contax zeiss?

A

astigmatic

Well-known member
Old Contax zeiss lenses seem to be going for good prices on the used market. Any reason not to go this route? They seem to be cheaper than new nikon or canon zeiss.. plus they focus the correct direction unlike the nikons... Should I be concerned if I buy these lenses?
 
They are lovely but for my 5DM2 I needed to get the rear aperture levers removed because they rubbed against the electronic contacts mount at the bottom of the lens opening.
 
astigmatic said:
really.. so you can't contral aperture now? do you think it'll be a problem with the 7d?
Click to expand...

The aperture levers were used for mechanically operated automatic aperture control. They protrude from the lens mount, unlike the modern electronic contacts.

The aperture ring on the lens functions perfectly fine if the levers on the mount are removed competently.
 
A) If you plan on keeping glass for a long time, get the new Zeiss lenses. They're just all-in-all better than Contax Zeiss and will retain resale value much longer. Especially after the Zeiss.2 Nikon lenses are released, along with the new Zeiss glass this coming year.

B) If you do go Contax Zeiss, get the fastest you can. The slower ones won't be worth much in the coming year or two, and they're slow.
 
okay cool the manual aperture control still works. thanks.

I don't plan on keeping them forever, just maybe for the next couple years. And I don't want to new zeiss now, especially if there's going to be an update later this year.

I have my eye on the 28 f/2.0, 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 .. i'm assuming those are the ones to get?
 
The point was that contax zeiss will be worth much less come next year and the new lineup is being expanded.

The 28/2 contax zeiss is great... If you find a pristine copy with floating element in tact. A drop or sharp jar will knock it out and usually secknd hand copies are busted.

The 85/1.4 is great... Make sure your copy doesn't have gunked up blades or in a few months time they will stick and become uselEss.

He 50/1.4 is relatively decent used, a workhorse. Try to get one that looks close to new since the frot element will rotate clean off if it's been abused.

Just more reasons to buy new.
 
Kholi said:
The point was that contax zeiss will be worth much less come next year and the new lineup is being expanded. ... Just more reasons to buy new.
Click to expand...

Hmm. That remains to be seen. I hope you are right. Maybe I will get that CY 21/2.8 Distagon that I have had me eye on for $500.00? What do you think?

Let's see ... B&H lists the 21/2.8 ZF for $1,490.00, the 21/2.8 ZF.2 for $1,732.00, (there was a price increase you know), and the 21/2.8 ZE for $1,540.00.

Meanwhile, KEH has the "old" CY 21/2.8's for only $1,429.00 to $1,799.00.

The point is: quality glass will normally hold its value, especially the legendary lenses like the 21/2.8.
 
The legendary 21/2.8 is only sold for so much because people consider it a collectors item. It is indeed OLD and has no camera to be adapted to without an additional adapter which makes it an antique. I wouldn't doubt that the 21/2.8 in my posession is particularly better than its older brother and will sell faster than it as well. Being that it's completely adaptable to a Nikon body sans adapter. This the same for ZE and the ZF.2s.

For the record, I also own a near-to-complete set of Zeiss Contax. They are inferior mechanically and visually but have their own flare. If I were choosing today Which set to invest in it would be the future, not the past.

Again, for qualIty control and value retention.

P.S. Take a chance and ask KEH reps how many 21/2.8 ze or zfs they move versus those two 21/2.8 c/ya they've had for years.
 
Kholi said:
For the record, I also own a near-to-complete set of Zeiss Contax. They are inferior mechanically and visually but have their own flare.
Click to expand...

Well ... like I said, "I hope you are right." Hopefully, you will not take a massive "hair-cut" on your "near-to-complete" CY Zeiss investment when the market drops out "next year." However, if you wish to bail-out early, (read ... cheaply), please let me know when you are going to dump your CY's, since there are a lot of us sharks sitting around with cash.

Oh ... and for the record ... I shoot with not only CY's, but also ZF's, and ZE's on my 5DMkII and 7D, just in case you have excess inventory on hand.
 
Kholi said:
The point was that contax zeiss will be worth much less come next year and the new lineup is being expanded.

The 28/2 contax zeiss is great... If you find a pristine copy with floating element in tact. A drop or sharp jar will knock it out and usually secknd hand copies are busted.

The 85/1.4 is great... Make sure your copy doesn't have gunked up blades or in a few months time they will stick and become uselEss.

He 50/1.4 is relatively decent used, a workhorse. Try to get one that looks close to new since the frot element will rotate clean off if it's been abused.

Just more reasons to buy new.
Click to expand...

k, out of these 3 which one would you take..if you had only one to choose. price-wise the 50 is the cheapest on the used market.. around 300-350 bucks. The 28/2 going for about 800-900
.
 
astigmatic said:
k, out of these 3 which one would you take..if you had only one to choose. price-wise the 50 is the cheapest on the used market.. around 300-350 bucks. The 28/2 going for about 800-900
.
Click to expand...

28/2 or the 35/1.4

85/1.4 would be after either of those.

50/1.4 would be the last lens I purchased.

You could shoot an entire feature with a 35/1.4 or 28/2 and an 85/1.4.

Actually, here's the order I would purchase in:

28/2
85/1.4
35/1.4
135/2
50/1.4

For most applications and a cinematic aesthetic, the 28/2 will cover you. Lowlight with the 28/2 is still great when you want to run at 320 ISO or less, as well. The 85/1.4, when you pick it up, will get you some reach and be pretty damned fast. Then you go back to the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 to fill in the gap. I personally would take the 35 over the 50 but it depends on how you shoot.
 
Last edited:
I actually like how 35mm frames the best, but it's a cost thing with the 50 being more affordable. i'll consider the 35 more closely now, though..thanks
 
astigmatic said:
I actually like how 35mm frames the best, but it's a cost thing with the 50 being more affordable. i'll consider the 35 more closely now, though..thanks
Click to expand...


I'm with you. A great compromise would've been a 30mm you know? Only 30/1.4 I know if is a Sigma and well, that's not Zeiss! Haha

I think the 28/2's a good start, though. Certainly, however, I would not recommend beginning with a 50mm. The 28/2's close-focus is insane, as well, which will be cool for experimental compositions.


Two years ago DVXuser Ian Dudley sold THE best Zeiss Contax Collection I have ever seen... for 2500.00. I look back on that and kick myself in the face every time I think about it.

He had ALL of the best C/Y Glass in mint condition. Ouch.

Addendum: my next full set of glass will be slow-ass Takumars. =D
 
astigmatic said:
... The 28/2 going for about 800-900
.
Click to expand...

Be very careful about the 28/2 (aka the "Hollywood"). There have been problems reported with using it on 5D's. Luckily, I had the opportunity to try the copy that was offered to me. It hit the mirror on my 5D with a Cameraquest adapter. I didn't feel like doing surgery on either the lens or the mirror to make it work, so I got a ZF 28/2.0 instead.

Here is what they say at pebbleplace:

"Similar to the 18mm Distagon, in some cases a rear retaining ring holding the rear element in place will catch on the 5D’s mirror. A thicker adapter may resolve the problem, but may also compromise infinity focus. The problem has been reported with both AE and MM versions. The lens is reported to work fine with the 1.6x dSLRs ... "
 
Hey, I have the Zeiss 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85 f1.4. They are great. Same coatings, consistent look across the board and fast. I find absolutely no difference between shooting them and my Canon L lenses (35f1.4 and 50f1.4) in terms of sharpness. In fact I don't think you need any more sharpness for video anyway. Perhaps even the opposite according to Barry in order to avoid aliasing. I think the difference between them and the new Zeiss glass is probably increased contrast (which again is not necesarily a plus when shooting video if you want to retain hightlights) and the quality of the bokeh. I suspect the newer glass is probably more pleasing on this level.
I also like that the the old 35/1.4 because it is faster than the newer offering.
The most recent lens I have added is the Zeiss M42 35mm f2.4 Flektogon. Simply amazing. 100 euros. Sharp, close focusing (macro) is at 19 cm, less vignetting than other 35's and it is so small and light that what you lose in aperture speed you gain in being able to hand hold at slower speeds.

For $1250, I have a great set of Zeiss lenses.
 
ftbt said:
"Similar to the 18mm Distagon, in some cases a rear retaining ring holding the rear element in place will catch on the 5D’s mirror. A thicker adapter may resolve the problem, but may also compromise infinity focus. The problem has been reported with both AE and MM versions. The lens is reported to work fine with the 1.6x dSLRs ... "
Click to expand...

oops, too late, lol, already purchased..I think I shoulda gone the 35mm 1.4 instead..oh wells.

Isn't the 7d 1.6x? if so it should work right? I'll update this once I get a chance to try it.

So I think my next puchase is the 85, then finding a really wide to complete the threesome.
 
yoclay said:
Hey, I have the Zeiss 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85 f1.4. They are great. Same coatings, consistent look across the board and fast. I find absolutely no difference between shooting them and my Canon L lenses (35f1.4 and 50f1.4) in terms of sharpness. In fact I don't think you need any more sharpness for video anyway. Perhaps even the opposite according to Barry in order to avoid aliasing. I think the difference between them and the new Zeiss glass is probably increased contrast (which again is not necesarily a plus when shooting video if you want to retain hightlights) and the quality of the bokeh. I suspect the newer glass is probably more pleasing on this level.
I also like that the the old 35/1.4 because it is faster than the newer offering.
The most recent lens I have added is the Zeiss M42 35mm f2.4 Flektogon. Simply amazing. 100 euros. Sharp, close focusing (macro) is at 19 cm, less vignetting than other 35's and it is so small and light that what you lose in aperture speed you gain in being able to hand hold at slower speeds.

For $1250, I have a great set of Zeiss lenses.
Click to expand...

not bad at all for 1250.. you must have found a great deal on the 35
 
astigmatic said:
oops, too late, lol, already purchased..I think I shoulda gone the 35mm 1.4 instead..oh wells. ... I'll update this once I get a chance to try it.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't work (after trying a couple different adapters) let me know and I will point you in the direction of a guy that does lens modifications and custom mounts. I know he does EOS mounts ... the only bad thing is that I think once he does the mount modification, it is irreversible. If it is just the aperture lever or shroud, you might be able to file it down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top