Yay, a place to talk about Contax cameras!

<p>Those of us who like our Zeiss lenses cheap finally have a home of sorts. I am looking forward to running around with my 167MT and my 28-85 this weekend. That combo works well together, even if the body is a bit small for the lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Show us pictures, now.</p>

<p>Have you actually bought any of the Zeiss/Yashica lenses lately? They sure aren't as cheap as they used to be before people figured out that they work fine with adapters on lots of cameras, including Canon EOS cameras with video. Many of the prices I've seen for some of the choice ones are pushing the prices of the fresh off the lens grinder prices of MF Zeiss lenses.</p>

<p>Even the prices of M42 Zeiss (Jena, to be sure) lenses seem to be on the rise.</p>

<p>My father traded his Nikon camera (I don't know which model was it) for a Yashica FR-1 when I was born because it had automatic exposure settings. I grew up making photographs with that huge metal camera with a 50mm f/1.4. I remember him teaching me how to use a manual focus lens when I was only 7 years old. At the age of 20, I decided to learn photography and take it seriously as a hobby. The camera was not working anymore, but the lenses were fine. Since them, I have moved to Canon, but I am a great admirer of Contax and Contax-Yashica lenses and cameras. I think they were extremelly well built.</p>

<p>[]'s<br>

Antonio Carvalho</p>

<p>I've been one of those idiot choppers and changers of camera systems since 1983, and finally settled (digitally) on Pentax. But one of my all-time film-era loves (I still for the life of me can't recall why I sold it off) was an outfit based upon the Contax RTSII with T* lenses, in my opinion the finest aperture priority/manual camera system ever made. Reliability-wise, Leica struggled with their R4 and R5, but the Contax was the svelte, finished article, and made even the Nikon F3 look slightly tacky.</p>

<p>I have noticed that the lens prices have been going crazy lately. I use them on my Canon dlsr every once and a while. </p>

<p>If people want pictures, here are pictures.</p>

<p>Contax 35 2.8 on an RTS<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8171012-lg.jpg" alt="" width="463" height="800" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Contax 50 1.4 on the same RTS:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7252426-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="524" /></p>

<p>and two from my Contax Macro 60 2.8, one on an RX and one on a Rebel T1i. This lens made me sell my Canon 100 f2.8 Macro. I really prefer the focus mechanism and precision of the Contax. It is spectacular on a crop DSLR with live view.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8428232-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="525" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9920746-lg.jpg" alt="" width="650" height="520" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Great pictures. The last one is the best, and the thing on the right is very brave! (I have arachnophobia)...</p>

<p>Priced on THAT auction site are not based on reality<br>

even on what they were a few years ago.<br>

Lenses I bought for $15.00 are now $99.00<br>

even lenses for my old Miranda Sensorex ( that will ONLY) work on Mirandas are listed for $75.00.<br>

things are crazy.</p>

<p>Au contraire, mon frère.<br>

I'd argue that eBay prices are the real <strong>prices</strong>, since they reflect the current market as it actually exists.</p>

<p>You are repeating the bourgeois economists' flaw of confusing <em>value</em> with <em>price</em>. ;)</p>

<p>Keeping in mind that the concept of money is a shared illusion. In any case, I had to use much less of my "money" when I bought these lenses than they cost now. I wish that I had picked up a 45mm pancake tessar when they were cheap. </p>

<p>Love the photo of the Seattle Space Needle from the 1962 World Fair, Stephen.</p>

<p>And the preying mantis was chomping on a six legged insect, not an arachnid. The lenses are tack sharp.</p>

<p>A place to talk about Contax rangefinders as well?</p>

<p>The I'll submit part of my blog about the Contax G2 system <strong><a href="http://toyotadesigner.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/the-contax-g-system/">here</a></strong></p>

<p>The modern Contaxes have been discussed on and off over at the classics forum but you're right, they are more at home here. </p>

<p>From the 137 to the end, there was hardly a loser in the bunch. For many years the 159MM was my primary camera and I thought it the best SLR around. Then I got a 167MT and became unsure about that. I still use both heavily. The 159 when I want lightness and simplicity, the 167 when shooting action. Most of the 35mm stuff in my gallery was shot with these bodies.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4240307-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I hope this is on-topic, but I just got a Contax T3 and I'm absolutely wild about it. It is my miniature stealth Leica...and the comparison is supposed to be a complement to both camera manufacturers.</p>

<p>It's exciting to take some of the best Zeiss glass with you in a pocket. My M6 and T3 pictures are basically indistinguishable...and for me, that's a good thing.</p>