Anybody have any real-world experience with this lens. I just bought an old RTS with one of these attached and not sure I want to spend the money for an adapter. If it's something worth doing, I'll spring, if not, the lens and camera go bye-bye. It seems like an odd focal length and at f/2.8, whats the hype?
The CZ 45/2.8 Tessar is a keeper. It's not quite as sharp as a CZ 50/1.7, but not far off (which means that it's one of the best around). It turns a 5D into a great P&S camera; just set it to f/8, focus to about 4m (match the green triangles), set the camera to Av (or M) and some reasonable ISO value, and you're ready to go. The only problem that I've found is the separation between the aperture and focus rings is very small, so it's easy to throw off the focus when you stop down to take the shot (after you focus wide open). Here's a shot of a CZ 45/2.8 Tessar on a 5D, taken by a CZ 50/1.7 on a 20D.
Edited by jcolwell on Sep 20, 2007 at 02:42 AM GMT (Reason: changed 40mm to 45mm - must be thinking Pentax.)
Edited by jcolwell on Sep 20, 2007 at 03:23 AM GMT (Reason: what? I didn't do it.)
...and here's the same lens on a Contax 139 quartz, where it looks a lot bigger. This camera and lens were designed as a matched pair by Porshe (yes, that Porshe). The 139Q has the best ergonomics of any small manual 35mm body that I've used.
jcolwell wrote:
...and here's the same lens on a Contax 139 quartz, where it looks a lot bigger. This camera and lens were designed as a matched pair by Porshe (yes, that Porshe). The 139Q has the best ergonomics of any small manual 35mm body that I've used.
I used the exact same combo for a while and loved it! The 139Q in digital form would simply render me a drooling lump.
I also shot the 45 on a Rebel XT as a high-end P&S and it was very, very nice.
Other needs prevailed and I own neither now, but I regret losing them both.
Andi Dietrich wrote:
thanks for your valuable contribution JJ
Sarcasm Andi? I see people carrying on about these lenses as if they were some how special or better than the rest. They are not. They are fine, nothing really wrong with them, but they are no better than minolta, yashica, pentax or olympus 50's.
Having had, tested and used this lens is my contribution not worthy?
As to the 45 I would add - what's the point? The 1.7 is still very smal and potentially more useful.
I would agree with JJ in that almost all 50mm are not "character" lenses. For me the 50 1.7 is sharp and part of my small, sharp prime collection I use for landscapes. I think the old 1.2 lenses have more interesting personalities.
I guess its "point" is much more obvious on the 139Q. Oh, and the other point is that the OP basically got it for free and needs advice whether it is worth it to get an adapter. It is.
I would agree with JJ in that almost all 50mm are not "character" lenses. For me the 50 1.7 is sharp and part of my small, sharp prime collection I use for landscapes. I think the old 1.2 lenses have more interesting personalities.
I agree, but even some old 1.4s have quite a lot of character to offer.
I suspected that Andi was making a sarcastic comment, but I agreed with it, so I was happy to stay silent.
In my experience, Carl Zeiss Contax T* lenses are special; they're consistently better on Canon 20D, 30D, and 5D DSLR bodies than equivalent Nikon, Olympus, Tamron SP, Sigma, Tokina AT-X, Vivitar Series 1, and other alternatives that I have tried. The only other alternative (from the EOS-user perspective) that I think is as good as CZ, is SMC Pentax. The CZ and SMCP lenses have consistently lower CA, with equivalent or better resolution than most of the alternatives. I can't comment on Minolta as it won't fit on my EOS bodies, and I haven't tried any Yashicas (yet). I expect that Leica-R would be as good as the CZ and SMC Pentax, but I've recenty "shifted" towards MF Hasselblad and the like for my new alternatives.
I suspected that Andi was making a sarcastic comment, but I agreed with it, so I was happy to stay silent.
In my experience, Carl Zeiss Contax T* lenses are special; they're consistently better on Canon 20D, 30D, and 5D DSLR bodies than equivalent Nikon, Olympus, Tamron SP, Sigma, Tokina AT-X, Vivitar Series 1, and other alternatives that I have tried. The only other alternative (from the EOS-user perspective) that I think is as good as CZ, is SMC Pentax. The CZ and SMCP lenses have consistently lower CA, with equivalent or better resolution than most of the alternatives. I can't comment on Minolta as it won't fit on my EOS bodies, and I haven't tried any Yashicas (yet). I expect that Leica-R would be as good as the CZ and SMC Pentax, but I've recenty "shifted" towards MF Hasselblad and the like for my new alternatives.
I tend to completely agree with your opinion on Contax Zeiss and SMC Pentax lenses. There indeed seems to be something very special about both of these lens lines. I suspect the very expensive APO Leicas are the same but I can't say the same about the other Leica R lenses. The color rendition and contrast was very canon like with regard to the 90mm Elmarit I tested. I'm very curious as to your shift towards MF Hasselblad for your new alternatives. What are you using or planning to use these lenses on? Guess I need to buy an adapter for my 80CF Planar and give it a try.
Hmm.. I could swear this thread was titled Zeiss 45/2.8? As soon as someone has something less than stellar to say about a Zeiss lens, the guns come out
Andi - I hate to say it, but your response had much less "contribution" to the question asked.
There are so many good and fast 50mm lenses that it hard to find a need for a much slower 45mm. And depending on who you ask, the Zuiko 40/2 is at least as good, a whole stop faster, about the same size - and doesn't have adapter and mirror clearance issues. Braniac is a big fan of it. It's one of the Zuiko's I haven't tried because I'm in love with the Zuiko 50/1.2 (and I have tried the Zeiss 50/1.4).
pdmphoto wrote:
Andi - I hate to say it, but your response had much less "contribution" to the question asked.
).
I dont agree with that Paul. I think at least it provoked JJ to comment on what his real experience was with the Tessar. The OT implied that the lens was hyped and JJ gave him the answer he probably wanted to hear.
In fact I can not remember one comment about the Tessar which said it was superior to other standard lenses, except in size and weight.
The tessar lens has a long history. This design delivered superior image quality before lens coatings were invented. Today there are of course faster lenses with better IQ but it remains a very sweet lens for some alternative freaks.
To JJ: your comment is worthy, I agree with your second comment, most if not all 50mm lenses have excellent IQ. I apologize for the sarcasm, I'll go and get the whip now
pdmphoto wrote:
Hmm.. I could swear this thread was titled Zeiss 45/2.8? As soon as someone has something less than stellar to say about a Zeiss lens, the guns come out
Andi - I hate to say it, but your response had much less "contribution" to the question asked.
There are so many good and fast 50mm lenses that it hard to find a need for a much slower 45mm. And depending on who you ask, the Zuiko 40/2 is at least as good, a whole stop faster, about the same size - and doesn't have adapter and mirror clearance issues. Braniac is a big fan of it. It's one of the Zuiko's I haven't tried because I'm in love with the Zuiko 50/1.2 (and I have tried the Zeiss 50/1.4)....Show more →
Paul, would not that rare Zuiko also cost 2-3 times the price of the Zeiss 45/2.8 as well? I'm sure its one great lens but I have yet to find one at any where close to what one might call a reasonable price.
I'll be using the MF lenses for tilt and shift work on my 5D. There's an active discussion on some of these options that's currently spread across a few threads (some of which you have posted to as well, but earlier than some of my comments):
I'll continue to use Contax Carl Zeiss and SMC Pentax 35mm lenses for "normal" alternative applications, but I'll go to the MF lenses when I need a bit of T&S. I'm experimenting with a Pentacon 6 to EOS tilt adapter right now, but chances are good that I'll go the Mirex T&S adapter that Andi described and linked recently. The Mirex looks like a high quality solution and it offers slightly more tilt than the P6 adapter (10 deg vs. 8 deg), and more shift than the generic Mamiya 645 to EOS shift adapter that I now have (15mm vs. 11mm) . It probably makes good sense to get the Mirex M645 adapter, and use a M645 to Hasselblad adapter to cover all of the bases (from 35mm to 80mm, at least).
The Tessar 45 blocked mirror on both my 5D's. I ended up grinding down the mirror on one to facilitate it.
The Tessar is one of the smallest lightest pancake lenses out there and that is its selling point. It also has very few elements and perhaps that is the reason that it gives a satisfyingly real and immediate look, even if it is not enormously sharp wide open. I found Nikon's version very slightly less good for distortion and sharpness when shut down, but there is very little in it, and the Nikon doesn't have mirror problems. I finally part-exchanged my 45 Tessar last week, towards a 1D3. The main reason, as has been said, is that the Oly 40 is usefully wider, not much bigger (i.e. only twice the size ;) and has f2. By f2.8 it starts to kick butt.
If your 45 works on your 5D I would enjoy it all you can. A tiny lens on a 5D is a lot of fun, and wieldiness is a real boon which makes it more likely you will have your 5D with you.
Zeiss' reputation is not unfounded, but remember that most of the Contax/Yashica lenses are quite old productions now. The fact that they do compete with Canon's very latest shows how far behind Canon were. The Zeisses are also fairly light and cheap which is why they are a popular subject on this forum. Some Contax Yashica lenses are unsurpassed. Most of them are simply very very good, especially for the money.
