Are Contax Zeiss lenses REALLY above the rest ??

[nianys]

I'm not against the concept of spending good money on a truly excellent fast prime. However, I'm wondering if the Zeiss glass is actually worth the premium ??
Any input would be much appreciated from people who've actually shot them.
I'm mostly thinking of a 50mm or (40ish) lens...

 

[RT_Panther]

Well...
My Contax G Zeiss lenses stay on my Contax G1......But I like 'em...

 

[kevistopheles]

Are you talking G lenses or the SLR lenses? I believe the G lenses require a significantly more expensive adapter and the 45/2.8 is around $500 used. I think there are other options that are equally good that you might also consider. For instance, if I wanted that compact form factor I'd be more inclined to look at Pen-F lenses (cheaper, very good and better close focus than most RF style lenses).

 

[nianys]

Are you talking G lenses or the SLR lenses? I believe the G lenses require a significantly more expensive adapter and the 45/2.8 is around $500 used. I think there are other options that are equally good that you might also consider. For instance, if I wanted that compact form factor I'd be more inclined to look at Pen-F lenses (cheaper, very good and better close focus than most RF style lenses).

I was thinking C/Y lenses..

 

[Luiz Curcino]

Hi, nianys

Well, this week I bought 3 lenses Carl Zeiss Contax G: Biogon 28/2.8, Planar 45/2 and 90/2.8 Sonar ... At the German site photodo.com puts scores of 4.7 to Planar and 4.6 Leica Summicron-M 50/2. The Biogon is as good as Leica-M 28/2.8. The Sonar 90/2.8 is as good as the Elmarit-M 90/2.8... I am selling the Leica 50/2 and 90/2.8 ... But see that this niche is expensive lenses ...

Now, there are other far cheaper lenses that are still good: Rokkor 24/2.8, 50/1.7 - some Zuiko, etc. for those who want to invest in both lenses ...

I'm very pleased with the Carl Zeiss Contax G. .. Have some older Carl Zeiss Gena Sonar as 135 and others Carl Zeiss but gives very mechanical problem... Do not buy more.

Greetings

Some pics my new lens Carl Zeiss Contax G Planar 45/2 I shot today, wide open:



Nex5N - Planar 45/2 por Luiz Curcino, no Flickr


Nex5N - Planar 45/2 por Luiz Curcino, no Flickr

 

[kevistopheles]

You could go the Helios 44 route. It's a 58/2 Russian clone of a prewar Zeiss Biotar. Cheap and good.

 

[RT_Panther]

G lenses had to be sharp for their original use (film)...

 

[kevistopheles]

I was thinking C/Y lenses..

Well then yes...sharp and contrasty. Something like the crazy sharp 50/1.7 can be had for under $200

 

[quezra]

How do Voigtlanders compare against these lenses?

 

[Bolampau]

How do Voigtlanders compare against these lenses?

Whilst I'm a big fan of Voigtlanders, I've been upgrading to Zeiss ZM lenses which are terrific.

The only Voigtlander I have left now is their 12mm which is not a focal length covered by Zeiss currently.

The Zeiss ZM are so good that I even sold my Leica Elmarit-M 90mm F2.8 which, in its own right, is a fantastic lens.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Phoenix]

How do Voigtlanders compare against these lenses?

As a Voigtlander user, I can say that they're a bit of hit and miss, while some of their lenses are really good and has earned a cult following, some of them are mediocre at best. It will really depend on what trade offs are you planning to live with, e.g. the 35mm 1.4 (both the the single coated and multi coated) while being light and compact is quite soft (you dont even have to pixel peep to see it), which is alright if you're planning to shoot portraits with it as you dont want anything too razor sharp for portraits any way. Then there's the Nokton 50mm 1.5 and the 35mm 1.2 that are just phenomenal in terms of sharpness, speed, etc... with the caveat that they're also very hard to find, big, heavy, and expensive.

 

[quezra]

Thanks, that certainly helps to take the 35/1.4 off the list - I was really strongly considering it. Any idea how well the 40/1.4 and 28/2.0 fare? There's a store here in Singapore that specialises in Voigtlanders and I've been soooo tempted.

 

[Phoenix]

It's just really depends on your taste, provided that sharpness isnt your thing the 35 1.4 classic isnt a bad lens. As for the 40 1.4 and the 28 2.0, I haven't used the 40 1.4 so I'm not sure regarding it's performance, I got the chance to use the 28 2.0 briefly and it was really good imo, although I wouldnt go as far as owning one myself as its just a focal length that I dont usually use (I was shooting this on film).

40mm- 45mm is an odd focal length for many but its a focal length that I actually enjoy using, its great for those shots where a 35 is a tiny bit too wide and a 50 is just a tiny bit too narrow, if you dont mind this focal length you may want to consider a M-Rokkor 40mm F2 CLE (Make sure you get the CLE model) they're pretty much a rebadged Leica summilux back during the days where Leica commissioned Minolta to make lenses for them. It's a really sharp comapact lens thats great to adapt to the NEX.