Mm lens on yashica camera

[caseyjayhawk]

I want to buy into the contax/zeiss manual system. I already have a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000. I know that the contax/zeiss mm lenses will fit on my yashica camera, but will it otherwise harm the lenses? I'd rather buy the zeiss lenses first, to use on a later purchase of a contax body (I can't really do all at once). Thanks for your help.

 

[beethamd]

Hi Casey,
I've used an FX3 for eighteen years mostly with Yashica lenses but more recently with CZ mm lenses. Never had a problem. Very pleased with the results with the new leses.

I now have an Aria to complement the FX3 but I still use the FX3 a lot. It's a wonderful camera, really sturdy. Never had a problem with it other than the mirror got stuck up on a beach in New Zealand. A quick shake and it was fine. It's not dne it again - probably a bit of sand got in there when I was changing lenses.

The lenses will be fine on your FX3.

David.

 

[bobbl46]

As with David ... I've used all my CZ MM's, AE's
Tamrons, converters etc on my FX3 Super 2000 as well as Contax bodies.

The camera will not harm the lenses or vice versa. The FX3 Super 2000 is a cracking camera in its own right and a terrific back-up camera for those (like me) who are nervous of unfavourable conditions when using our all singing and dancing electronic, battery dependent wonders!

The beauty of this inexpensive camera is that you can't tell the difference between a shot taken with a Zeiss lens (or any other) on the FX and a shot taken with the same lens on a Contax body

Cheers, Bob.

 

[wojo]

Casey,
The only incompatibility that I recall was with the 40-80 zoom and some bodies.
Something about the mirror hitting the back of the lens. Probably one of the reasons that it was discontinued. I can't find the source, and am relying on memory.
There is mention of some mutars not being mechanically compatible with some lenses.
I'm sure you can find the mutar info on this site.
All the current lenses should work, I'll vouch for the 28 2.0 working on both the FR I and FX 3 along with the 159mm.
You might want to check further if you're planning to use some of the less common offerings like the 15 or 16mm's.
Joe W

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[caseyjayhawk]

Gentlemen:

Thanks so much for your advice. You have eliminated the concerns that I had.

Casey.

 

[europanorama]

The beauty of this inexpensive camera is that you can't tell the >difference between a shot taken with a Zeiss lens (or any other) on >the FX and a shot taken with the same lens on a Contax body

> >Cheers, Bob. > sorry bob, but here you err. under certain critical conditions rtsIII with sucking-system will show differences. i remember shooting b+w-film with 85/1.4 in winter. not full open it showed(without rtsIII) unbelievable curved depth-space. even leica confirmed: when you start shooting and will continue much later that part of the film lying curved-third? shot-will not be sharp. thats why one should at least repeat that shot.

 

[molitech]

alguien me podria decir que numeracion segun sea el año de fabricacion de la contax rts,la mia es 008780

gracias

 

[bobbl46]

Michael

The comment was tongue-in-cheek ... did you see the smiley face!

There are other factors that could make the same lens perform differently on different camera bodies ... but this digresses from the original post

Oh! Look! Another smiley face crept in!

Cheers, Bob