Wow - I just looked up the current price on these on Ebay - the prices have gone up quite a bit in the last year or so. Here is a link to one for sale over on Conurus. I do not have association to the web site or seller.
$500 with adapter isn't terrible. Several years ago there were a lot more of these around, and prices were $200-300. It's harder to follow the market now with fewer sales. I would guess a good price now is in the low $400.
I purchased most of the Contax standard zoom models when they were inexpensive. I really should do a comparison test. Although the other standard zooms are no longer common either.
Montag, nice landscapes. I shoot a lot of that kind and it certainly is better done with a zoom.
I received my 35-70 yesterday. Stopped down, it is everything I expected and hoped for, but, wide open, it is so soft as to be useless. Is this normal, or any idea what the issue might be?
Wide open, especially in the corners, is the Achilles heel of the 35-70/3.4, but by f/5.6 you should see dramatic improvement across the frame. I use the lens for stopped down architecture and landscape, so wide open performance isn't too much of a concern for me. The Leica 35-70/4 performs much better wide open.
I haven't run into problems with the 35-70 yet. The lens is already disqualified for low light since it is a 3.4. I only use it in daylight anyway, usually from 5.6 to higher (especially for close-up).
-mine is never soft by the way. just somewhat less sharp at 3.4.
Unfortunately f3.4 doesn't create much in the way of bokeh - not as bad using the marco setting depending on background. I use that lens as a straight up - stopped down on or near near infinity landscape lens - it's too hard to focus as an all around lens though with enough exercise I'm sure it could be used as one.
That image is a good assessment of that lens at f3.4 - after further review the one above with the agave & rock is front focused a bit - it was the only one I had available at 3.4.
I'm sometimes fooling with a polarizer or GND's on the lens, fussing with the filter adjustments and focusing which pushes the telescoping barrel back or moves the focus ring a bit. I use a simple technique of extending my middle grip finger and pressure the inside barrel and my fingernail on the outside barrel. Though I use a tri or monopod fairly often it is especially helpful when hand holding.
Some time ago in another thread someone mentioned that the 35-70 Contax did a poor job of displaying different shades of green, which got me a little worried since I love the look of diverse foilage. Not worried any more now I got the lens.
Agree dcmiller - WB effectively trades off red/blue balance, with greens the victim of gross error, This depends on photographic intention of course; shadowed foliage can be very attractive with 'cyan' greens and this is how greens readily appear in such light.
IMHO greens were difficult for digital cameras to get close to reality (as opposed to technical accuracy), and this has much to do with in-camera colour processing systems. Another big influence will be the nature of the light and in this respect this CZ lens should work well due to its excellent shape definition - ability to depict tonal changes within subtle light variations.
Sharpness wide open of the 35-70 can be expected to be a mixed bag - centre frame MTF is very high at f3.5 at all FLs but falls away after 5-7mm from centre. Subjects with strong centre presence will therefore convey high sharpness, others less so.
Well, based on all the answers above about wide open sharpness, either I need to work on my technique, or my lens is a dud. Any way a lens could be poor wide open but fully satisfactory from f:5.6 down?
IMO, it is pretty decent wide open in the regular mode, especially at the 70mm end. However in macro mode, it seems I need to go down to about f/5.6 for good IQ.
I see them on eBay now for $700+. 
