p.2 #1 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
philip_pj wrote:
'Aspherical lenses are wonderful. Some are pretty dull though.'
There are very, very few APO lenses with no aspherical elements, because you need fabulous glass and top tier expertise to achieve this. I only know of the Voigtlander 110/2.5 and the new 50/3.5 APO-Lanthars. Zeiss resisted using aspherics seemingly for an eternity, and many of their character lenses appeared in those times.
There's also the 90mm APO Skopar: a 7/7 air-spaced design with five anomalous partial dispersion elements.
p.2 #2 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
The Nikon Z8 viewfinder is really making me want to shoot these lenses and now looking forward to test them all, I got 25-35-50-85-100-135-200, they are not all champs nor I am good or like the shorter focal lengths but so far the results are quite interesting
p.2 #3 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
I forgot this one - 90mm APO Skopar, also very recent and adds to the indication of what they intend. Hard to see it with a wide angle, though, but you can't count them out these days. Maybe a slower one, again.
The fast CY 85mm was a beauty, the bridge from Contarex to Classic. They all had their fans, and many were subtle renderings. People back then were also looking for more sharpness, they got that in the ZE/ZF series, to my eyes anyway.
Apart from, in CY, the special fast releases and the 21mm. These images are excellent, they let the personalities shine through. When doing my doco shooting, I always looked forward to the end of the day and then using the 100/3.5. We always are in great need of portrait lenses, it seems.
p.2 #5 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
philip_pj wrote:
It's one lens I regret not buying, the (6/5) CY 100/2. Despite being a Planar, it features the same flat MTF lines the one I did buy also has, the Sonnar 100/3.5 (5/4).
Based on your travel photography and portraiture, I say the S100 was the right choice. The P100 is heavier, lower contrast, and hard to capture focus when wide open. I own both and always reach for the Sonnar. The 100/2, however, is unusual for a Planar in that the performance is super uniform across the frame and there is virtually no linear distortion: I like to describe it as a macro lens for infinity subjects. Since I prefer strobes and f/5.6 for head-and-shoulder portraits, the S100 is top dog, while the P100 is great for architecture and available darkness.
p.2 #6 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
For me, it was. And a real surprise too, I got it for the versatility but they sure did the job for people photography as well. Back when most of us bought in, they were not too old (if not new) but it gets harder to find them in good shape each year that passes. One interesting one is the CY 85/1.4, reviewed here by Victor Pavlovic along with the Otus and Milvus 85s:
'Together with its (rather) small size and affordable price, its character and popularity among portrait photographers were main reasons why Zeiss decided to keep it in production as one of only two Classic DSLR lenses.'
'Stopped down to f/2.8 and smaller it comes actually very close to Otus and Milvus, and most professional photographers won’t shot portraits at wide open aperture anyway. Build quality is top-notch and design is timeless classic. I am almost sure than in couple of years, both Otus and Milvus will look like funny Sci-fi from 60′s while this little Planar will still look like a cool lens.'
p.2 #7 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
philip_pj wrote:
One interesting one is the CY 85/1.4, reviewed here by Victor Pavlovic ... 'Stopped down to f/2.8 and smaller it comes actually very close to Otus and Milvus, and most professional photographers won’t shot portraits at wide open aperture anyway. ...'
Well, I agree with his comment about wide open aperture—which is why I don't have any interest in it! Stopping down to gain useable DOF means I simply prefer the S85 (which I own). The P85 has waaay too much character wide open to serve as an available darknesss lens, while the Otus and Milvus actually make sense in this role.
p.2 #10 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
I unfortunately caught the bug of "Contax Zeiss" lenses couple days ago, when I pick up my Leica M10m from repair, and spot a Contax 25mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.7 from the store at a great price. I love their rendering. It gets me thinking about getting their 35mm 1.4, 45mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.4. The 85mm 1.4, which I had before, has beautiful bokeh. I had no idea how good it was before selling it.
I know this question may have already been debated to death. Are aeg still worth getting? I noticed there are a $200 price gap between the aeg and the mmj. Besides the "ninja" bokeh, are there any other difference I should be aware of? I pretty sure I had the 85mm 1.4 for the aeg version. I was broke then, so I always get the cheapest gear I can get. I don't recall ever seeing the "ninja" bokeh.
p.2 #11 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
The AE/MM distinction is only relevant for C/Y film shooters and collectors (I'm both). Country of origin is even less consequential. If your purpose is using and enjoying the glass then just select specimens based on price and condition. For example, I own a late-vintage S85 MMG and am lazily seeking the AEG. Why? Because the AEG has a metal aperture ring. I mean, how silly is that? Not catching the disease is my suggestion.
p.2 #12 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
Here's some old links and threads that talk about all you wanted to know, and more. Many, if not most of the links may be obsolete, but the FM threads should be available.
p.2 #13 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
If you’re not bothered by the ninja star bokeh of the AE, go with those where available (some are only made as MM). The grease that Zeiss switched to for the MMs degrades over time, and it will evaporate and form haze on the internal elements. All MM will require a CLA at some point in their life for this, but the kicker is the haze has to be relatively recent for it to be removable. If the haze has been there for some time, the only option is to polish off the coatings of the elements that the haze is on.
All my MMs had to get a CLA because even though I received them with no haze (tested with the typical LED light method), the haze appeared about a year later after they were actually being used and exposed to warmer temperatures (all except the 100 f/2). I was told that the haze coming off easily as mine did is pretty rare as most of the MM with haze have had it for a while, which means it’s already penetrated the coatings.
So if anyone has MMs and they don’t have haze, check them once a year. You will want to get them CLAed immediately after the haze starts showing up. Or get them CLAed (which includes grease replacement) as a preventive measure.
p.2 #14 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
highdesertmesa wrote:
So if anyone has MMs and they don’t have haze, check them once a year. You will want to get them CLAed immediately after the haze starts showing up. Or get them CLAed (which includes grease replacement) as a preventive measure.
I have a Planar 50/1.4 MMJ and Vario-Sonnar T* 35-70/3.4 MMJ. They're both fine; just checked them. I will keep an eye on them. They've been in a humidity-controlled cabinet since they came to me, ten - fifteen years ago.
p.2 #15 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
I want DZO/Thypoch to give a few CY lenses the Simera treatment. You can't expect the CYs to last forever and going on the demolition job DZO did on the Summilux base design, it is now possible to reverse engineer rendering styles with big improvements as part of the design process.
Do a range with CYs, MFD in parentheses where known: 28/2 (0.24m), 35/1.4 (0.3m), 55/1.2 and 85/1.4 (1m). All are in the range 500-600g so at 450-500g they would work best for mirrorless users. Enthusiasts would love them and they can be downsized and rightsized for mirrrorless. Make them close focus, a key factor in emergent light cine/video usage.
Organic lenses with balanced (rather than eliminated) aberrations and clear 'modern vintage' optical design goals are rising phoenix-like in the present day, along with film. And really, Zeiss deserves it for the virtually unrecognized heritage of their massive CY contribution to photography.
p.2 #16 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
philip_pj wrote:
I want DZO/Thypoch to give a few CY lenses the Simera treatment. You can't expect the CYs to last forever and going on the demolition job DZO did on the Summilux base design, it is now possible to reverse engineer rendering styles with big improvements as part of the design process.
It would be interesting to see the result of that. After using Zeiss Contax lenses for a while, I am convinced the Zeiss secret sauce is the T* coatings, which give it an edge over the competition when it comes to highlights and micro contrast.
p.2 #17 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
highdesertmesa wrote:
So if anyone has MMs and they don’t have haze, check them once a year. You will want to get them CLAed immediately after the haze starts showing up. Or get them CLAed (which includes grease replacement) as a preventive measure.
p.2 #18 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
mikegao wrote:
I unfortunately caught the bug of "Contax Zeiss" lenses couple days ago, when I pick up my Leica M10m from repair, and spot a Contax 25mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.7 from the store at a great price. I love their rendering. It gets me thinking about getting their 35mm 1.4, 45mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.4. The 85mm 1.4, which I had before, has beautiful bokeh. I had no idea how good it was before selling it.
I know this question may have already been debated to death. Are aeg still worth getting? I noticed there are a $200 price gap between the aeg and the mmj. Besides the "ninja" bokeh, are there any other difference I should be aware of? I pretty sure I had the 85mm 1.4 for the aeg version. I was broke then, so I always get the cheapest gear I can get. I don't recall ever seeing the "ninja" bokeh....Show more →
AE lenses the main difference is the aperture and if the ninja star bothers you. Also, I believe the T* coatings changed over time and the MM lenses uses newer versions of the T* coating especially the higher the serial number.
p.2 #20 · How do old Zeiss/Contax/Yashica lenses compare to modern designs?
I don't know about the haze issue, but the MM lenses definitely don't feel as well built as the AE ones. I've had multiple copies of some of them and the build quality could vary wildly, whereas every AE is seemingly rock solid. My little AEJ 50 1.4 Planar is completely beat up from its prior owner, but the optics are *perfect* and it still performs flawlessly, absolutely my favorite 50 ever. I've had to part with almost all of my Contax Zeiss collection sadly, but that one stays.
