Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > 35mm Film Range Finders > Zeiss Contax

Zeiss Contax Forum for the classic Zeiss Contax I, II, III, IIa, IIIa , G series, and if you want to push it, the nice Contax point and shoots. Some spill over from the Kievs, the Soviet copy of the Contax II/III can also be expected. Plus the ONLY production camera ever made in classic Zeiss Contax Rangefinder mount WITH TTL metering ... the Voigtlander Bessa R2C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 01-22-2012   #26
slungu
Registered User
 
slungu is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 41
Posts: 52
Thanks for the hints guys. I also had the Contax G 90/2.8 on the NEX, but found it flimsy to focus with the adapter ( didn't try the Metabones one ). Also, I would rather keep only one legacy mount to the NEX, and that would be the M-mount, just in case the next generation of NEX cameras does not support WA lenses that good and I have to switch to Ricoh.
I think I should have specified this, but I when I was asking about the 85/2 Sonnar, I was thinking about the old Sonnar for Contax rangefinders, to be adapted with and Amedeo adapter, not the ZM 85/2 that is out of the question.

Regards, Stefan
__________________
RF: Roland 6x4.5 with 2.7 Plasmat
Fuji GW690
Digi: NEX-3 with ZM35/2.0, Elmar-C 90/4
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #27
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,301
I've only used three rangefinder 90's. M-HEX.. great lens and has slide out lens hood. Contax-G.. Great lens, but not such a great choice when focusing with the NEX adapters. Leica 90mm f/2.0 APO ASPH .. the sharpest and largest of the bunch.

The NEX E-Mount 50mm f/1.8 gets rave reviews.. and considering the mediocre E-Mounts out there..this is good. Supply should loosen up soon.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-22-2012   #28
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7
The most coveted portrait lens on earth today?

The helios 40--one stop at fred miranda will tell you that.
And for good reason, it's a magic lens.
Seconded:


(And on a Nikon, too )
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #29
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 33
Posts: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by slungu View Post
... and I have to switch to Ricoh.
if you stick to SLR lenses, like Leica-R or Minolta MD, there are adapters to use it on the Ricoh, too.

Well, and here comes my recommendation: Minolta 85/1.7 for a smooth rendering, 85/2 for exceptional performance at f2.

I also have the Hexanons and have a hard time deciding between the 90/2.8 Hex and the 85/2 Minolta, both superb lenses, but the latter one being a bit smaller and lighter and of course a stop faster.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #30
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamenS View Post
Controversial ? Yes - that's what I was saying. If you are going to include a 75mm lens as a portrait and exclude a 135mm as a "classic portrait lens" that would certainly be a controversial viewpoint. The 3 most common portrait focal lengths (the "classics") are the high speed 85mm (often a 90mm on Rangefinders, sometimes - though far less often - an 80mm or a 90mm on an SLR), 105 and 135 lenses (Nikon's Defocus Control Lenses are available as a 105mm or a 135mm).

I don't know why we are bringing up 135mm lenses being hard to focus (or "couple" ) on a rangefinder when - to the best of my knowledge - none of the Sony Nex series or the Ricoh GXR are rangefinders, so it is an entirely irrelevant point . Your belief that a 90mm is not a portrait lens when it is on a crop camera is what we are discussing.

Maybe you are saying few people use 135mm lenses on a rangefinder due to this difficulty and that this somehow proves it is an inappropriate focal length for portraiture ? In which case, the SLR world say "Hello" to you.

I'm not sure if you even read the quote by Leica that you posted, but what they are saying is that on a Leica M8 (1.3x crop factor), the 75mm lens becomes equivalent to (replaces) the 90mm focal length which is often used as a portrait lens. This has not been in dispute by either of us ... 90mm is an appropriate focal length for portraiture (along with the other "classic portrait focal lengths" of 75mm,85mm,105mm and 135mm). This is simple history, though it may be of greater familiarity to somebody who knows something of SLR's rather than just Rangefinders.

At least you now acknowledge that ANY lens can be used as portraiture, which is radically different from your prior (erroneous assertion) that a 135mm equivalent is "well beyond a portrait FOV" ...



... which is simply what I corrected you on. So, it appears we are now in agreement.

PS - Leica has their Apo 135mm lens, so that would be the latest "Leica 135mm portrait lens" - not that that is of any relevance to this discussion, but you asked the question, so ...
I really was not trying to be nasty, but simply point out that 50s are fantastic portrait lenses on APS-C---and they are cheaper and faster too.

I shoot portraits with my 28 all the time, but I don't call it a portrait lens, nor would anyone else who works for a lens manufactuer.

However the distinction between the historical meaning of the term and the fact that you can shoot portraits with a 1500mm seems too much for modern thinkers.

I apologise. Feel free to smash your subjects faces flat with long lenses and consider it utterly normal.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #31
slungu
Registered User
 
slungu is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 41
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanzlr View Post
if you stick to SLR lenses, like Leica-R or Minolta MD, there are adapters to use it on the Ricoh, too.

Well, and here comes my recommendation: Minolta 85/1.7 for a smooth rendering, 85/2 for exceptional performance at f2.

I also have the Hexanons and have a hard time deciding between the 90/2.8 Hex and the 85/2 Minolta, both superb lenses, but the latter one being a bit smaller and lighter and of course a stop faster.
If I would take SLR lenses into consideration I would probably pick up either a Sonnar 85/2.8 as a lightweight version, or a Leica 90 Cron - I liked that lens very much, even if it was 1 stop slower than the 85 Planar that replaced it.
__________________
RF: Roland 6x4.5 with 2.7 Plasmat
Fuji GW690
Digi: NEX-3 with ZM35/2.0, Elmar-C 90/4
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #32
DamenS
Registered User
 
DamenS is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I really was not trying to be nasty, but simply point out that 50s are fantastic portrait lenses on APS-C---and they are cheaper and faster too.

I shoot portraits with my 28 all the time, but I don't call it a portrait lens, nor would anyone else who works for a lens manufactuer.

However the distinction between the historical meaning of the term and the fact that you can shoot portraits with a 1500mm seems too much for modern thinkers.

I apologise. Feel free to smash your subjects faces flat with long lenses and consider it utterly normal.

Except that I am on the "historical side" (75mm to 135mm are the "classic" portrait lengths) and you are saying that a 135mm is unsuitable:

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
It's a funny discussion, since as noted, the GXR has a 1.5x crop an hence 85s and esp 90s are well beyond a portrait FOV.
You can argue the minutia all you want about a 105mm being acceptable and "classic" for portraits, and 135mm being too long, but I would LOVE to play that game with you ... where does it switch ? 108mm is acceptable but 120mm isn't (115mm is borderline "classic" and 118mm is "Rennaisance" ?).

No one has mentioned 1500mm lenses (do you REALLY need to make ridiculous and spurious overstatements to cover the fact that your argument is worthless), but I have certainly mentioned 200mm and 300mm being used by portrait and fashion photographers. If you believe that "smashes subject's faces" then don't do it - but acknowledge other people (being paid very well to do this for a living) disagree with your "black and white"/"right and wrong" assessment. Maybe they know what they are doing even if it is different from what you would do ?
__________________
Konica Hexar AF, Fuji GW690III, Crown Graphic, Nikon 35ti
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #33
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
 
batterytypehah!'s Avatar
 
batterytypehah! is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I really was not trying to be nasty, but simply point out that 50s are fantastic portrait lenses on APS-C---and they are cheaper and faster too.

[...]

I apologise. Feel free to smash your subjects faces flat with long lenses and consider it utterly normal.
Maybe it's intentional, maybe not. The fact is you do come across as nasty in your posts, even when you claim to be apologizing. It's distracting and doesn't serve the discussion.
__________________
WANTED: Fujimoto/Lucky 70M negative carrier

“Hair-splitting, of course. But hey, it's a LEICA. Probably there are those who get excited about the colour of the hairs you split.” – Roger Hicks

Contax IIa + Leica IIIf + M3 (project) + Zorki-1 (project) + Fuji GS645 + FED-2 + Vitomatic II + Revue 400SE + Olympus XA + more + still more
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #34
slungu
Registered User
 
slungu is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 41
Posts: 52
I have not heard anything about the old Contax Sonnar lens. Would be interesting bcause they seem to be somehow not considered in the forums. The japanese variants of the Sonnars are, since those were available in LTM, but the Zeiss somehow is neglected. Maybe I should simply give it a try. Problem is, right now I ca not afford experiments, since buying and selling costs time and money

regards, Stefan
__________________
RF: Roland 6x4.5 with 2.7 Plasmat
Fuji GW690
Digi: NEX-3 with ZM35/2.0, Elmar-C 90/4
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #35
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,945
yes Japanese lenses often came with LTM-option, while legendary Zeiss, that was what everybody else copying, only Contax.

Amadeo adapter is highly regarded here in RFF, most Contax lenses work on correct adapter, except some wide ones.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #36
DamenS
Registered User
 
DamenS is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by batterytypehah! View Post
Maybe it's intentional, maybe not. The fact is you do come across as nasty in your posts, even when you claim to be apologizing. It's distracting and doesn't serve the discussion.

Thankyou. However it is pretty clear who and what he is. A "Troll" will start an argument for the sake of it, not acknowledge any flaws in that argument (no matter how clearly presented) and try to get people riled for maximum impact ... Hell, in another thread, he even tried resorting to reversing things completely and attributing MY arguments to himself and using them against me, whilst attributing his own argument to myself. At first I was upset (it was such a bizarre and unprecedented experience) but then I realised that it was a deliberate Troll (or someone acting as such to cover an irrational argument which their fragile Ego is unable to relinquish). He wants and needs attention - I've decided he won't get it. I do appreciate the support, but please don't bang your head againt a brick wall - he just is what he is and he probably can't even help it ... donations are surely accepted somewhere for this kind of "condition" ... I'm only just starting to learn (too late) that arguing with a dumb person is just, well, "dumb" !
__________________
Konica Hexar AF, Fuji GW690III, Crown Graphic, Nikon 35ti
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #37
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamenS View Post
Except that I am on the "historical side" (75mm to 135mm are the "classic" portrait lengths) and you are saying that a 135mm is unsuitable:
I implied 135mm was beyond the FL which is considered a "portrait lens"

I was wrong. Alot of people think 135 should be in there, and there are several specialized 135 portraits lenses.

Though I own 8 135s, including a soligor 135/2, I did not know this.

I was wrong

I was wrong

I was wrong

I was wrong

k?



Quote:
Originally Posted by batterytypehah! View Post
Maybe it's intentional, maybe not. The fact is you do come across as nasty in your posts, even when you claim to be apologizing. It's distracting and doesn't serve the discussion.
Was meant as humor, sorry.

I do think the idea that a portrait lens is any lens you shoot a face with is ridiculous.

I find it interesting that those most infuriated by my comments seem to have offered no suggestions whatever to the OP. Call me what you want, but I thought about his questions and answered it with a number of suggestions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #38
roboflick
Registered User
 
roboflick is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by slungu View Post
Hello everybody,

I am searching for a nice portrait lens for my NEX actually, maybe to be used with a M-mount GXR. So things like rangefinder focusing are not an immediate issue. I was contemplating either the Zeiss 85/2 Sonnar with adapter or the thin Leica Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8. Any opinions ?

Regards, Stefan
I bought a jupiter 9 from fedka.com for around 100 dollars, beautiful lens with nice multicoatings and fully serviced, no focus play and beautiful glass. Beautiful sharp portraits with superb bokeh and isolation of the subject.

I no longer have any desire for the zeiss lens. not for 5 times the price You wont get that silky feel of focus and magnificent german build quality however. But it is 90 percent there, in build and 100 percent there optically

Nik
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2012   #39
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
 
batterytypehah!'s Avatar
 
batterytypehah! is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I do think the idea that a portrait lens is any lens you shoot a face with is ridiculous.

I find it interesting that those most infuriated by my comments seem to have offered no suggestions whatever to the OP. Call me what you want, but I thought about his questions and answered it with a number of suggestions.
I've already told you in the other thread what I think about your latest remarks.

And no, you did most certainly not answer the OP's question, at any point. He was asking about 85/90 lenses and explained that he was aware of the crop factor and liked it, but that didn't keep you from veering off on your own little crusade for the one true portrait lens. You have some nerve to be playing the victim now.
__________________
WANTED: Fujimoto/Lucky 70M negative carrier

“Hair-splitting, of course. But hey, it's a LEICA. Probably there are those who get excited about the colour of the hairs you split.” – Roger Hicks

Contax IIa + Leica IIIf + M3 (project) + Zorki-1 (project) + Fuji GS645 + FED-2 + Vitomatic II + Revue 400SE + Olympus XA + more + still more
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2012   #40
David Murphy
Registered User
 
David Murphy's Avatar
 
David Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: California
Age: 58
Posts: 2,149
The Tele Elmarit is a nice lens, compact and light, but somewhat prone to glass problems (haze). The 80mm F2 Sonnar for Contax rangefinder is a masterpiece of optical and mechanical engineering (there are pre-and post-war versions, the prewar versions are uncoated, but still pretty damn good). A worthy alternative to the Sonnar is the 85mm F2 Nikon lens. Nikon and Contax RF mount versions of the Nikkor 85/2 exist, and are not too hard to find.

None of these lenses are inexpensive, but they are worth the money!
__________________
Contax IIIa, Canon L1, Leotax S, Bessa R2C, Konica Autoreflex T, Canon Ftb QL, Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta SRT-101, Nikon F, Exakta VX, Miranda Automex II, Leotax K, Yashica Mat LM

http://legacycamera.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2012   #41
Elmar Lang
Registered User
 
Elmar Lang's Avatar
 
Elmar Lang is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Italy
Posts: 164
Hello,

being myself a Contax/Kiev enthusiast, in my opinion the best results can be obtained with the Sonnar 85/2 (a red "T" postwar Jena or a western "Zeiss Opton" one, would be the best -although expensive- choice). I've had very fine results with the Jupiter-9: my one was made in 1960 and I own it since 1978.

In the 42x1 range, I've found as highly effective the Zeiss Jena Pancolar 80 1,8; a lens that's uncommon to find, but never too expensive (although lately, such DDR and USSR lenses' prices are increasing...).

Best wishes,

E.L.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-04-2013   #42
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 34
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramosa View Post
Most recent version Elmarit 90. Why Leica ever discontinued it, I will never understand.
Probably because of the APO Summicron 90/2, it's all business. The latest Elmarit M seems to be as good as the APO. They just want more purchases of the APO? I wonder...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:51.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.