Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

contax RF lenses on leica and m4/3--expertise sought
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thanks attila. i definitely would be interested if i could find a 35mm zeiss contax rf lens that would work on m4/3. we will see if such a lens exists!
tony


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
thanks attila. i definitely would be interested if i could find a 35mm zeiss contax rf lens that would work on m4/3. we will see if such a lens exists!
tony


Sounds like a no on 35mm adpation.
I've never used a M4/3 camera. Having others now chime in that the J12 will not work means that non of the Zeiss originals or Russian copies of Contax 35mm FL lenses will work.
If your main interest is to use one on a 2x crop camera I'm not sure it's worth the effort anyway to speak frankly. For larger formats a different story.
The biggest benefit of the biogon over other 35mm lenses is corner performance and low distortion.
You could easily shoot a biogon 35 next to a CV 2.5/35 on a 2x crop and it would be very difficult if even possible to tell the two apart.
The CV f.25/35mm is super contrasty and has fabulous 3D. It's the best value in 35mm RF lenses by a huge margin (dollar wise).

One last tidbit for you even though you are mostly only interested in Zeiss.
I did shoot my Nikkor f1.4/50mm next to my Zeiss Opton f1.5/50 for a short portrait test set and then later on the bench (both sonnars).
There was almost no separation between the two lenses. The zeiss was the tiniest bit sharper on center at wide open. Focus errors or motion would almost always cover any difference between the 2 it was so small.
The Nikkor sonnar is LTM, cost about the same, and has little to no focus shift when stopping down.
Lesser price and no need to adapt it.... it's probably a better choice.
Amedeo adapters are great for folks who already own big Contax RF collections or for film shooters who must have the original Zeiss but want to use their Leica M to shoot it.

I sold my entire Zeiss RF set and adapter after getting a set of LTM nikkors.
It would have been great to keep them as they had sentimental value but, they sat unused.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thats great information andy, thank you. i defintely want one or two nikons in my collection, so i appreciate your thoughts on how it compares to the zeiss.
tony


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Adapter on EVIL cameras or M4/3 cameras is not a problem, you focus with the viewfinder,
you don't need the adapter to be precisely coupled with a rangefinder - because in those cameras there is no rangefinder.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Adapter on EVIL cameras or M4/3 cameras is not a problem, you focus with the viewfinder,
you don't need the adapter to be precisely coupled with a rangefinder - because in those cameras there is no rangefinder.


That's true. No need to RF couple. You do still need a Helicoid for the 50mm lenses though.
I've never checked into Contax RF adapters for m4/3. Is there an inexpensive helicoid adapter?
The mount is the same as Nikon RF. Since you will focus from the screen you can buy s mount nikkors.
Often cheaper than LTM copies of the same model.
Curious now about what type of adapter will be coming for the new Fuji-X mount hmmmm Idea


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Adapter on EVIL cameras or M4/3 cameras is not a problem, you focus with the viewfinder,
you don't need the adapter to be precisely coupled with a rangefinder - because in those cameras there is no rangefinder.


yes orio, but my goal is to use these lenses on both my ep2 and my bessa T, so focusing etc needs to work properly on both for it to work for my purposes.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
thanks attila. i definitely would be interested if i could find a 35mm zeiss contax rf lens that would work on m4/3. we will see if such a lens exists!
tony


They are works with this adapter, what are not goes too deep into camera body like Jupiter-12. I recommend all Russians, they have unbeatable price/performance ratio and many of them very close or even better than genuine Zeiss. I have Zeiss and Russians both.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
Orio wrote:
Adapter on EVIL cameras or M4/3 cameras is not a problem, you focus with the viewfinder,
you don't need the adapter to be precisely coupled with a rangefinder - because in those cameras there is no rangefinder.


yes orio, but my goal is to use these lenses on both my ep2 and my bessa T, so focusing etc needs to work properly on both for it to work for my purposes.


Try with a Jupiter-8 (2/50 Sonnar clone), it costs little, and if you are not happy with the focus precision, you can switch to a used Summicron M without much money loss


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i have. the jupiter 50/2 works fine on the ep2 and the bessa, i just dont like it. in fact i just sold my J50/2 and 35/2.8 along with my fed 5...


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
i have. the jupiter 50/2 works fine on the ep2 and the bessa, i just dont like it. in fact i just sold my J50/2 and 35/2.8 along with my fed 5...


Then if you don't like the J8, do not even consider the old Zeiss Contax lenses. THey are the same type of lens.
My guess is you would be happier with some older Leica such as the old Summicron or the Elmar 3.5/50


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
rbelyell wrote:
i have. the jupiter 50/2 works fine on the ep2 and the bessa, i just dont like it. in fact i just sold my J50/2 and 35/2.8 along with my fed 5...


Then if you don't like the J8, do not even consider the old Zeiss Contax lenses. THey are the same type of lens.
My guess is you would be happier with some older Leica such as the old Summicron or the Elmar 3.5/50


oh, thats interesting. do you find those older zeiss RF lenses very different from the zeiss slr contax lenses, like the 50/1.4 or 85/1.4, or the zeiss contax G 35 or 45's? i really like all of those type rendering lenses...


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
Orio wrote:
rbelyell wrote:
i have. the jupiter 50/2 works fine on the ep2 and the bessa, i just dont like it. in fact i just sold my J50/2 and 35/2.8 along with my fed 5...


Then if you don't like the J8, do not even consider the old Zeiss Contax lenses. THey are the same type of lens.
My guess is you would be happier with some older Leica such as the old Summicron or the Elmar 3.5/50


oh, thats interesting. do you find those older zeiss RF lenses very different from the zeiss slr contax lenses, like the 50/1.4 or 85/1.4, or the zeiss contax G 35 or 45's? i really like all of those type rendering lenses...


What I meant is that the old Zeiss rangefinder lenses produce images that are obviously similar to their Russian clones,
so if you don't like the Russian clones, you will not like the Zeiss originals either.
The Jupiter-12 for instance is an exquisite lens in my point of view; if you don't like it, you will not like the Biogon 35 either.

About the Zeiss line of lenses, Zeiss changed their philosophy significantly after the commercial failure of the Contarex system.
All Zeiss lenses prior to, and including the, Contarex system, have a characteristic, that they opted for the most perfect possible planarity of field.
If you examine the MTFs of the Contarex lenses, you will find that many of them display a very constant graph from centre to the edges, or in other words,
their edge performance is remarkably similar to the centre performance.
The tradeoff of this choice was that the lenses produce images that have less contrast and "punch" compared to the Zeiss lenses from the early 70s onwards.
After the demise of the Contarex system, Zeiss for a couple of years did not have an own line of lenses and only produced lenses for the Rollei SL system.
These were nothing but the old Contarex designs updated to the new "feeling" of the 70s users which wanted more aggressive and contemporary images, more central sharpness, and much faster lenses.
So all the older Contarex designs started to be updated, in most cases by the same team who created the Contarex originals.
The Planar 1.4/85 became the very snappy, very micro-contrasted lens that we know today after it's makeover from the original Contarex 1.4/85 which was more "classic Zeiss/Leica" (less contrasted, with smoother bokeh).
The Distagon 2/35 was redesigned into the faster and snappier 1.4/35 that we know today.
Both these lenses premiered in the Rollei version and were ported over the Contax SLR line a couple of years later.
I am lucky enough to have been able to collect both these Rollei originals - unfortunately I was unable to find a Contarex 1.4/85 or 2/35 at a decent price. They now cost more than Summiluxes...
The Contax SLR line had a huge success in the 70s, and ironically, after that it was Leica's turn to have to update their imaging style, so both the new R lenses, and the second wave of M lenses, was updated optically to the new punchy, snappy, and micro-contrasted look of the Contax SLR lenses.
Leica fans will get mad at me, but sorrily for them, the reality is this, Leica started to copy the Zeiss lenses in the 30s (the Elmar is a Tessar copy), tried to also copy the 1.5/50 Sonnar but were unable until the 50s ( Wink Twisted Evil ) and finally again, copied the Contax SLR image characteristics with the R line of lenses.
Leica undoubtedly revoluzionized the world of portable cameras (although even in that case, they came in second, after Kodak...), but with regards to lenses, they always lagged behind Zeiss. Sorry Leicists! Laughing Wink


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great post Orio.

Interestingly, a lot of people say the Contarex 2/50 Planar is the best SLR lens of it's type ever made.

I prefer the older style look, my favourite lenses are things like the J-8 clone of the Sonnar 2/50, the Meyer Primotar 3.5/50, the Zeiss Cardinar 4/100, to my eyes I prefer their look to the modern faster punchier lenses, 3d pop and larger aperture shooting has always seem gimmicky to me and more about 'look at what my lens can do' than true artistic endeavour where composition and the overall image are first and foremost.

Just my personal tastes. It annoys me when people say 'the J-8 is crap' because it isn't like a modern lens in terms of 3d pop and other minor traits so I'm very happy you stated the case so eloquently. What is crap to some is gold to others, it's a matter of taste.

It would be nice to see pictorial examples of the earlier look from Zeiss and Leitz glass alongside examples of the modern counterparts but I don't think the OP wants the thread full of photos.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thank you orio. i guess it is the increased micro contrast of the zeiss contax/G lenses that i am drawn to. let me ask you this though, ive found that my leica summicron-m 40/2 renders very similarly to the zeiss's i like. am i crazy based on your understanding to feel this way? am i misinterperting this particular leica lens's rendering quality?


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Great post Orio.
Interestingly, a lot of people say the Contarex 2/50 Planar is the best SLR lens of it's type ever made.


Have you noticed my avatar? Wink

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It would be nice to see pictorial examples of the earlier look from Zeiss and Leitz glass alongside examples of the modern counterparts but I don't think the OP wants the thread full of photos.


Here you go, Contarex/Contax comparison of Planar 1.4/85 enjoy! :

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_Planar_85mm_1,4/00_pag.htm

(scroll down for the images - if you like to read the text, and you should, use a translator)

rbelyell wrote:
thank you orio. i guess it is the increased micro contrast of the zeiss contax/G lenses that i am drawn to. let me ask you this though, ive found that my leica summicron-m 40/2 renders very similarly to the zeiss's i like. am i crazy based on your understanding to feel this way? am i misinterperting this particular leica lens's rendering quality?


The Summicron-C 2/40 was built from 1973 to 1977, so the dates coincide perfectly with the new fashion of contrastier,
faster lenses that is typical of the 70s, and that in Europe was launched by Zeiss
(following the success of the new wave of sharper Nikkor optics in the late 60s, which basically did blow away both Zeiss and Leica in the sales).


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
orio, youre up late! Laughing you must be getting ready for those lovely langorous italian summer nights....

thank you for your help. i think ive got a good idea of what i should be looking for now.
tony


PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers Orio, I'll check it out. I hadn't noticed the avatar. The Planars are a bit out of my budget but I do have a Biotar T 2/58 and a Pancolar 1.8/50 zebra, and I like em both, they have character.

I'll take a look at the comparisons.

One of my particular penchants is for early Japanese SLR lenses - Petris, Mirandas, Topcors, Konishirokus. I suppose they were trying to copy the contemporary German SLR lenses so without realising it I was preferring the older style look through the older Japanese copies. Then again, the Topcors and Konishirokus are pretty good in microcontrast and can have a good deal of 3d dimensionality.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2