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.

Which lens should I buy next

G

Guest

I am fortunate to have gotten my hands on a Contax 167MT for free. I then purchased a Zeiss 50/1.7 on e-Bay for $60. I am on a limited budget but would like to expand my horizons as I start to experiment with photography.

I have spent hours and hours on the internet and talking with another amateur photographer friend. One option is to buy used primes eg 28/2.8 and 85/2.8. Another option is to buy third party lenses, but I would obviously lose quality and lose the whole reason for using Contax in the first place.
 
G

Guest

Hi John,

I think you will find that after some time with Zeiss lenses you question will answer itself. The 85 and 28 are both very fine lenses - and not a lot more expensive than the 50.

Good luck.

Jakob
 
G

Guest

Hello John,
the next lens you choose will depend on your photgraphy style and interests,If you like landscapes ,buildings,or other large items like aircraft on the ground then the 28mm will be your choice but if you like portraits candids the look of telephoto photos then the 85mm is your man .But it does depend on what you are going to take photos of.Having said all that you can do alot of good stuff with a 50mm.Contax are good lens and yu get a certain look with them.
Take your time ,
Marcus
 
G

Guest

I would also opt for the 2.8/28 but not for the 2.8/85. It is a really nice lens but too close to your 1.7/50. In my view, the 2.8/135 would be a far better choice, admittedly heavier but stretching your possibilities and still suitable for portraits. In fact, I for myself would choose a 24/25mm wide angle and a 200mm tele, but that's only my taste.
In any case you should test the lens before buying it to find out whether it fills your needs.
Good luck, Walther
 
G

Guest

The 28mm is one of the true bargains in the Contax line in terms of price/performance. I have found, unfortunately, that I didn't know which lens I would really use until I had them, and I've also found that I gravitate toward the wide angles with my Contax SLR and toward the 90mm lens on my rangefinder. In other words, you'll have to find out for yourself. Personally, I would add the 28mm (it's such a bargain) and get used to it for a while before adding a longer lens such as the 85, the 135 or even the 100mm f3.5, which you occasionally see used for well under $500.
 
G

Guest

Hi all

Is some one using the 35-135 on an AX ???

What is the quality of that lens ???

Sorry I am to stupid to understand graphs and tabels of lenses. Besides I do not know of one graph that has taken a good photograph

Regards
Jan
 
G

Guest

"Jan Viljoen schreef: Is some one using the 35-135 on an AX ??? What is the quality of that lens ??? Sorry I am to stupid to understand graphs and tabels of lenses. Besides I do not know of one graph that has taken a good photograph
"

And I do not know of a lens or camera that has taken a good photograph. It's always the photographer.
 
G

Guest

I have been using the 28-85 variosonnar for about 5 years now and I would recomend this one to anybody looking for a basic Zeiss zoom. A bit slow, but excellent image quality.
 
G

Guest

Hi.
I just bought a Aria body and I want to buy a couple of new lens.
I would like a 50mm ( and a wide angle too).

Im thinking of 50mm /1.8 and 28/1.2.8 maybe a 35mm 1.2.8 to start of with.
any thoughts?.

I really enjoy image quailty.
 
G

Guest

> Im thinking of 50mm /1.8 and 28/1.2.8 maybe a 35mm 1.2.8 to start of> with.> any thoughts?.

It depends on what type of photography you do as to which lenses will be best for you....... Steve
 
G

Guest

>I would start with 1.7 50 mm and with 2.8 135 - if you've just started photography. If not, go for 50 and f 2.8 28. Why 135 instead of 28? Because it's easier to compose pictures with longer lenses. > Jerzy
 
G

Guest

Thanks for the info.

Ive been shooting for a long time.
I bought a Contax 35mm camera so I can try out the quality Zeiss lens, After having a dissapointing 24mm and 35mm Nikon AFD lens. Whilst the Nikon 50mm 1.8 AFD is super sharp that is not so with some of thier wider lens.
(I still have my FM2 and 50mm/1.8 plus motor drive.)You can never have enough good reliable gear.

I also tend to prefer that Zeiss tone that I get with my Hasselblad.

Hope the Contax 35mm gear lives up to my expectation. I know 35mm is not upto roll film specs. But there has to be some very good 35mm lens around. ( Its also eaiser to carry around
.
than the MF iron.
But I have to get used to the film take up on the Aria.

I like to take photos of buildings and travel shots. Just snaps of course. (outside without tripod).
 
G

Guest

The 45mm f:2.8 should be a really nice combination size/weight with the Aria. I know I would buy the 50 mm 1.4 because I like pictures with available light and so on, but choosing the tiny 45 is a big temptation with the Aria.
 
G

Guest

> >>The 45mm f:2.8 should be a really nice combination size/weight with >>the Aria. I know I would buy the 50 mm 1.4 because I like pictures >>with available light and so on, but choosing the tiny 45 is a big >>temptation with the Aria. > But you have to check if Tesar handling is good for you. For me it's too thin and very uncomfortable - but I haven't played with it long time.

Jerzy
 
G

Guest

Thanks everybody for the input. I bought a used Distagon 28/2.8 AE and I love it. It has definitely become my favorite lens and I'm practing tremendously. I also bought a used Yashica ML 70-210 f4.5 which came highly rated from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. We shall see.
 
G

Guest

Hello guys
(Finally) I am to buy an Aria and I cant decide which lens should I purchase with it.
First option is to get the famous deal zoom lens that comes with the Aria (28-70) and another CZ 50mm/1:1.4.
Another option is to forget about the deal (Aria+lens) and get the 50mm + a 28mm or 35mm/1:2.8.
I do mostly landscapes and street photography: not portraits or fashion.
In other words, can the zoom compete with Distagon or Planner for landscape work?
Love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks
Ethan
 
G

Guest

Although I like this zoom alot, because of it's weight and versatility it has one major drawback for me:

It distorts really heavily on the 28mm end, which is quite a problem shooting Architecture and the like. For landscape it's ok, although I must admit it's slighly less contrasty and sharp than the 28mm fixed lense. The 28-85mm is better in terms of Contrast and Sharpness, but not distortion.

I would recommend the 28mm Lense and the 1.7/50 Planar. It's optically a much better solution than the zoom.

I prefer the 1.7/50 over the 1.4/50. It weights considerably less and is slightly sharper. For outdoor I only use the 1.7.

However I must admit that I never travel without the 28-70 and shoot ca. 50% of my pictures with it. I like especially the combination with the very light FX3-2000 which makes a travel combo which looks so cheap that no one cares about it.
 
G

Guest

thanks Michael, Do you really think the 50/1.7 is sharper than the 50/1.4? I always had the impression that it is 100$ cheaper for aperture, biensur, but for optics too. I don't care for weight so it might be a great solution for me. ethan
 
G

Guest

> one more thing, Michael, I just read the 50mm 1.7 or 1.4, and all agree that in some cases the 50/1.7 can provide you with a better optics.
 
G

Guest

Ethan, both 50 1.7 and 1.4 Zeiss Planars are nice lenses. Contax Real Time NewsVol 1 #4 reproduced the MTF charts for both lenses. The article analysis is: The 50 1.7 provides slightly higher contrast wide open than the 1.4. At the best f/stops (5.6 on the 1.7, and 2.8 on the 1.4), contrast is better on the 1.4, but resolution is better with the 1.7. That writer stated that contrast was more important over resolution.

A Contax lens brochure states that the 1.7 gives the same optical performance as the 1.4. The 2/99 Popular photography had an article in response to a Zeiss representative claiming that the 50 1.4 Planar was the best 50mm 1.4 in the world.

Of course, there are plenty of "test reports" out there. The best solution is to see if you can shoot tests with both and decide! I have used some lenses which came out great in the "tests", only to find them inferior to others.

By the way, I have and use a Carl Zeiss 50 1.7 Planar, and am satisfied with it's performance.
 
Top