CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Contax T2 lens

D

dfm

Hello all: I have recently shot 25 or so rolls of fuji slide film using two 159 bodies as well as an RTSIII(one roll), using a 50 1.4 and a 135 2.8, both purchased used recently. While I have been VERY pleased with the results I have nevertheless drawn the conclusion that the little 38 on my T2 is superior to both slr lenses in every way. Given some decent light the slides from the T2 positively drip with CZ luxury.(sorry that's as technical as my analysis gets). Am I crazy?

David
 

niki

Member
Many T3 owners have said the same thing about the T3's Sonar 35mm. Some came to this conclusion objectively as well as subjectively. A smaller lens usually equates slower maximum aperture and has little to do with quality. Hence the cult status for Contax T series, Rollei 35s and Leica Miniluxes.

Niki

..................... David wrote: Hello all: I have recently shot 25 or so rolls of fuji slide film using two 159 bodies as well as an RTSIII(one roll), using a 50 1.4 and a 135 2.8, both purchased used recently. While I have been VERY pleased with the results I have nevertheless drawn the conclusion that the little 38 on my T2 is superior to both slr lenses in every way. Given some decent light the slides from the T2 positively drip with CZ luxury.(sorry that's as technical as my analysis gets). Am I crazy?
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
I agree about the T2. It is an excellent camera. People complain about vignetting. I have never been troubled by it.
I have no intention of changing it for the T3. Apart from the cost, I can see no point. The T3 has a 35mm lens as opposed to the T2's 38mm. Those 3mm do seem to make a difference.
The T3 is not as ergonomic in not having a rubberised handgrip.
John
 

paulcontax

Well-Known Member
As for the lens quality :

Zeiss makes his own MTF-Tests and the lens of the T3 is not as good as the 2.8/35 for Contax/Yashica ! I don't know exactly about the T2-lens but I remember an older test in a german foto magazin with the lens of the Contax T (which has been the best lens of all compact cameras as you may have expected) and they made test-curves themselves which were not as good as those from the 2.8/35 or 1.4/35 Distagon. So : The T-models got a very good lens but not better than those from the 35mm-slr. But that's only been for resolution and contrast ! Not for color, vignetting and distortion.... You may get better pictures because you can handle it much better and with longer exposure-times the is no mirror-shaking in the Contax T !!!

Best wishes

Paul
 
K

kaisern

>=20 >=20 >=20 > [My pictures taken by T3 show clearly superior optic than the lens on T2.= T3 > lens is perhaps the sharpest of all the compact cameras I have tried or > reviewed. Brgds/Kaisern] >=20 >=20 >=20
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
That's interesting Kaisern. I haven't actually tried the T3 but I suppose that the lens should be better bearing in mind that the T2 came out 10 years or so ago.
Regards,
John
 

niki

Member
IMO, lens resolution test is important but only to a certain extent before it becomes irrelevant because it can only be measured by equipments but not the human eye. A great lens is like a Steinway as compared to a Yamaha. When both pianos are in tuned perfectly, a C note on the Yamaha has the same frequency as a C note of the Steinway. But any classical pianists will always choose, if he/she has that option, the Steinway for its tonal balance, timbre (texture) and richness. The same can be said about the the Contax 28mm and 45mm G lenses - the 45mm is king in lab tests but 28mm is better liked by users.

Niki

As for the lens quality :

Zeiss makes his own MTF-Tests and the lens of the T3 is not as good as the 2.8/35 for Contax/Yashica ! I don't know exactly about the T2-lens but I remember an older test in a german foto magazin with the lens of the Contax T (which has been the best lens of all compact cameras as you may have expected) and they made test-curves themselves which were not as good as those from the 2.8/35 or 1.4/35 Distagon. So : The T-models got a very good lens but not better than those from the 35mm-slr. But that's only been for resolution and contrast ! Not for color, vignetting and distortion.... You may get better pictures because you can handle it much better and with longer exposure-times the is no mirror-shaking in the Contax T !!!

Best wishes Paul
 
H

highlander

"Newer is better" doesn't necessarily apply to lenses - many of the designs are pushing one hundred!

Nor are MTF or other lens tests the be all and end all of lens quality (even forgetting the wide range of variation among individual ex&les). In any event the limitations of the 35mm format is more significant than the differences among modern quality lenses. If you want to be shocked compare an 8x10 contact print taken with a good pre-war uncoated lens with an 8x10 blow up from 35mm taken with the best current lens.

Tests are for labs; images are for photographers - the qualities you like in a picture taken by a particular lens will probably bear little relationship to comparative lens tests.

People should enjoy taking pictures and stop driving themselves crazy.

Regards, Michael
 

jsmisc

Well-Known Member
I have always been impressed by 10x8 prints I have seen from turn of the century Frank Meadow Sutcliffe's full plate pictures which even modern film and lenses would find it hard to equal. You can always see the quality in modern 4x5 pictures compared to 35mm and even medium format. Presumably a modern full plate photograph unenlarged or at 10 x 8 would be mind blowing.
John
 

leo_jar

Member
I have T T2 T3 and even TVS. When compare the wide angle lenses between rangefinder or SLR, the lens on rangefinder is mostly better than SLR's. (inherent characteristic since the wide angle lens on SLR need more lenses construction). Please also note that the resolution chart is for B/W only. And it is the index showing one of characteristic of the lens. In my opinion, lens on T/T2 is the best in the sense of color and mood. The lens of T3 is too sharp and too strong in color. The performance of G35 is in-between these two lens.
 

jrstern

Member
Leo,

I find your post interesting. My daughter hates the photos I take of her with my T3 (color film). She says the camera is too sharp and too unforgiving, catching every little nuance. How would you rate your TVS when compared to the other T's.

Thanks

Joel Stern
 

leo_jar

Member
Hi Joel
Yes, you are right. It is not good if the lens is toooooo sharp.. sometime. So why most people love to put a softer on the lens.
The lens of TVS is reasonable sharp but not like T3. And be honest, this lens can't be compared with the prime lens. The color saturation is high and rich. If you are reading the MTF of the lens, the lens of TVS is less sharp than the new TVSIII lens and T3's lens (the lenses of TVS and TVSII are the same.) Although I have T3, I use Contax T and TVS the most. The reasons to use TVS and T the most are not only the quality of lens but the method of control and the short time lap. The zoom action is by manual in TVS and you can quickly switch on (the zoom lever is also the main power switch) and zoom and take the photo. TIME Lap is short when compare to Modern PS. I highly recommend you to get a user condition TVS (not Mint because you will not use it if it is in mint condition
) and enjoy the snapshooting....
Leo
 

jrstern

Member
Leo,

I have a TVS ll that I bought about a month ago and have just not put through it's paces yet..but I am trying to. It is heavier than my T3, larger, these are the major drawbacks, but still small enough to carry around easily, and I do like the manual zoom. You mention softening up..can I soften up the lens on the T3 for portrait shots (for landscapes and buildings it is just superb, I love the clarity). I am not well versed in how to manipulate this camera for desired effects.

Thanks

Joel
 

leo_jar

Member
Hi Joel,
Using filter in soften the image for wide angle is not a good idea. Try some low contrast film such as Kodak Portra or Proimage. They have lower in contrast. By the way, the meaning of Sharp of T3 is the contrast.
leo
 

robgo2

Active Member
"The lens of T3 is too sharp and too strong in color."

I would hardly characterize extreme sharpness and strong color rendition as lens flaws, as these qualities indicate that the lens is transmitting light with minimal alteration. This, after all, is what we generally want a lens to do. If alteration of light (e.g. softening or color alteration) is desired, then one should use a filter.

In their marketing of the T3, Contax state clearly that the T3's lens is superior to the T2's. Perhaps this is so, but the difference can only be small, as the T2's lens is truly outstanding. I believe that it is stiff competition for the 35G.

The T2 is ergonomically superior to the T3. Its only deficiencies, IMO, are shutter lag and light fall-off, both of which have been largely eliminated in the T3. I have gotten some fabulous photos with the T2, and I doubt that I could have done better with any other P&S. And let us not forget that we are discussing P&Ss here, and some limitations are to be expected.
 

wolfgang

Active Member
Hi there!

My actual problem with the T2 is that I could see in my last films some lost of sharpness on the right side of a picture (please excuse my bad english ;). Even at full aperture sometimes the picture is totally sharp up to the egdes, sometimes there is aheavy lost of sharpness and contrast on the right half. Could it be that the film is not totally flat in the T2. I must admit that I realized it due to a new enlarging lens, that is supposed to be very good.

Please if anyone knows please help me. Thank You very much in advance.

regards
Wolfgang
 
Top