Planar 50mm f1.7

one from Contax 28mm f2.8

Planar 50mm f1.7

A few from the 85mm f/1.4, likely wide open or f/2.8.
Jim

28mm f/2

Here are two from the 35-70/3.4 on 5D

Planar 50mm f1.7

My first Contax / Yashica and Zeiss lens. The 50/1.7 paired with a Rebel XT...

Summer heat settling in... Contax 100/2 Planar & 1Ds3, probably f4 -

Lovely warmth in that photograph, John Black!

God, I really love my 50/1.7

Does anyone have any information and possibly images from the C/Y 100/3.5 - I understand it's quite small - interested in it's landscape abilities. Thanks!

mMontag wrote:
Does anyone have any information and possibly images from the C/Y 100/3.5 - I understand it's quite small - interested in it's landscape abilities. Thanks!

Hi, since I have had 100ZF or 100ZE all the time I have not used my Contax Sonnar T* 3.4/100 much. I have checked few times it side by side with 100ZE/ZF and it for landscapes and panoramas closed down to f/5.6 I have not seen differences to 100ZE/ZF in middle of image, maybe slightly more contrast. On borders 100ZE/ZF is slightly better (also can be seen from MTF-charts). However keep in mind that 100Z* is most probably one of the best 100mm lenses manufactured ever.

Bokeh is very neutral and smooth, only issue is that it has hexagon shaped aperture. However it's VERY good wide open, and used wide open aperture is of course round.

PDF with MTF etc. is here. For some reason it's only available in German, therefore cannot be found from English website.

Samuli

Actually found 2 examples I had posted earlier

f/11:


test shot f/5.6 (sorry about ultraboring subject, had to have planar subject for testing sharpness of CZ100ZE, Contax 3.5/100, Canon 100IS, Contax 80-200, Leica 80-200 - for me all of them are sharp enough but friend needed to know) - image is like Aperture processes it, only reduced exposure by 1/3 stops since the snow was blowing due to my accident of selecting shutter speeds for test apertures based on Canon 100IS which light transmission is at least 0.5 aperture less than in Zeiss & Contax lenses:


crop of f/5.6 shot (this is not sharpened, actual pixels as sensor sees it - notice! do not compare to camera JPG or DPP processed photos, they are always to some extend sharpened):


Samuli

Samuli,

Thanks for the response. I'm looking to put together the smallest/lightest 2-3 lens FF kit for backpacking - the next 4 months will be mostly high alpine. I've been very happy with the size and versatility of the V-S 35-70 and looking to add a Contax 28/2.8 and possibly a 100/3.5. IQ of both of those lenses stopped down are very encouraging and Zeiss-like.

Right now I'm using a 24 TS-E, 35-70 and Canon 70-200 or 90 TS-E - great kit but too heavy - I have a 24-85 N at Conurus. I find anything wider than 24mm is too wide so 28mm should be ideal. I had the Z 28/2 but sold it - too bad - loved that lens. The Contax N 70-200 is nice and small and a little lighter than the Canon.

mMontag wrote:
Samuli,

Thanks for the response. I'm looking to put together the smallest/lightest 2-3 lens FF kit for backpacking - the next 4 months will be mostly high alpine. I've been very happy with the size and versatility of the V-S 35-70 and looking to add a Contax 28/2.8 and possibly a 100/3.5. IQ of both of those lenses stopped down are very encouraging and Zeiss-like.

Right now I'm using a 24 TS-E, 35-70 and Canon 70-200 or 90 TS-E - great kit but too heavy - I have a 24-85 N at Conurus. I find anything wider than 24mm is too wide so 28mm should be ideal. I had the Z 28/2 but sold it - too bad - loved that lens. The Contax N 70-200 is nice and small and a little lighter than the Canon.

For your usage, if long length of lens is not problem is Contax Vario-Sonnar T* 4/80-200 C/Y, it's still quite light. Very Zeiss like rendering. If you don't like it you won't loose much, I paid 180EUR from mine and it's like new.

I'm actually using it my main lens above 100mm where ZE series lenses end at the moment (really hoping 180/4, 200/4 or 250/5.6 or SOMETHING from Zeiss...).

Some 80-200 images:

f/11


f/8


f/11


f/8


f/4



For wide end, for myself 28 doesn't work well with 35. They are too close in field of view. I would rather use Contax Distagon T* 2.8/25 C/Y, combined to 35-70 (well, I did last summer...). Some thing that this lens is not sharp and has corner issues. I don't know maybe I got exceptionally good copy, but I have no such problems. Lens has curvature of field like it's never version 25ZF. If you end you buying this lens then I would recommend to make 110% sure you get Japan version - there was design change and the old version is not good. Distagon 25 is actually 25.9mm so there is not THAT much difference to 28mm, but enough that at least for me it works much better with 35-70. Some samples below:

f/11


f/11


f/8 HDR


f/2.8


Samuli

Samuli, as could be expected from a non-engineer, I got the German version of this lens. What is wrong with it? Providing I stop down to f:8.0, it is actually quite to my liking...

philber wrote:
Samuli, as could be expected from a non-engineer, I got the German version of this lens. What is wrong with it? Providing I stop down to f:8.0, it is actually quite to my liking...

I don't know what is wrong with the German version, softer corners? It may be the AE/MM not manufacturing country, which determines it (also in somewhere in my memory I have sentence "...design changed when manufacturing started in Japan..." regards this lens). I have heard this information (to not buy older version) from many sources, including this forum. Could not remember whom in this forum it was. On manual focus:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=16035&highlight=&sid=18a74cf256431ee3ecbe153eb8fe7f92
See Orio's writing.

Could not find anything useful with quick googling.

Samuli

mMontag, I can highly recommend the 100mm Sonnar (as well as the 85mm Sonnar). They are so small, but provide very high IQ. The Contax 28 Distagon is equally good, and for a light mid range lens the 1.7/50 is simply superb. At least my copy is. But if you really want ultra light, the 45mm Tessar is much sharper with nice colour than I expected from the opinions found on the net. Not quite 1.7/50 level, but very close indeed. The small additional sharpness of the Planar is easily lost e.g. by slightly heat disturbed air or mist.

Zeiss C/Y 21 2.8:

And two with the Zeiss C/Y 100 2.0: