p.3 #1 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
jcolwell wrote:
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.
OTOH, the 1975 Zeiss is Nice brochure cited earlier shows the "S-Planar" with L = 60mm and diameter = 62.5mm,
My Oberkochen S-Planar 60 #6164958 is identical to the regular Makro-Planar: dimensions, weight, filter, 1:1. Only age and country of origin is different.
Even with a grip, this thing is a boat anchor on my A7ii. I should switch to the "C" version, especially since 1:1 is far outside the optimized distance for the design.
p.3 #2 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
"Boat anchor..."
Hi Rico,
Assuming the Zeiss brochure is correct that the 1975 S-Planar was a smaller lens, we definitely have more than one "S-Planar" 60/2.8. That would explain the discrepancy between specs from MIR and the 1975 Zeiss brochure. I assume that the 1975 Zeiss brochure is correct.
I should take a tour of Zeiss country. I've been to many parts of Deutschland in the past thirty years, but never with a Zeiss mission. Hmmm.
p.3 #3 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
S-Planars and other process lenses are nothing new to CZ, and well precede Contax RTS. What was new, as in first ever, was the double cam that allowed the 1:1 extension. Sorry, I don't have a reference off the top of my head. It is very possible that the lens optics were finalized, but the 1:1 barrel mechanics were decided at the last minute.
p.3 #5 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
Certainly. Quite a few Leitz lenses were special purpose, and certain designs out of ELCAN (E Leitz Canada) were for secret military applications. The Apo-Telyt-R 180/3.5 eventually became a consumer offering, but its long-range orientation remains. Another marine design was the 90/1 in M mount! I saw one of these monsters on eBay. Focus is achieved by attaching premarked sections to the barrel labelled as 100m, 300m, etc. A Visoflex design would have been easier the operate, I think.
p.3 #6 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
According to the S-Planar specs it is optimized for 1:10. That would mean that the conjugates are more suitable at 1:1 than would be the case for a lens optimized for infinity. Whether it is "far off" is a matter of taste.
I find the S-Planar absolutely adequate closer than 1:10. The large mount with its deeply recessed front element also helps avoiding stray light.
p.3 #7 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
The 2.8 60 mm S-Planar (which I have) goes to 1:1 and is heavy, the C-Planar (do not have) is similar in size to the Leica R 2.8 60 mm and goes to 1:2 only.
Optically, the Planars are identical, just different mechanics.
I agree that my 2.8 60 mm S-Planar is best around 1:10; extremely sharp then.
p.3 #8 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
shirozina wrote:
Here's my take on my lenses;
35-70 is better then any of my primes in that range - out and out exceptionally good lens
50 1.7 (MM) is as a bargin.
50mm 1.7 AE - not as good as the MM version.
50mm 1.4 - not sure what all the fuss is about - nothing special at all.
28mm 2.8 MM - very good.
28mm 2.8 AE - not as good in the corners as the MM
35mm 2.8 MM - mediocre (my version)
85mm 2.8 MM - very good but strugging to find a use for it
35mm PC MM - disappointing
40mm 2.8 - poor(due to severe focus shift)
That's funny -- the Zeiss Contax 50/1.4 was one of my sharpest and best performing Alt lenses. Nearly zero distortion, great color and contrast. It stitched together many fine panoramas. Hard to beat from f/4-8 against any lens.
Alas, it's lack of AF, exif and auto-closing aperture were its main drawbacks. That aside, it was certainly one of the best Zeiss lenses I've owned. As a fully manual Alt lens, it excelled and I was sorry to part with it.
Jun 03, 2015 at 08:51 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
Gunzorro wrote:
That's funny -- the Zeiss Contax 50/1.4 was one of my sharpest and best performing Alt lenses. Nearly zero distortion, great color and contrast. It stitched together many fine panoramas. Hard to beat from f/4-8 against any lens.
Alas, it's lack of AF, exif and auto-closing aperture were its main drawbacks. That aside, it was certainly one of the best Zeiss lenses I've owned. As a fully manual Alt lens, it excelled and I was sorry to part with it.
My experience is that the 50 f/1.4 is an excellent lens if you know how to use it. It is very sharp stopped down and at infinity and a little sharper in this situation than the 50 f/1.7 both according to my experience and Zeiss' MTF charts. The 50 f/1.7, is sharper wide open than the 50 f/1.4. Wide open the 50 f/1.4 has a lot of spherical aberrations which diminishes its sharpness significantly, but these clear up nicely as the lens is stopped down. By f/2.8 they are mostly gone and it can take very nice portraits stopped down.
I also think the 50 f/1.4 has very nice bokeh in the right circumstances. It you shoot stopped down a bit and are at medium focus distance the bokeh is excellent. It has crappy bokeh, IMO, however, close up and wide open or near wide open and since bokeh is more evident for this type of shot and some people tend to take these kind of shots, it has a reputation for bad bokeh. I do find the bokeh from the 50 f/1.7 to be more harsh in these situations and not as good in the medium distance stopped down situation, but it is still pretty good here the 50 f/1.4 is just excellent in that situation.
The simple summary is that if you use it stopped down, the 50 f/1.4 is an excellent lens, but if you try to shoot it wide open and especially at close distances it will show a lot of spherical aberrations.
p.3 #10 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
Gunzorro wrote:
That's funny -- the Zeiss Contax 50/1.4 was one of my sharpest and best performing Alt lenses. Nearly zero distortion, great color and contrast. It stitched together many fine panoramas. Hard to beat from f/4-8 against any lens.
The 35/2.8 PC (shift lens) also had an excellent review on 16-9.net, so I'm surprised that shirozina found it disappointing.
p.3 #11 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
Steve Spencer wrote:
My experience is that the 50 f/1.4 is an excellent lens if you know how to use it. It is very sharp stopped down and at infinity and a little sharper in this situation than the 50 f/1.7 both according to my experience and Zeiss' MTF charts. The 50 f/1.7, is sharper wide open than the 50 f/1.4. Wide open the 50 f/1.4 has a lot of spherical aberrations which diminishes its sharpness significantly, but these clear up nicely as the lens is stopped down. By f/2.8 they are mostly gone and it can take very nice portraits stopped down.
I also think the 50 f/1.4 has very nice bokeh in the right circumstances. It you shoot stopped down a bit and are at medium focus distance the bokeh is excellent. It has crappy bokeh, IMO, however, close up and wide open or near wide open and since bokeh is more evident for this type of shot and some people tend to take these kind of shots, it has a reputation for bad bokeh. I do find the bokeh from the 50 f/1.7 to be more harsh in these situations and not as good in the medium distance stopped down situation, but it is still pretty good here the 50 f/1.4 is just excellent in that situation.
The simple summary is that if you use it stopped down, the 50 f/1.4 is an excellent lens, but if you try to shoot it wide open and especially at close distances it will show a lot of spherical aberrations....Show more →
Steve -- Thanks for your experience.
Your remarks tally with my use of the 50/1.4. At f/2.8 the lens was looking very good, and did its best between f/4-5.6. By f/8, diffraction was softening the images a tiny bit, as expected.
I only used the lens wide open for focusing (no noticeable focus shift, unlike the ZE 50/1.4), then used f/2.8-8.0 for general photography, and seldom closer than 2'. So bokeh wasn't an interest or concern. If I want closer focusing, I use my Canon EF 50/2.5 macro or Leica R 60/2.8. When I do want bokeh, I shoot the EF 50/1.2L. I considered my Zeiss to be my "technical" lens for landscapes or general shots, so I was happy with it.
I find it near impossible to find one lens that does "everything" well.
p.3 #12 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
AhamB wrote:
The 35/2.8 PC (shift lens) also had an excellent review on 16-9.net, so I'm surprised that shirozina found it disappointing.
I'm using it on a 36mp A7r. The 16-9.net tests were on a 12mp 5D.......
It's better than the Olympus and Canon FD 35mm shift lenses but not any better than my TS-E 24mm II +1.4EF III extender. Probably the best 35mm shift lens you can get but I was expecting more from it.
p.3 #13 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
Steve Spencer wrote:
My experience is that the 50 f/1.4 is an excellent lens if you know how to use it. It is very sharp stopped down and at infinity and a little sharper in this situation than the 50 f/1.7 both according to my experience and Zeiss' MTF charts. The 50 f/1.7, is sharper wide open than the 50 f/1.4. Wide open the 50 f/1.4 has a lot of spherical aberrations which diminishes its sharpness significantly, but these clear up nicely as the lens is stopped down. By f/2.8 they are mostly gone and it can take very nice portraits stopped down.
I also think the 50 f/1.4 has very nice bokeh in the right circumstances. It you shoot stopped down a bit and are at medium focus distance the bokeh is excellent. It has crappy bokeh, IMO, however, close up and wide open or near wide open and since bokeh is more evident for this type of shot and some people tend to take these kind of shots, it has a reputation for bad bokeh. I do find the bokeh from the 50 f/1.7 to be more harsh in these situations and not as good in the medium distance stopped down situation, but it is still pretty good here the 50 f/1.4 is just excellent in that situation.
The simple summary is that if you use it stopped down, the 50 f/1.4 is an excellent lens, but if you try to shoot it wide open and especially at close distances it will show a lot of spherical aberrations....Show more → +1
Bokeh on the 1.7 is very good at 2.8 as well. Best 50mm wide open I have is the F2 Summicron R 2nd version - best bokeh and best sharpness.
p.3 #14 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
shirozina wrote:
+1
Bokeh on the 1.7 is very good at 2.8 as well. Best 50mm wide open I have is the F2 Summicron R 2nd version - best bokeh and best sharpness.
I also quite like the bokeh of the 50/1.7. I also have the 50/1.4 but haven't used it much, so I can't really compare the two. I only ended up with the 50/1.4 it because I found it locally on CL for a good price. I'd probably like it even more if it had 7 or 9 aperture blades. Both my 50/1.7 and 50/1.4 are AEJ, but my 50/1.7 seems to be a later lens - purple T* coating and no ninja star vs my 50/1.4's red T* coasting and ninja star aperture at f/2-f/4. The ninja stars, size, weight, and wide open performance leads me to reach for the Contax G 45/2 or Contax 50/1.7 over the 50/1.4 almost every time.
My 50/1.7 has a unique gift, at least among my small collection of normals, for subject/background separation. For a given aperture, the background is more blurred than I see with my other ~45-50mm lenses at the same aperture. I've done a lot of middle distance shooting with the 50/1.7 at f/2.8 on APS-C and was constantly surprised at the separation, just another to pop the subject out of the background.
I have no clue how that works, but it's very consistent. I don't know if the 50/1.4 shares these qualities or not, but they made the 50/1.7 my main lens on my NEX-5R until I got the G 45/2.
p.3 #15 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
hiepphotog wrote:
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.
Thank you very much for the comment. I will ponder that and look for samples.
p.3 #17 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
msshea wrote:
I have the C/Y 35-70 f/3.4 and I'm thinking of using it on my Leica M240 with a Novoflex adapter. Anyone had any experience with this combination?
Thanks,
Merrill
I can't imagine the image quality being a problem but ergonomically it will be a challenge.
p.3 #18 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
jcolwell wrote:
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)....Show more →
Like Rob L, I have just seen a C/Y 100/3.5 Ser. No. 6947291
p.3 #19 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
There was some 'research' by some Italians (sorry for be vague but I read the article some 12 or so years ago) that showed that the late 25mmf2.8 was significantly improved over the older 25ae. It wasn't clear if the elements changed or their orientation but from the 25mm sample I had the corners were much nicer than on an early ae version I tried (take this with a grain of salt since I suspected the ae sample I had was never to my liking). I really liked the 25mm but I know most people diss it as an over priced paper weight.
My 100f3.5 was ae 6639234; the 25 I had was 8142801; the ae version was 5811619. I never formally tested lenses but I use the ones that I thought produced pleasant rendering. Liked the 100f3.5 esp for flowers.
p.3 #20 · Contax/Yashica Lenses - Which are the best?
Comparing the 1975 Zeiss brochure for the early Distagon 25/2.8 AE with the current Zeiss data sheet for the Distagon 25/2.8 MM shows the optical diagrams and MTF curves appear to be identical.
It is very possible that the lens optics were finalized, but the 1:1 barrel mechanics were decided at the last minute.