p.2 #1 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
Changes to optical formulas are not always documented. Manufacturers can make all sorts of changes and improvements in a production run without needing to tell customers about it. There's enough user experience out there which confirms the MM versions have better corner performance that the AE versions of the 28mm 2.8. What camera are you testing the Leica and Contax 28's on?
I'm using an A7r for all my MF glass and it certainly shows up stuff that I couldn't see on older 12 and 22mp bodies with AA filters.
p.2 #2 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
shirozina wrote:
... What camera are you testing the Leica and Contax 28's on?
I'm using an A7r for all my MF glass and it certainly shows up stuff that I couldn't see on older 12 and 22mp bodies with AA filters.
p.2 #3 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
In a few tests, the 28/2.8 goes very well on the a7r, not so much for sharpness as the CY palette and rich harmonious contrast. Hat tip to rico for the rec on the slow 100, a mainstay for me now and a superb field lens, jumps into focus in the EVF too. The 35-70 deserves the limelight, but another fine zoom is the 28-85. I have no idea how CZ got the 35-70 so right, no special glass in it. CA is vanishingly small, detail is very high, no distortion at 50mm. Zeiss apparently changed coatings often in those days too.
p.2 #4 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
jcolwell wrote:
Interesting to see the comments about a distinction between the AE and MM versions of the Distagon 28/2.8. This agrees with my personal experience of owning one of each, at the same time. The MM had noticeably better corners. OTOH, I haven't noticed this particular distinction coming up much in past threads, nor in the general literature.
shirozina wrote:
Contax changed the optical formula - I've read about it several times on various forums. The very far corners are still soft on the MM version but it's pushed further out than the AE version. Few 28mm lenses of any price are this good and it needs something like the Leica R 28mm ROM V2 to better it at significantly more money ( 5x the price) - if you can even find one for sale.
Do you have any objective information to show that the 28/2.8 AE and MM versions have different optical formulae? It would be especially nice to find the Zeiss data sheet for the AE version. I have Zeiss data sheets for all of the MM lenses (I think).
These two references explicitly state that there's no optical differences between the 28/2.8 AE and MM.
"My Distagon 28/2.8 was made in Japan and Zeiss claims that it is every bit as good as older German made lenses. The MM-type diaphragm allows for program AE, shutter-priority AE (Tv), aperture-priority AE (Av) and manual mode. The older AE-type diaphragm on certain currently produced Zeiss lenses only supports the Av and manual metering modes; this is solely a function of the diaphragm action and has nothing to do with optical quality.
(Lotusm50) "I can also tell you that the 28/2.8 and 25/2.8 were not change with the AE-MM change. Where did you get this information? "
This third reference provides a detailed review of the 28/2.8, including a description of the optical fiormula. It notes that there are AE and MM versions, but does not mention that there are any optical differences.
p.2 #5 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
Updates on AE vs. MM
1. Zeiss AE lens information
I found a link to this awesome Zeiss Contax lens brochure, dated October 1975 (12 MB). It provides basically the same information on the AE lenses as the 'current' Zeiss data sheets do for the MM lenses. Unfortunately, it predates the Distagon 28/2.8.
"Only 4 lenses were "officially" improved during the jump to MM: the 25 2.8, 28 2.8, 135 2.8, and 135 f2. The 50 1.7 and 180 2.8 are also rumored to be better in MM. Otherwise, you should notice no optical or mechanical difference between the two lines."
Comparing optical diagrams, MTF, relative illuminance, and distortion graphs for the "officially improved" lenses, I see:
a. 25/2.8, no apparent differences
b. 28/2.8, N/A, no AE data
c. 135/2.8, no apparent difference in optical diagram; noticeable differences in the MTF curves
d. 135/2, no apparent difference in optical diagram, noticeable differences in the MTF curves
Note that the 35/1.4 which is not one of the "officially improved" lenses mentioned above, shows radically different MTF diagrams between the AE and MM versions. Clearly, nothing is clear. I'd like to see the "official" reference.
3. "Ninja star" bokeh
Many AE lenses have "ninja star" bokeh at a stop or two below max. aperture, most (maybe all) MM versions do not. This does affect the optical characteristics of images, but AFAIK it does not affect optical performance in terms of resolution and contrast, which is the essence of the current AE vs. MM optical discussion (I think).
4. Ask Zeiss
Earlier today, I sent an email to Zeiss to ask this,
"Hi, is there a data sheet or technical reference for the Contax Distagon 28/2.8 AE? I'm trying to determine if there were any optical changes between the AE and MM versions of this lens. I have the data sheet for the MM version. Thanks, Jim."
Here is the reply (just received).
"Dear Jim,
Thanks for your inquiry.
The AE and the later MM version of this lens were optically identical. So the had the same MTF data. There is no seperate data sheet available for the AE version.
For further details, please do not hesitate to contact us!
p.2 #6 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
My faves are the cheap & outstanding 50mm 1.7 MM and the 28mm 2.8 MM. The 85mm 2.8 and the 100mm 3.5 are similar. Both really sharp wide open and very small lenses as well. Used to love the 100mm 3.5 on my old 5D.
p.2 #7 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
Wow, I can't believe the 100/3.5 is getting so much love in this thread. This lens as far as I know was a very limited production lens (probably because it was stealing market share from the 100/2 and 100/2.8). You can't even find the MTF curves like the other lenses. Truly a hidden gem for it's sonnar rendering.. sharp at 3.5
IIRC the 85/2.8, 100/3.5, and the Contax G 90mm/2.8 are have the identical optical formulae
The 60/2.8 macro has a tessar-like feel to the bokeh when shooting landscape. But the macro ability is undeniable.. sharp wide open.. no CA.. very flat
The 50/1.7 is sharper than the 50/1.4 at f1.7. At f2.8 both are razor sharp across the frame. The 50/1.4 is has a dreamy rendering wide open and is reasonably sharp at f/2. The lens sharpness jumps at f/2.8
Check out this website for some old mtf curves. I bring it up every time C/Y lenses are discussed. Anything over mid-8 is phenomenal and basically out-resolves a FF 32MP sensor.
Basically every lens discussed here is consistent with the MTF curves here. The 21/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 60/2.8 macro, 85/2.8, 100/2, 100/3.5, 35-70/3.4, 28-85/3.3-4 and finally 35-135/3.3-4.5 (which was actually the flagship zoom of the contax line.. careful very heavy)
p.2 #8 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
For the Yashica stuff, the Yashica 100mm f3.5 ML Macro lens is pretty nice. Not exceptional wide open, but stopped down a bit it's very sharp! The bokeh isn't great though
p.2 #9 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
bokeh_ wrote:
The 50/1.4 is has a dreamy rendering wide open
My complaint about the 1.4 is it's rather nervous and fractured wide open bokeh esp at the frame edges. I have no complaints about it's sharpness at all.
p.2 #10 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
JohnJ wrote:
...
When I compared the Contax 1.4/50 with an ML 1.4/50 with identical images/composition I found that they had almost equal rendering/bokeh however the Yashica was slightly softer at all apertures, never reaching the sharpness of the Contax (although to be fair I really wasn't testing sharpness anyway). I've also seen lots of purple fringing with the ML but not the Contax although I've not compared them in identical circumstances. I don't think the ML has any advantages over the Contax except price.
I don't use my two P50/1.4 lenses with any regularity and, now on retesting, I must agree with you. The Planar b/g blur is different but equivalent to the Yashica 50/1.4 ML. Testing bokeh is a bitch with some many variables, but I set up a shiny object (reflector fabric) at 3m, and then close-focussed the lenses:
Lenses were wide open, and focus was changed by scale. I also retested linear distortion, and the Yashica wins. CZ wins for w/o sharpness.
p.2 #11 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
jcolwell wrote:
That seems pretty clear to me.
Over and out.
Good research, Jim. I wonder what accounts for the user reports from people saying the MM is sharper in the corners then. Might just be people repeating each other and sample variation at work, or Zeiss actually improved the MM but didn't bother updating the published MTFs and block diagrams, which is perhaps not unrealistic?
p.2 #12 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
jcolwell wrote:
That seems pretty clear to me.
Over and out.
AhamB wrote:
Good research, Jim. I wonder what accounts for the user reports from people saying the MM is sharper in the corners then. Might just be people repeating each other and sample variation at work, or Zeiss actually improved the MM but didn't bother updating the published MTFs and block diagrams, which is perhaps not unrealistic?
Thanks, Benjamin.
It's hard to say why personal experience of mine and others with the AE and MM versions of the 28/2.8 seems to show consistently better corners for the MM. The sample size of comparison tests and the number of lenses tested is too small to draw reliable conclusions. Also, the AE lenses are invariably older than the MM lenses, and so the chances of slight misalignment in an AE lens has to be higher than for an MM lens.
The reply from Zeiss that there's no optical differences between the AE and MM versions of the 28/2.8 is good enough for me.
p.2 #14 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
If I read it right, my CZ listing of all CZ lenses indicates just on 7,000 copies of the 100/3.5 in three runs. How many are left out there two decades on? I see some loCA at times under duress, but so graceful a lens and fabulous at infinity, like most of these CYs.
p.2 #15 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
bokeh_ wrote:
...The 60/2.8 macro has a tessar-like feel to the bokeh when shooting landscape. But the macro ability is undeniable.. sharp wide open.. no CA.. very flat
There are (at least) three versions of Contax Carl Zeiss 60/2.8 macro:
(i) "S" which goes to [1:1], 55mm filter, label "S-Planar 1:2.8 f = 60mm";
(ii) just plain "Makro-Planar" which goes to [1:1], 67mm filter, label "Makro-Planar 1:2.8 f = 60mm"; and
(iii) "C" which goes to [1:2], 55mm filter, label "Makro-Planar 2.8/60 C".
The [1:2] "C" (compact) version is a lot smaller and lighter than the [1:1] Makro-Planar (0.27 kg vs. 0.57 kg).
The [1:1] "S" (special-purpose) version is between the "C" and 1:1 Makro-Planar in size (L = 52mm, 60mm, and 74mm). I don't know the weight of the "S" version.
There may be some "S-Makro-Planar" lens versions out there, too, and it appears that they might be early versions of the current "Makro-Planar" [1:1] 0.57 kg lens. At least, that's what MIR (Photography in Malaysia) thinks, as they give it and the "S-Planar" the same size and weight specs as for the latest "Makro-Planar" 0.57 kg lens; with L = 74mm and diameter = 76.5mm.
p.2 #16 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
hiepphotog wrote:
Best in what sense? sharpness? signature draw? Which focal length are you interested in?
The best 21 is still the C/Y 21 (less LCA than the current Zeiss 21). The 28/2 and 35/1.4 has very unique, three dimensional draw. In the right light, the 35/1.4 can produce very nice color images. The 100/2 is also well-known for its strong 3D depiction of the scene.
But to me, the "best" in term of uniqueness, sharpness and historical value would be the 55/1.2 and 85/1.2 Jahre. The 55/1.2 is the sharpest 50ish 1.2 both WO and stopping down; it beats the Lux 50 ASPH stopping down. The 85/1.2 is a step above that with fully usable landscape shot at f/1.2 (sharp corner-to-corner). However, to realize this potential, you need to shoot them either on film or a sensor with thin sensor filter stack....Show more →
Yikes, I may have missed the posts but thouught most of the thicker stack issues were confined to RF Wide angles. I was thinking of using my 35-70 on Sony A7x when I get tired of carrying 5DII. So does the CY 28 or 35-70 benefit from thinner sensor stack too? Thanks for any comments.
p.2 #17 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
Michael Gordon wrote:
Yikes, I may have missed the posts but thouught most of the thicker stack issues were confined to RF Wide angles. I was thinking of using my 35-70 on Sony A7x when I get tired of carrying 5DII. So does the CY 28 or 35-70 benefit from thinner sensor stack too? Thanks for any comments.
Any significant improvement would be around the corners at WO. I didn't have the 28 and 35-70 to test at the time, but on my 55 and 85, the improvement was mainly visible reduction in astigmatism and purple fringing. RF WA definitely benefits more than that from the thin filter. So I wouldn't loose sleep about it, but if you want the max potential of film lenses on a digital camera, go with the thin filter.
p.2 #19 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
philip_pj wrote:
If I read it right, my CZ listing of all CZ lenses indicates just on 7,000 copies of the 100/3.5 in three runs. How many are left out there two decades on? I see some loCA at times under duress, but so graceful a lens and fabulous at infinity, like most of these CYs.
I just did a quick survey of the usual sources, and I get this for variation of serial numbers (SN) for the Contax CZ Sonnar 100mm f/3.5,
6639711 AEJ oldest
6641710 AEJ newest
6641820 MMJ oldest
6647155 MMJ newest
Assuming the serial numbers are contiguous between the AE and MM versions (which is a good bet), this variation in SN indicates 7444 lenses. The oldest SN in this sample happens to be my own AEJ lens. I think it's unlikely that mine is the first Contax CZ Sonnar 100/3.5 ever made. Similarly, it's unlikely that the ...7155 SN is the last one made. I'd guess that between 8,000 and 10,000 were made.
All that really counts is that I have one, and I'm keeping it.
I'll keep track of Sonnar 100/3.5 serial numbers for a while, and report back in a year or so. Maybe we can build a Contax CZ SN database for at least a few lenses, like we did for some of the Oly OM lenses (21/3.5 and 24/2.8 in particular).
Thanks for any comments.