Are these CZ lenses unfairly overlooked

[grumpoid]

Hi all,
We often see Zeiss users going bananas over the likes of the 21/2.8, 28/2, 85/1.4, 100/2 etc....but what about the following....28/2.8, 35/2.8, 85/2.8 & 100/3.5....are these un-fairly over-looked? what do users think and how do you think they compare to their more exotic cousins above?
Cheers Steve.M.

 

[jsmisc]

Hi Steve,
I find the 85/2.8 and the 100/3.5 to be excellent lenses, just a bit slow but otherwise compact,lightweight, pleasant to use and very sharp .
Cheers,
John

 

[gunteach]

> [I have the 28/2.8, the 85/2.8 and the 135/2.8 and like them all. It is especially nice that they were all purchased at great prices relative to other Zeiss lenses. I find them very useful tools and feel they are often overlooked by Contax users. I also purchased a 200/3.5 Tele Tessar for a song and am having fun using it as well. I'm not sure that the optical quality of these fine lenses isn't approached in some cases by the non-Zeiss aftermarket alternatives I also own, at least for routine photography but I will say I am certain that the build quality and feel of these lenses is remarkably higher in most cases, and I just prefer using them.

I am waiting on the arrival of my new CZ 28-85 zoom which I finally decided I could not live without after hearing so much about it being one of the world's best zoom lenses. I plan to test it head to head against the equivalent Yashica product which cost 10% of what I paid for this one on e-bay. Stay tuned.

By the way, what does anyone know, if anything, about the CZ 100/2? It appears to be more or less a standard, non-macro short telephoto. Anyone have any experience with it or know what they go for? I'm looking at one on e-bay and the price seems moderate.

Cheers!] >

 

[jsmisc]

Has anyone tried or thought of trying the Voigtlander 125mm F2.5 Apo Lanthar 1:1 Macro lens which is available in C/Y mount? Robert White in UK has it for £395 and it gets good reports. No doubt it is available at other dealers as well. It interests me not only becaose of the good reports but also because of the 1:1 macro and the quite fast aperture.
John

 

[dwa]

>Not that one, no But I do own two 90 mm 3.5 Voigtlander APO close-up lenses with C/Y mounts. (One was a gift) Bokeh is not up to Zeiss quality, but otherwise it takes careful comparison of 8X10 with a loop to see any difference in sharpness from my 60mm C Zeiss Macro. The Voigtlander loses, but only by a hair

By the way, one is for sale un used, original box

Dave

 

[jsmisc]

That's interesting Dave. I already have the 100/3.5 Zeiss and the 90 length in G mount so I'm sorted at that length but the fastish 125 macro intrigued me. It sounds from what you say that the Voightlanders can't quite cut it against the Zeiss but perhaps they can be excused on price grounds. Still the difference might be irritating to someone used to CZ. How are the Voightlanders for build quality?
Sorry, I've gone off topic again.
John

 

[dwa]

>The build is all metal with a metal hood and metal screw in lens cap. Evidently, the tubes etc. are made in China where metal working is cheap.

It feels and looks great... especially on my S2 And yes, a CZ fanatic might be irritated. But only him. Ordinary people would never notice the difference up to 11 X 14 at least

Dave

How about a trade anyone?

Dave

 

[jsmisc]

Sounds very nice. I shall investigate the 125 (unusual length) but I shall probably have to sell something to fund it - daughter's wedding coming up in October.
Cheers,
John

 

[pansies]

Hi Folks. It is quite some time now that I last used the Contax system, after using the Canon digital 20D.Although I have taken some great shots,I still have a flare for film, and the Contax system. As I am now in my later 70s I feel that carting heavy long lenses around is getting beyond my capability. I did have the N1 system with the 24-85 and the 100-300. The later system was the RX with a few lenses. I cannot remember which they were. I would be grateful if you could suggest a system with an RX and lenses just for general photography,landscape, and flowers.
Many Thanks. Ken Taylor.

 

[nickser]

Hi Kenneth,

How about this light weight selection for your RX? Start with 28mm and 35mm F2.8 Distagon prime lenses. Add a 50mm F1.7 Planar. Couple the Planar with a Teleplus/Vivitar 2x Macro converter lens (don't laugh, it gives great quality and is light) and finish off with a 135mm if needed. Or even go for a Vario Sonnar 28-85mm for a one lens solution.

Regards,

Paul

 

[pansies]

Hi Paul. Thanks for your suggestion .Since I posted my request I have been looking at the list of lenses, and had made a note of the following
25 35 50 85 135.Having said that I have read various reports as to the quality of the final image from some of the Zeiss lenses, although to me they all produce good results, but seemingly some are better than others, I dont know. Having said that have you had any experience with the N1 there again I am back to the zoom lenses, just can't make up my mind. Thanks once again.
Ken.

 

[jsmisc]

How about the 35-70? I haven't tried it but I have read good reports for it. Although it is a limited range I believe it is quite small and light and very sharp. I have the 28 - 85 and it is pretty large and heavy. It goes fine on the RX but the combination is quite hefty. It also takes 82mm filters which are expensive, especially the polariser.
I used to have the 50 f1.7 and it is very good but I swopped it for the f1.4 for the extra stop. But the lens is bigger and heavier.
John

 

[djg]

The 35-70 is an awesome lens, as good if not better than many primes. I hesitate to use it because I have all these primes, but every time I use it I just say, wow, this is a zoom??? Look at that corner sharpness!

Add the usual Zeiss contrast, color and lack of flare, and the small size and lightness, and you can't go wrong with this zoom. The 3.4 f-stop is really only a half f-stop from 2.8, and it's uniform throughout the zoom range.

Oh, yeah, it has a great macro setting too, though it's at the 35mm end so you need to get real close.

 

[gunteach]

You know, if you really wanted to put together a general purpose lightweight system for your RX, maybe start with the 50/1.7 since it is reasonably fast and dirt cheap. Keep it for your low light lens, and add that macro converter Paul was talking about to give you the equivalent of a 100 f/3.5 macro (I use this set-up and am very happy with the results). Then take a look at the Zeiss 28-70 zoom, also very light and compact. Finally, if you need something longer, you might look at the 80-200 CZ zoom, or maybe just a 135/2.8 depending on how long you feel you need to go. I have all of these lenses personally (except the 28-70 which I sold and sort of wish I had kept). The 28-70 macro function is on the 70mm end by the way, and it is a two-touch zoom.

I also have the 28-85 zoom, and I believe you are going to find this one too large and heavy if weight is a consideration, although it is a great lens.

Regards,

Tom

 

[wang]

35-70 is definitely superior to 28-70, although they are both from Zeiss. 35-70 has a very good 35, it could be even better than 35 2.8. The design of 35-70 is a lot more complicated than other zooms. Unlike others which normally extends linearly on zooming, this lens extends only a little bit first, followed by a big increase in length.

Nonlinear extension of the zoom lens seem to be a phenomenon more often seem in Zeiss than other manufacturers. My Sony 828 has a lens which retracts first and then followed by extension when you go from 28mm to 200mm. I find this quite amazing.

 

[albert4321]

My Contax 645 45-90 zoom also retracts a little first and then follows by extension.

 

[grumpoid]

Hi,
A suggestion for a simple light and multi purpose system for the RX : 28/2.8, 60/2.8C macro and the 100/3.5. I use the 60/2.8C macro although I know Zeiss fans prefer the S version.
Cheers Steve.

 

[Jman13]

I like my 85 Sonnar better than the 85 Planar, even though they are similarly sharp in the overlapping range. The Sonnar just gives me that little extra color and contrast pop. One of the most complete lenses I've ever used...it's essentially without flaw at any aperture. The only 'flaw' is the rather conservative max aperture and the longish MFD.