What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

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
 
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?
 
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
 
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
 
>=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
 
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
 
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
 
"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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top