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 ND

Marc - could you elaborate a little more by what you mean by Contax glass not being what it used to be? I assume this is meant for the N style of lenses? It is true that they are not solid blocks of metal, but nobody does that anymore; however, they are still very well made. Optically, I think anew zoom like the 24-85 is equal, and perhaps even superior to MF primes the same is said for top of the line Nikon and Canon zooms. And the AF is dead-on in my experience as well, pretty much negating any MF 99% of the time. Hmm, I am curious what sort of issues you have.
 
Most of my comments stem from image results not process. Beauty over utility. The Contax Zeiss manual lenses I'm refering to are the ones that made their name: 28/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 70-210/3.5, 180/2.8....these are legendary German lenses that to this day are unmatched by any 35mm lens system for the images they produced (IMO and the opinion of some top NY pros). I currently own Nikon Pro glass, and just previously Canon L glass including: 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 50/1.0L and 85/1.2 and 200/1.8L. Of those, only the Canon 35/1.4 came close...close, but no cigar.

BTW, I'm not talking about bench tests (I've yet to be paid to shoot a chart). I'm talking image beauty.
The previous German Contax lenses exhibited that certain look that defies math. Besides, in bench tests the Mamiya 645 lenses beat Contax 645, yet we Contax 645 users know the difference.

Don't get me wrong, I have N glass and get pretty good results from them (especially the 85/1.4). Not as good as before, but that is the past. I had them, sold them to go AF, and regretted it later. Now they are so valuable that I can't afford to rebuy them (Pros I know hord them).

If only I knew what I know now. That's why I shared my POV with Alex. I wish someone had done that for me.

The attached image is ruined by web upload, but it
was shot with an Zeiss 85/1.2 on an AX. The 16X20 enlargement showed every strand of the veil
razor sharp, while the out of focus areas were as creamy as Leica Noctilux bokeh. Not many lenses ever made can do both perfectly at the same time.
70116.jpg
 
I don't have a lot of experience with the manual focus Contax C/Y mount lenes except the vario-sonnar 28-85mm zoom. But my N24-85, N70-300, C645 80mm and 120mm AF lenes are pretty good if not the best lenes I ever used. The image quality for the N24-85 is not any less than the 28-85mm, except the new lenes is shorter and lighter. The old lenes does feel much more solid though.

According to Contax, these new lenses used some of the traditional zeiss designs and utilized new technology, such as internal focusing, new optical glasses. I just wonder if the new AF lenes are any better or worst than the old (Japanese) Carl Zeiss lenses.
 
Albert, I'd bet that the current Japanese Zeiss AF lenses are just about as good as the later Zeiss (Japanese) manuals.
 
I went to Nassau the day before yesterday and droped my camera bag from about chest level on a concrete floor in the airport. Spit in a face of anybody who tells you that Contax ND has a metal shell because it does not. The camera works just fine, but its' upper shell got misaligned and cracked in three places (next to the shutter dial and two symmetrical cracks on both sides of a prizm). I am thinking it was about a $500 drop. The camera had IBM Microdrive in it, and the only test shot that I made after the drop was corrupted. Later, however, when I checked everything and reformatted the microdrive, it appeared that both camera and the microdrive do work fine (except a manual focus button that works only when the top shell is forcefully set to its place)
 
Irakly,

mmmh... I sympatise with your misadventure, but I just want to point out that dropping *ANY* camera from about 1.5m (5 feet) onto a concrete floor is generally bad news. A misadenture like this happened to me years ago when I dropped a Nikon F3 (the only non-Contax camera I ever owned). Although the F3 was considered by most to be the most rugged journalistic tool of the day (and it still is judging by the number of fervent Nikon enthusiasts who swear only by this camera), the ultimate rock-solid, all-metal, nearly indestructible camera, the top prism just broke off completely, and the lens mount was distorted so I had to take it to repair (about 400$CAN in 1989 dollars).

So my analysis is that the durability of a camera should be judged from what it can do *after* an incident. Can you still use the camera, can you still take pictures? Is the damage just cosmetic? Or do you have to take it to the repair shop in order to continue your work?

My grain of salt.
 
Marc, I wish... Well, it is insured, but only within the US borders. Actually, this is nothing compared to $2600 which I had to pay because we were late five minutes for registration and had to take a connection flight via Miami
happy.gif


Guillaume, after cooling off I can say that this is a pretty rugged camera - everything works just fine except AF, which also works, but only if the cover is put forcefully into its original place. Something apparently stuck inside and does not let it snap into place.
 
Irakly, you have an exclusion clause in your insurance policy? I've never heard of such a thing.

Insurance is an important issue for all of us when you consider the cost to replace all this Contax gear.
I had a claim denied when shooting a wedding, because the damaged gear was on my so called "All Conditions" homeowners' rider. They denied it on the grounds that I was working for $ at the time, for which you need a "business policy". On the other hand, a fellow photographer who is a full time professional, was robbed at gun point while vacationing in the Caribbean, had his claim denied on the grounds that he was not working for $.
 
Marc, in my homeowner's policy it says that my property covered within the US orders. I just realized, however, that it did happen in the US, in Detroit Metro airport, and I was not working for $
happy.gif

I was too optimistic yesterday. THis morning I took two shots, and the mirror does not return to it's place anymore.
 
Back
Top