contax RF lenses on leica and m4/3--expertise sought

[rbelyell]

as i am selling much gear i do not use any longer, my focus is turning to leica ltm/m mount for film and m4/3 for digital. i have several leica lenses, but am thinking about getting some zeiss to round out the collection, and because i really like zeiss. the new zeiss ZM lenses are out because i just dont want to pay that kind of money when i havent paid more than $400 for leica and cv lenses i totally love and would find hard to outperform.

so my gaze is turning towards somehow adapting contax rf/nikon s lenses to BOTH leica film cams and m4/3 cams. in particular i am wondering if in general using a contax rf>m39 adapter will engage rangefinder coupling on leica m mount cams like my bessa t. on the digital side, i am curious if any of the 35mm FL zeiss contax RF lenses, ie the biogon or the planar, will fit on m4/3 without damaging the sensor, as their backs seem to protrude more than average. i'm not sure if the adapter is thick enough to capture the excess without unduly threatening the cameras insides.

thanks for your help!
tony

[iangreenhalgh1]

What about some of the Russian M39 and Contax/Kiev fit lenses?

The early 1950s red P lenses are superb and oh so cheap, the Jupiter-12 is a copy of the Biogon 35mm, the Jupiter-8 is a copy of the 2/50 Sonnar, the J-9 is a copy of the 2/85 Sonnar and the J-11 is a copy of the 4/135 Sonnar, all are superb.

There are also the Industars which are Tessar/Elmar copies, the I-22 and I-50 collapsibles are copies of the 3.5/50 Elmar and extremely sharp, the I-26M is a copy of the 2.8/50 Tessar.

I love my 1955 red P J-8, it's a stunning lens and my 1959 I-50 collapsible which is incredibly sharp and beautifully made from solid chromed brass.

[ForenSeil]

I heard that there are working adapters from Contax RF to Leica - but they are very expensive (~200€).
I'm not sure if the old Contax RF lenses are able to fullfill your optical demands. Maybe it would be a step down for you.
I've never tested an original Contax RF lens one to tell you how good they are compared to for example Contax G lenses but I have two Jupiter-8 which are nearly crap compared to my more modern 45/2 Contax G Planar etc.

Carl Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 as well as Jupiter 12 copy (which has very mixed reviews bye the way - I guess there's a lot quality spreading as with most of these Russian copys) are not useable on digital mirroless cameras as far as I know.

To correct Ian a little: Old Industar 50 copied only the casing of the Elmar 50/3.5 but optically they are different as far as I know. But good copys are able to outperform the original Elmar accoring to several reviews.

My recommendation is to start saving money for used ZM lenses.

[rbelyell]

thanks to both of you.

Forensail: have you heard of the contax RF 35mm zeiss planar? it seems the back of that lens doesnt protrude as much as the biogon?

[ForenSeil]

[fotomachi]

[std]

I fully agree with ForenSeil - if you compare Contax G with Russian RF lenses you will think they are crap. I don't think that they posses some special qualities/character .. maybe except the Industar(Elmar copies).
Unfortunately i do not have direct experience with Contax RF lenses on mFT. Still the adapters are few times more expensive then the lenses and I cannot really justify the cost.

[fotomachi]

βάρβαροι

[std]

[fotomachi]

[std]

I still don't get it - sorry.
I think it is not polite and doesn't speak of good manners to call someone barbarian .. even in ironic sense - whatever that means.

[rbelyell]

i appreciate everyones comments. i have used many russian lenses, some better than others, some quite good, but honestly did not want to involve them here because i do not find the quality of RF offerings to be what i want. i appreciate and respect different opinions, but i am not going that way with my collection.

i really have a nice RF lens setup right now, and as i tried to say above, ive made the decision to add zeiss lenses specifically to my kit because i specifically want zeiss rendering. i am just looking for the best way to accomplish that in terms of price and compatibility with both RF film and m4/3, especially at the 35mm FL. i want to find a well priced dual compatible zeiss 35mm lens, and i'm just not sure if one exists. the new ZMs are about $800 or more, and thats about twice as much as i want to spend. can anyone help with that? would i have such a choice at 25 or 28mm?

[Selenium_27]

[ForenSeil]

Ever thought about Voigländer L39- and M lenses? For example Ultron 35/1.7 may fit both in price range and zeissish IQ you wan't.

Konica and Minolta also made several very good M39 and M lenses but I'm not sure about their price will fit into your budget.

Maybe you should ask your question in a Rangefindeforum - this forum is slighty sticked on SLR lenses

[F16SUNSHINE]

I think you Could buy an Amedeo adapter for leica M. $250 directly from Amedeo.
For years I had one and used my Opton set on my M5 and M8 also an RD1.
It works great with a few lenses not at all with others and, you will have RF coupling with the M cameras for lenses that adapt easily.
You could then adapt to M4/3 or Nex with an M adapter quite easily (another $100 or so I guess).
That's the adapter lenses are not as simple.

If you expect to save money buying old Contax RF lenses over the modern ZM offers be wary.
It used to be one could find a f1.5/50mm sonar for $100. Fact is I gave a couple of my spares away as they were not expensive when I got them.
A good copy of f1.5/50mm sonnar seems now to go for around $350-$400.
The 85mm f2 has always been expensive it typically will go between $450-$700 for an excellent example.
The 135mm f4 for around $100-$150 is the lesser expensive of the available lenses as is the f2/50mm which can still be found around $100.
21biogon, 35 biogon, will not adapt without major irreversible modification.


Forget about the Planar 35 for Contax RF. It's rare expensive and not very good for the effort required. The Planar 35mm f2 for the contax G series is excellent but not cheap and requires a different adapter that will not work on M mount cameras.

What it really get's down to is... do you want an eccentric and eventually expensive adapted system or do you really just want a 35mm ZM Biogon or 50mm planar/sonnar?
The money in the end after all adapters and are purchased will be a wash....

[rbelyell]

FS: yes, thank you, i do have two CV lenses i like very much, the skopar 25/4 and the color heliar 75/2.5, both great. i have leica 40, 50, 90 and 135, and a zeiss 135 contax rf. to be more explicit i want to trade/sell my leica 50 for the zeiss sonnar rf 50/1.5. and i would like a zeiss 25, 28 or 35mm, then a nikon in whatever FL i have left. i also want a serenar 100/2. then i will have a very nice sampling of top lenses throughout FLs, so that is my plan. i dont want to spend much more than $400 for any given lens in my plan.

andy, thanks as always, youre so knowledgeable in this area, so i appreciate your input. per above i do plan on getting a sonnar 50, and i actually have sern them in m39 mount once in a while. ive seen decent copies in contax rf mount for between $3-400. if i could get another zeiss in contax RF mount in say 35mm (that would also fit my m4/3), then it would make sense for me to buy the $200 contax RF>leica M or m39 adapter. if there are no 35mm contax RF mount zeiss lenses that will work on my m4/3 then i will just wait to find an m39 mount sonnar. do you know of any zeiss contax rf mount 35s that i could use on my m4/3? if not, i,ll settle for just the zeiss 50, and probably go for a nikon 35/2.5 m39...
thanks
tony

[F16SUNSHINE]

Well I love the Nikkor ltm f2.5/35 but, it's not anything like the Zeiss Biogon.
The nikkor shows a lot of coma at or near wide open. Also the lens has more barrel distortion.
I love it for holding highlights when shooting B+W film. It's a great lens but, not a biogon which is good or bad depending on what you want. .

I think for the most Zeiss look done inexpensively in L39 for m4/3 use you should look for Russians.
The Jupiter12 is a Biogon f2.8/35mm clone and when you find a good one they are superb.
The Jupiter3 f1.5/50mm is a Clone of the Sonnar f1.5/50mm and also is superb when you find a good one.
Most of the problems with russian ltm lenses are associated with focus compatibility when using real rangefinder.
On a mirror less you won't have this trouble. You also won't have the personality of the lenses as most of the "flaws'' are cropped away by the sensor.

I should add. Most of these Russian LTM lenses need adjustment to focus correctly on Leica standard rangefinders.
This is usually a matter of shimming the mount. I've had a couple good J3 lenses after shimming.
This has nothing to do with how they may perform on a mirror less digital where you focus via EVF. But you did mention using film cameras as well. So I bring it up.
There are a few tutorials online on how to shim the J3. Not sure about the j12

[ForenSeil]

As said this Biogon 35/2.8 does not work on mirrorless cameras because they hit the shutter when focused to infnity. Or did I miss something?

And lower quality is not only a problem of wrong RF coupling but also a problem of optical quality spreading.
I had several "identical" (2 J-8M, 2 J-3, 2 I-26, 2 I-50 and maybe even some more) Russian RF lenses on NEX and they were all slightly different in performance. Some of them nearly "dramatically". Overall I would says that older ones are often the better ones. They had a better quality control for glas and casing in earlyer years I guess.

I sold all my Jupiter to refund my Contax G series all except both J-8Ms as they are usable film loupes and would not give much money on selling and they would be maybe used if I had no much better Planar 45/2 and Minolta MD 50/2

I don't know how a medium/"normal" quality copy would compare to a Zeiss of the old Contax RF generation..

[Tedat]

[std]

True.. i even got an very old version of J12 for Kiev with different back element (with metal ring around the glass) but it is still too big to fit m4/3 and i guess will not fit Nex either.

[fotomachi]

[rbelyell]

yes, as i said, i have the jupiter, and i know it does not fit m4/3. my question was whether there was any zeiss 35mm FL in contax rf mount that would work properly on both m4/3 and leica cameras? i appreciate everyones help, but i have no interest in russian lenses--i have and am presently selling most of them! i really just am trying to get our experts knowledge on any possible zeiss contax rf lenses in 35mm FL to use on both m4/3 and leica. i am coming to the conclusion that no such lens exists...

[Orio]

What I can tell you is that when I use my Sonnars 1.5/50 with Amedeo's excellent quality adapter, I always have to make compensation
adjustments to the focusing.
Whether this is due to the Sonnar's well known focus shift, to an imprecision of Amedeo's adapter thickness, or both, it remains to be seen.
I suspect it's a combination of both, but I can not really say a final word on that.
In any case, if you'd like my very personal opinion: I think that the older lenses (those for Contax II/III and Kiev IV) are better stayed with their original cameras.
Unless you use them on an EVIL camera, that is. With EVILs you focus on the LCD, so rangefinder precision is not an issue anymore.
True rangefinders can be tricky beasts to focus, you don't have the visual feedback of a mirror or LCD. You need to rely on the lens-rangefinder's couple precision.
If that precision is off, even slightly, getting good focus can become desperately tricky.
I seem to remember that you have a M8, so you're in my same situation: you have a true digital rangefinder.
For M8 / M9 users, I think that buying native M bayonet lenses is a must. I wouldn't even trust 100% the L39 lenses with official adapters.
Although they are pretty safe, I wouldn't trust them 100% for focal lenghts longer than 28mm.
(Under 28mm, the possible tolerance shift of the adapter becomes irrelevant)
So ultimately my advice for your M8 is to stay and stick with:
- Leica M lenses
- Voigtlaender M lenses
- Zeiss M lenses
It's not the most cost saving way, but hey, you don't buy an M8/M9 to compromise it with possible focusing tolerances of the lenses.
And, I think that most Voigtlaender lenses offer a great quality/price ratio even in the times when the wallet isn't really full.

[rbelyell]

orio thank you so much. the issue of misfocusing contax rf lenses on leica cameras is one i hadnt even thought about, but is quite critical.

unfortunately i do not have an m8. my digital camera is the olympus ep2 (soon to be the om-d). my rf camera is the bessa T. my plan is to develope a rf lens collection useable on both cameras. i presently have leica 40, 90 & 135mm, cv 25 and 75mm. i wanted to add zeiss 35 and 50mm, but the present cost of zm lenses is not what i want to pay, so my thoughts turned to adapting contax rf lenses to work on both cameras. it appears, regardless of focus issues, there are NO such 35mm FL zeiss rf lenses that will work properly on both cameras, so my only zeiss choice is the 50/1.5 sonnar...
tony

[Attila]

Charles , repair man who make everything to me , made Contax RF lens to SONY-NEX and same adapter to m4/3 , I did use NEX adapter no issue due all adapter made from genuine KIEV body mount part. Not cheap naturally, but very good quality , let me know if you are interest. I did try it out with many lenses all works perfectly, except J12 which is goo too deep into body.