p.2 #2 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
Lee Saxon wrote:
You don't have a 58 Noct-Nikkor, do you? If so you can make up the lost profits selling that one.
I wish. I bought a Nikkor 55/1.2 Ai in Hong Kong in 1980 on the way back from a job in China but at that time, even though the Noct-Nikkor Ai was manufactured from Feb 1977 to Nov 1981, I wouldn't have understood how special it was. I don't think I grokked the notion of lens rendering until I used Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad a few years later. But I do have the Canon FD 55/1.2 Aspherical, which is stellar in its own way.
p.2 #3 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
One of our FM Alties had the P55 and, for something so expensive, exhibited truly nasty bokeh. Given the ordinary design and CZ tendancies, I have no confidence about its linear distortion. My Contax wish list is down to the P85/1.2 and the TAT300/2.8, both expensive. The last decade has seen an astounding improvement in optical performance, and with lower prices. Yesterday I received the Sony FE 100/2.8 STF T5.6, and it's simply amazing: SSM AF, image stabilization, declickable aperture, no mechanical vignetting. Will be testing it against my S100 and P100 for a bit of fun.
p.2 #4 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
At least Zeiss Germany does not service any Contax CY lens anymore regardless if AE or MM.
timballic wrote:
I'm not sure if this is still true, but ~5 years back, it used to be always stated here, that Zeiss still service MM lenses, but not AE.
p.2 #5 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
alarmchrono wrote:
At least Zeiss Germany does not service any Comtax CY lens anymore regardless if AE ir MM.
That's good to know. The possibility of still having the lens serviced was one of the main reasons the MM variants were recommended; that plus avoiding the the Ninja Star bokeh issue (although that's more a matter of taste).
p.2 #6 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
I do own a few C/Y lenses I got from a friend who got them from his dad, unfortunately they didn't take good care of them and the ones I wish were in good shape are actually the worse kept ones, in order I have the 35/1.4 whose focus mechanism is broken and not repairable (is this word correct?) not to mention the front lens coating is so and so, then the 50/1.7 which is perfect but not exciting (planning to sell to fund something else), the 85/1.4 which has the front lens coating partially gone and the filter thread bent, then the 135/2.8 which is perfect and which I do really like, beautiful rendering and very sharp for such an old lens, gonna attach two pics I took of my mum and my son with the lens on an X-Pro1 Fuji body (another thing I regret getting), last one being th 200/3.5 which I did not even mount on a camera but whose conditions are perfect.
The one thing you can notice straight away is how solid these lenses are (mine are all Made in Germany if I am not wrong) and a special character in the rendering not to mention a beautiful 3D pop.
p.2 #7 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
jcolwell wrote:
Hi Humble,
Not specifically. I own the SMC Pentax 28/2, which has the same optical formula as the Contax Distagon 28/2 "Hollywood". The design for this lens was reputed to be a joint Zeiss/Pentax project. It's an excellent lens. I call mine, "Vancouver", which is Hollywood North.
p.2 #8 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
The only noticable (to the trained eye) difference in IQ between AE and MM (no matter J(apan) or G(ermany),were the Distagons 25/2.8 and 28/2.8.AE lenses were less sharp towards image sides/corners,and showed more CA/LoCA plus lower microcontrast versus MM ones on Sony A7/R/M2.Generally the higher serial numer of the AE Distagons,28/2.8 or 25/2.8,the better was IQ.
Other focal lengths are pretty much the same (I have 25 Zeiss C/Y lenses).
p.2 #9 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
Peire wrote:
The only noticable (to the trained eye) difference in IQ between AE and MM (no matter J(apan) or G(ermany),were the Distagons 25/2.8 and 28/2.8.AE lenses were less sharp towards image sides/corners,and showed more CA/LoCA plus lower microcontrast versus MM.
I noticed that when comparing my AE and MM 28/2.8, but filed it under "normal variability".
p.2 #12 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
jcolwell wrote:
There's probably a help line for that.
If there is a help line, hopefully someone will post the number. Once I realised how rare (and correspondingly how expensive) the Vancouver 28/2 is, I decided not to wait. A Hollywood 28/2 is on its way to me.
p.2 #14 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
@Humble_Glory, Besides the huge difference in size, the D21 in all its forms has that annoying 2% gullwing distortion. It was my first Contax-mount lens and operates beautifully on an RTS III. However, the L21 is what I would get today if I wanted an UWA on my Alpha 7.
p.2 #15 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
I've been impressed by the flexibility of the L21, particularly at closer distances. I'd long assumed that 21mm would be quite restrictive in its uses but many pictures in the FE Images thread definitively prove that not to be the case. Even so, 28mm is about as wide as I like to go and, since I have and very much like the L50 and L85, I'm holding out for an L28. Earlier in this thread I expressed a hope that a Loxia 28 might contain some of the DNA from the Hollywood 28/2. After reading extensively about the design and performance of that lens, I soon realised that its parameters run counter to contemporary Zeiss goals and philosophy. Better to grab an original Hollywood and be done with it. A Loxia 28 can be used for making different kinds of pictures. rico wrote:
@Humble_Glory@@, Besides the huge difference in size, the D21 in all its forms has that annoying 2% gullwing distortion. It was my first Contax-mount lens and operates beautifully on an RTS III. However, the L21 is what I would get today if I wanted an UWA on my Alpha 7.
p.2 #16 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
Van (i.e SMC Pentax 28/2) has floating rear elements, for improved close up performance. In addition to its excellent performance at infinity. Same for Holly, of course.
p.2 #17 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
rico wrote:
@Humble_Glory@, Besides the huge difference in size, the D21 in all its forms has that annoying 2% gullwing distortion. It was my first Contax-mount lens and operates beautifully on an RTS III. However, the L21 is what I would get today if I wanted an UWA on my Alpha 7.
Hi Rico,
Many thanks for sharing your experience with these 2 lenses. it seems that for WA wider than 28mm it would be better to go for the modern lens.
p.2 #18 · Zeiss Contax AEJ vs MMJ what's the difference?
Humble_Glory wrote:
it seems that for WA wider than 28mm it would be better to go for the modern lens.
Probably true for RF UWA due to the shading and color-shift issues with classic symmetric designs. For classic SLR lenses, you may find one of them desirable for its character (aka defects), not to mention the price. Even if you go modern, there are serveral choices beyond OEM, including Voigtlaender (lower cost) and Leica Super Elmar 21 ASPH (higher cost), perhaps even the MS Optical Perar 21/4.5. Welcome to the Golden Age of photography.
