Questions on Mixed Contax + Jena Zeiss Set. + Nikon, Pentax etc Questions

Jackson Miller

Well-known member
Ok, so I need some help. I sold my 5d a while ago for a GH1 which should get here tomorrow. GH1 has a 2x crop factor.

I have red a TON about alt lenses over the past year but it all gets blurred together sometimes. I'm essentially thinking that I need a 24mm, a 35mm, and a 50mm to get a set that would be a 48, 70, 100mm equivalent. Obviously there is a hole on the wide end but all the alt glass that is wider than that just seems too pricey for me right now. For projects that I NEED a wide on I will rent the excellent 11-16mm until I can buy one or a prime. So if there is a cheaper (ultra) wide option you are aware of please let me know.

I would like a closely matched set for the 3 other primes because I need them to edit together well. I would also prefer if the focus wheels spun the same directions. I was thinking that I would get either a set of manual Pentax, Nikon, or Olympus lenses and was leaning towards the Pentax. Now though, I am thinking I'd really like to work towards having a set of zeiss contax lenses in the long term (for if I move back to canon or another system) because they have almost the exact same glass as the ZF/ZE's. As cheaper temporary lenses which I hope look similar to the contax zeiss, I was considering some jena zeiss lenses. So here is what I am thinking:

1) 28mm Contax Zeiss f2.8 - longer than 24mm so I'm not sure. If I can find a cheaper 20 or 21 mm later it could be ok. Can't seem to find it for less than $325ish plus shipping.
2) 35mm Jena Zeiss f2.4 - Originally wanted the contax version but it is 2.8 and more $. I saw adam recommended this lens and thought It might match well. Found prices between 150 and 250 but the cheaper ones say that the focus ring is "slightly gritty." Can't find anything in between those prices.
3) 50mm Jena Zeiss f1.8 ($100 ish) OR Pentax 1.4 (takumar or SMC) OR any other cheap 50mm that has a look close to zeiss and can hold me off until I purchase the contax 50mm 1.4.

The thing is that I could get cheaper and probably faster glass if I went Nikon, Pentax, or Oly, plus I'd be able to get a 24mm instead of 28. For example I could get a set of 24mm f2.8, 35 f1.4(!!), and 50mm f1.4 Nikon for (well) under 600. Can I justify getting the slower zeiss set for more? Sigh. Ok so I guess I will sum up the questions I have below so that anyone kind enough to help out can answer more easily:

1) Any good super cheap, ultra wide options I may not know about and what does the image look like compared to other lenses for cutting together?
2) How do the Contax Zeiss compare to the Jena Zeiss!? There is sooo little info on this. Most important, will they cut together well? In general I should go for the zebra jenas right?
3) Which dirrection do the focus wheel's turn on the following lens (answer all you can): Pentax, Zeiss, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, any others you know.
4) Can you describe the relative "looks" of the lenses I am interested in? I know this is a bit hard, but, for example, which would look most and least like the zeiss? I am assuming Petax SMC would look more zeiss like than the takumars? What do nikons look like comparatively? Do any of the lenses look a lot like each other but not like the zeiss?
5) Based on all this, what specific and or general recommendations would you give me?
6) What I have been doing is just looking on ebay and keh. I need to buy at least one or two of the lenses SOON. Is it worth looking up local camera stores? I am in so cal and hour from LA but it is impractical for me to go farther than 10 miles or so. Would the deals be cheaper?


Thank you SOOOOO much if you read and answered. Please do. I have done lots of research and even looked at flickr samples of many lenses but after a while they all look the same.
 
1) Any good super cheap, ultra wide options I may not know about and what does the image look like compared to other lenses for cutting together?

The only inexpensive vintage ultrawide that I am aware of is the Zenitar fisheye 16mm f2.8. Comes in various mounts and has reduced barrel distortion on 2x crop sensor. An alternative would be the Canon FD 15 f2.8 but at a different price range.

If you ever consider Canon FDs (not optimal for EOS but great and very cinematic on micro four thirds) I have a fast set for sale that covers most of the focal lengths you are looking for and that should be matched together quite well.

Regarding the direction of focusing, for what brands you mention, if I am not wrong only Nikon focuses in the opposite direction. The other focus like the Canons. But I don't have any experience with Minoltas.
 
The only inexpensive vintage ultrawide that I am aware of is the Zenitar fisheye 16mm f2.8. Comes in various mounts and has reduced barrel distortion on 2x crop sensor. An alternative would be the Canon FD 15 f2.8 but at a different price range.

If you ever consider Canon FDs (not optimal for EOS but great and very cinematic on micro four thirds) I have a fast set for sale that covers most of the focal lengths you are looking for and that should be matched together quite well.

Regarding the direction of focusing, for what brands you mention, if I am not wrong only Nikon focuses in the opposite direction. The other focus like the Canons. But I don't have any experience with Minoltas.

Hmmm. I looked into the fisheye and people seem to think it is too fisheye-y and I think the distortion is a little too much for what I want.

How about the Minolta 17mm f3.5? It's around $150. It may have to do. The focus ring spins in the right direction. I'm having trouble finding anything else. But people say this lens is ood, just obviously a bit slow. Sheesh this is hard. With my 5d I had a canon 28mm 1.8. That was so much easier.
 
I think limiting yourself to vintage lenses for your wide-angle needs does not really give you a lot of options to choose from. Is there a reason you are not considering either native MFT primes like Oly 17/f2.8 or the upcoming Panny 14/f2.5 or the excellent fast four thirds zooms like the Oly 11-22/f2.8-3.5, 14-54/f2.8-3.5, 12-60/f2.8-4 or even the 14-35/f2 ?
 
(1) I don't have the money and you get much more bang for your buck with old lenses, (2) Old lenses are manual which is good for film making (I got sick of my canon primes really fast because of how they focused), (3) I need something to match up with my other primes I will have, and (4) I prefer something that can be used with other cameras if it is way expensive. Thanks though. I guess I will just get one of the 17mm 3.5's until I can afford the tokina 11-16.

Btw I bought a Contax 50mm 1.4 so I guess I am going zeiss. Now looking for a Jena 35mm 2.4.

EDIT: Decided to just get the 20mm 1.7 pancake lens after all.
 
Last edited:
2) 35mm Jena Zeiss f2.4 - Originally wanted the contax version but it is 2.8 and more $. I saw adam recommended this lens and thought It might match well. Found prices between 150 and 250 but the cheaper ones say that the focus ring is "slightly gritty." Can't find anything in between those prices.

Just need to point out that the distinction made here with regards to the "Contax version" - the 35mm f/2.4 Jena lens has no relationship whatsoever to the Contax Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 - they are totally different animals. Lots of folks like the Jena 35mm f/2.4 Flek but it's not a variant of the Distagon, it's its own animal entirely. If you want what people think of as the "Zeiss" look, Zeiss sharpness/color/3-dimensionality/microcontrast, lack of CA, you are going to be largely disappointed with Jena lenses - they aren't bad, but they aren't the real deal.

Check out Zeiss lenses in Rollei SL35/QBM mount, you can often find them for even less than the Contax versions on eBay, you just have to be patient as there are fewer of them available - but the 50mm f/1.7 often goes for very little and you can usually find good deals on the 25/2.8, 28/2.8 and 35/2.8.
 
I am REALLY glad you told me that. I knew there were differences and I knew that the contax were better but I litterally scoured the internet trying to find specifically what the differences were and NO ONE could or would tell me. I am also really glad that I was JUST outbid on the jena version so now I don't have to buy it. But 2.8 still seems slow on a GH1 since I am used to 1.8 on a 5d. If you could elaborate on the pros of the contax/rollei versions I would really appreciate it. Many of the rollei ebay ones actually seem to be really expensive but I did find one good deal. I still kinda wanted to go with the jena because I have no money but do you think the "real" zeiss one is worth an extra 50-100 bucks? I'm guessing so.

(passage of time)

Haha, while I was writing this I ended up taking heed of what you told me. I found a single rollei zeiss 35 2.8 distagon in near mint condiditon and used buy it now for $250 with free shipping. That seemed like a good deal to me! So now I've got a "genuine" zeiss 35m 2.8, and a contax zeiss 50mm 1.4 coming in the mail plus a 20mm 1.7 pancake. Came out to $800 total. I wanted to only spend 500. 600 was ok. Haha. Oh well.

Now the only thing I am nervous about is that I am not to sure I actually LIKE the "zeiss look." In your experience is it possible to make the footage warm and vibrant if need be in post? I'm a bit worried. It just seems like some of the shots I see with rokkors and takumars look more interesting. Well we'll see I guess!
 
Back
Top