OT : Contax Portrait Leses

[sarawoot_chittratanawat1]

Dear Friends,

Sorry to post to this forum because I don't know where to post the

contax question in photo.net. Also, I am sure there are many contax

user here. Please accept my apology for posting on this forum about

something not directly related to Leica.

 

I'm planning to get one portrait lens to complete my photo gear. I

have 'cron 35 and 50 with my M6. I don't want to get Elmar or 'cron

90 since it's difficult to see in the viewfinder. So I'm thinking to

buy just one SLR kit for portrait. I plan to buy one Contax RX-II

with one portrait lens. I'm thinking about 80/1.4, 100/2 and 100/2.8

Makro. Can anyone please give an input for this idea?

Thanks a lot.

Regards,

Sarawoot

[stephen_w.]

Three lenses in the 80-100 range?

 

My advice is to shoot with what you have.

 

Sabai Dee krop

[john_woo3]

Sarawoot, try the Contax 135 f2. I am sure you would like it.

[max_fun]

Is there a reason why you want to use Contax? Leica's lenses should be as good, if not better since they are constantly improved. I moved away from Contax because it didn't seem like they are interested in the 35mm segment anymore. It feels as though they'd put all their eggs into the N basket, which seemed a little half-hearted actually, and when it didn't pan out, they just gave up.

[olivier_reichenbach]

I have an RX II, and I had a 85/1.4 with my previous RX. Great camera. Great lens. The

three lenses you mention are pretty expensive. I don't have the 85/1.4 anymore (sigh!). I

have the 135/2.8. Very nice. Not the sharpest, but very nice for portrait. And affordable.

 

Here is a handheld shot with the 135/2.8 on HP5 (I think.)<div></div>

[david_kieltyka]

All three are excellent lenses. I own the 85 myself so I guess I'm biased towards it. In fact it's the reason why I bought a Contax RX some years ago. It makes a lovely portrait lens in the f/1.4-4.0 range. The 100 f/2 is a bit sharper in the same range, maybe preferable for general use but IMO not needed for portraiture. I haven't used the 100 macro except for a couple brief close-up sessions (with flower petals and leaves) but it has a great reputation.

 

-Dave-

[sarawoot_chittratanawat1]

Friends,

Well, that's quite good start after two hour post. I understand Leica's lenses are quite good. However, for the price of Summicron 90/2 APO ASPH (new), I can get a new kit of RX-II with Planar 100/2. I used to own 85/1.4 with RX, Aria, RTS III, S2 and ST 7 year ago. I moved to Leica because I thought there is no Contax service in Thailand (when I moved from the US to THailand). NOw I found Contax in Thailand is quite common. In fact, it's cheaper than Leica gear. So I need a 80-100. I haven't tried 135/2 personally. I really love my 85/1.4 and expect the same (or better) results from Planar 100/2.

Regards,

Sarawoot

[kaiblanke]

I have the small and mostly underrated 85/2.8 Sonnar. A fantastic lens, and balances well with the smaller cameras like the Aria. The 85/1.4 is great, for sure, but so is the 100/2. But both are large lenses, esp. when compared to Leitz glass. The Macro lens is also great, but if you just want to shoot portraits I would rather stick to one of the other choices.

<p>

If you buy a Contax, also getting a 50 Planar is a must. These are at least as nice as the Summicrons and with a Mutar can serve as portrait lenses as well. Also buying a body for one lens alone does not make much sense, rather buy both used and get some cheap additional and optically superb Zeiss lenses for areas where you cannot use a M.

<p>

Any reason why you want the RX except for having really large hands? The Aria is in my eyes the preferrable camera. A nice and compact combination would be the Aria, 50/1.7, 85/2.8 and a 200/4 (if you need a longer lens, these are really nice), if you do not mind size and weight then a 50/1.4, a 85/1.4 and either the 180/2.8 or the 200/3.5 (which is optically on par with the 180 and provides a bit longer reach, but is unfortunately no longer built).

[terry_rory]

I sold a 2 X Contax SLR (139Q and 137MD) + 50mm f/1.4 Planar and 28mm f/2.8 Distagon and 135mm f/2.8 Sonnar kit a while ago and funded a Nikon D70 kit and Leica CM. (I had to simplify as well as go digital)

 

I never had the great 85mm f/1.4 Planar but the Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF is also a legendary performer for portraits (and bokeh if you believe in bokeh).

 

If you are only buying a Contax RX-II just to use as a platform for the 85mm Planar then I would suggest saving the pennies(cents) and getting a Nikon F100 and 85mm AF f/1.4D.

[stephen_jones4]

I have not owned the 100 f2 or the Makro, both of which are reputed to be spectacularly fine lenses. I believe that the 100 f2 is quite a recent design and, therefore, a little sharper still than the 85. I owned the 85 1.4 ae (german) version. It was the earlier version (the newer one in MM is sharper at 1.4) and produced wonderful results (albeit not nearly as sharp at f1.4/2.0 as the 80 1.4 R lens I own). It is a fabulous lens for portraiture especially since it is so gently and flattering whilst retaining detail (perhaps even better than the summilux and certainly much better than the 85 nikkor afd I owned). I imagine the 85 1.4 MM would be perfect as a one lens portrait-taker so long as you don't need close ups.

The RX2 has a brighter/superior focusing screen to the RX. It lacks the focus-confirmation of the original RX but that worked only very poorly when I had one. If I were to buy a Contax MM camera, it would certainly be the RX2 for just that reason - it has the best focusing screen - better than the vacuum-cleaner RTS-3 which I also had (and on which the vacuum back hummed and eventually broke down).

I'd be interested to know what you do - I'm forever tempted to buy a similar set up - especially because of the fine ergonomics and smooth built in motor (easy to hand hold) of the Contax cameras.

 

BTW, have you seen Tom Shea's review of Contax lenses - quite on the ball, imo: http://www.photo.net/equipment/contax/shea-lenses

 

Good luck.

Stephen

[fotografz]

In my opinion, there are 3 reasons to have a Contax manual camera: the German AE 55/

1.2, 85/1.2 and 70-200/3.5 ... all out of production, hard to find and usually expensive ...

but incomparable.

 

The 85/1.4 is excellent in either the manual C/Y mount or the N AF mount. Never used the

100/2, but would suspect it to be also excellent.

 

Sharpness isn't the only criteria for looking at the Zeiss glass. It's tonal & color rendering

is quite nice, and I personally prefer it over the Canon or Nikon counterparts I've used.<div></div>

[joel_sackett]

I know this is slightly off the original question but I use some contax gear, both slr and G, mixed with leica M. I find the best transition from 35/50 with an M is to go to the G2 with the 90mm Sonnar. Very accurate, sharp, clean viewfinder and relatively inexpensive. I've done hundreds of portraits with set-up and the focus accuracy has been 98% right on.

[cameron_sawyer]

Consider also a Nikon F3 (or FM or FE) and Nikkor 85/1.4 AIS. Dirt cheap (whole kit less than the cheapest Leica M lens alone) and just as lovely a portrait lens as you could ever want. Shot wide open you get a shallow DOF effect almost like large format; stop down to F2 or F2.8 and you get a different effect -- very sharp but with smooth OOF areas, subtle tonality.

[stephen_jones4]

Marc - a v.beautiful picture - beautiful, painterly colours (notwithstanding the "noise").

[kent_tolley2]

Heh Marc. I can see why you like that lens. You put it to good use in that photo there.

[art_arkin]

Here is one through an 85/2.8 MM . I've since upgraded to the 1.4 and haven't looked back. Once had an RX but found it unreliable and too 'plastic' and now use an RTS II, a design masterpiece.

 

Leica M is my thing but for SLR I just can't shake the RTSII / T* Zeiss combo. Its like driving a high end Mercedes.

 

The RTSII shutter has the most immediate and razor sharp shutter response I've ever used. Few modern camera come close, at least none I've tried, not F5, Eos 1v and certainly no mechanical camera. Wouldn't trade it for an R.

 

Leicaholics owe it to themselves to try this Contax body. Kyocera got it so utterly right.

[jason_cheng2]

I would agree with Arthur's comments regarding the RTS 2. I own most of the various manual focus Contax bodies but find I like the RTS 2 the best because of its very sensitive shutter release. It is so sensitive that a mere touch of the button fires the shutter. Once you get used to it, it is amazing. It is as if the camera becomes hardwired to your brain. The camera also has a mirror lock up feature that I like but is limited in its metering options and shutter speeds compared with the newer bodies. Nevertheless, I love mine.

 

As far as lenses go, all three of the lenses you have mentioned are superb. Which focal length do you prefer - 85 vs 100mm? How close do you like to be to your subjects? If you are only planning on one lens, the 85mm focal length might be preferable. If you also want to use it for candids the longer 100mm focal length may be better. Since I tend to carry a wide angle (24 or 28mm), a 50/1.4 and a telephoto for general photography, I like the Planar 100/2 the best. It is one of the later Zeiss designs and a great performer even wide open. The 100/2.8 Makro is really superb but is heavier and a stop slower than the 100/2. If you aren't interested in macro photography, I'd recommend the 100/2 over the Makro.

 

The Planar 85/1.4 is a bit soft for my tastes at f1.4 but that can be nice for portraits. By f2.8 it is extremely sharp.

 

Lastly, don't overlook the less expensive, slower 85/2.8 and 100/3.5 lenses. They are both small and compact, about the size and weight of a normal lens. They are superb even wide open. I used the 85/2.8 for years and was very happy with it. The only reason I eventually moved to the 85/1.4 is that I find I like the look of shots with the 85/1.4 taken at f2.0.

 

Jason

[rico_tudor]

Agree with Jason's suggestion for the slower lenses. I have the Planar 100/2 and the Sonnar 100/3.5 (discontinued). For a tight head shot, f/2 is a no-go. I find f/4 a practical limit given the DOF, and perhaps f/2.8 for head and shoulders. The two special features of the Planar (superbly low linear distortion, uniform performance across the field at full aperture) are rather pointless for portraiture. Therefore, I recommend the cheaper Sonnars (85 or 100), which also serve nicely for travel.

[robert goldstein]

The 90/2.8G lens is exceptionally fine. Mate it with a G2, and you will have an outstanding kit at a reasonable price. At the other end of the focal length range is the 21/2.8G, truly one of the great super-wide angle lenses in the world, and also reasonably priced. Whether you will like the way a G2 handles is a matter that only you can decide.

[nasmformyzombie]

To Arthur re: Contax RTSII. Actually the RTSII was designed and produced by Yashica BEFORE the Yashica/Kyocera merger. Kyocera has yet to get a camera right! Here's a recent statement by Zeiss about its new rangefinder camera (from http://www.zeissikon.com/system.htm) "we decided to design our own camera body because other cameras simply cannot match the performance standards of our lenses."

[max_fun]

I'm a little late here, but although I like the RTSII, I've had lots of woe with the film

loading... I've lost a couple of rolls thinking that I'd loaded it properly, only to realize too

late that the film wasn't actually properly loaded. The focusing screen is better than even

my R8 now, IMHO.

[art_arkin]

Thanks for the interesting info Gary, I had no idea Kyocera came onboard after the RTSII and you are certainly right about Kc not getting a camera right. None of the 90s models do anything for me except the RTS III which really does offer a sense of immediacy and 'control' but i'm yet to be seduced. The II remains perfect despite the lack of spot metering which would have put it near the very top of the all time greatest camera designs.

Interestingly the Contax stand at photokina had a section devoted to the RTS III, I wasn't sure how to take it, what were they saying exactly showing a 10+ year old model...

 

Another note on photokina and a reply to Gary's Zeiss link above. I spent quite some time on their stand handling glass, a ZI prototype and chatting with the Doctors. Zeiss is an amazing company with very devoted designers who talk of their glass almost as 'offspring'. High standard is an understatement with these guys, except that this new Zeiss Ikon line feels cheaply constructed. I'm sure the manufacturing tolerances and Cosina's construction line are built to full Zeiss standard but the lenses just felt cheap. Contax zeiss optics are rock solid and feel luxurious as Leica. Cosina's effort is plain cheap. Perhaps I'm spoilt and at the end of the day its about glass but I wonder how well a cosina / zeiss flimsy aluminum planar will hold up with 10 years of solid use.

 

Finally in reply to Max, I too had a couple of mis-loads on first use of the RTS II and drained batteries through forgetting to switch off but these are now issues of the past through habitually switching off. Though the loading system is odd and needs a little more attention than say modern SLR, Once you readjust to a slightly different logic it will feed reliably 99% of the time, at least it does for me. On the finder I agree 100%, it has the best and brightest.