3 focus lengths in which Zeiss offer "heavyweights": 21, 35, 100. Which one you choose, and in which range (C/Y or ZE) is up to you. 28 is also highly rated, but I have never handled a 28 C/Y, so I can't confirm.
What I would do if I were you is buy, if you feel confident, buy a 35 ZE (not very expensive by Zeiss standards, and the clear outstanding lens at this FL, better than 35L which costs more). If you are less confident, buy a 35 C/Y f:2.8. Your investment will be modest.
If your primary concern is improving your focal coverage, the 100 is also a very good option.
Then, once you are deperately in love with Zeiss 3D and colours, you will beg to be allowed to buy a 50...
Krosavcheg wrote:
Trumpet: Yes, the 28mm seem to be a great piece of glas! I might pick one up, if not too expensive, of course. Not entirely sure what price range is acceptable.
........
The C/Y 28/2.8 Distagon goes from around $250 without adapter.
Sounds great.
I am aware that M42 Jena 35mm is highly regarded, so I wouldn't doubt that ZE or C/Y 35mm are bad investment..
Canon 50/1.4 got AF, albeit lacks the 3D of Zeiss from what I have seen. Not sure about colour reproduction, so I can't say.
Mind you, 20D's AF is somewhat "inadequate", however at moving targets AF definitely increases the rate of keepers.
Krosavcheg wrote:
There is a constant stream of lenses and the ones I saw might have been sold out, but I realised that I have no idea which lenses I should grab.
Then I can find no complaints with my 35/2.8 or 50/1.4 either. The only one that fails to "wow" me is the 135/2.8 even though it really is a fine lens.
James, your set of pics is so gorgeous that it looks like pure advertising for Zeiss! I am just a bit puzzled by your comment on your 135, because mine does delight me.
I think the 135mm is a best buy. I got mine for a steal and it's hard to fault a lens that good for the price I paid.
The 100mm f/2 is probably the sharpest but I like the 85mm f/1.4 better for portraits. Maybe I got a better than average copy but mine is very sharp and it's easier to use for portraits than the 100.
The 50mm f/1.4 is nothing special. It doesn't come close to my 50L but it's way better that the EF 50mm f/1.4.
The 28mm f/2 is a great lens, particularly wide open but pretty pricey.
Biggest surprise and a best buy is the Vario Sonnar 28-85mm. Prime sharpness at least at some focal lengths.
The 60mm Makro Planar is a very sharp lens but the bokeh suffers when stopped down smaller than about f/5.6 because of the 6 blade diaphragm. Of course, shooting macro requires a lot of stopping down so you have to pay close attention to the background with it.
