jim_rais Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Now that Carl Zeiss has announced the ZF CZ lenses made by Cosina, is there any chance that Contax C/Y lenses will finally get a C/Y- mount DSLR (made by Cosina?) which can directly be coupled without adapter? The website of Carl Zeiss' did mention the existence of C/Y- mount SLR made by Braun (which looks ugly to me in comparison to Kyocera's Contaxes).<P> <LI><A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=332699">Jim Rais</A></LI><P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Don't know really, but I think the older lenses are cheaper anyhow. I bought a mint Contax AX for $700 and now thinking about old lenses, not new ones. The AX can autofocus manual lenses because the film plave moves, not the lens. I think Contax may live on somehow. Anyhow, I am an amatuer shooter who uses small amounts of slow film, so I'm not expecting problems due to oevruse of the electronics. I wish there was a Contax/Zeiss forum here! Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blumesan Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 It does seem passing strange to me that Zeiss has decided to re-enter the still photography market with a MANUAL FOCUS line of lenses principally targeted to digital photographers using Nikon cameras. Apparently they believe that the appeal of Zeiss glass will convince users of modern digital high tech gear to forgo the convenience of auto-focus. There exists a large reservoir of C/Y mount Zeiss lenses in use or sitting on someone's shelf. These are in the hands of photographers who are, or were once quite content with manual focus. So I agree with you; there is a large potential market for a quality C/Y mount DSLR. Much larger, I would guess, than the market for the new line of lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I agree with the above too. Would the DSLR have an autofocus mechanism as in the Contax AX or was that just a one off design ? Seems that the film plane in the AX moves about 10mm, but surely in the digital version it could simply move the sensor rather than the prism and the whole back. Might be me dreaming though. Anyhow, it might be very expensive. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jv1 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 What we need from Mr. Kobayashi is a digital Bessa R2. Say, the R2-D at a $1200 price point. Even if it doesn't sell, the second version R2-D2 will be a big hit among Star Wars fans worldwide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 How does it seem strange that Zeiss is making manual focus lenses? They probably had a heart attack when they saw what used Zeiss lenses (especially wides) are going for on the used market, and then immediately decided to try to get a share of that cash. What seems strange to me is that Zeiss didn't decide to release a super wide lens at first. I'm not so sure that people will be beating down doors to get a 50 f/1.4 brand new when they can get a used one for $120 or so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Does the 50mm 1.4 have any equal or is it really a cool lens ? Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 The Zeiss 50 f/1.4 has existed in several incarnations. The best performing SLR 50 according to several sources is the old screw mount Takumar 50 f/1.4, beating even Leica lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Better off with a Pentax SL and the 50mm 1.4 MC super takkumar in that case ! Yikes, maybe Contax AX has an M42 adaptor. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_rais Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 <TT>What seems strange to me is that Zeiss didn't decide to release a super wide lens at first. I'm not so sure that people will be beating down doors to get a 50 f/1.4 brand new when they can get a used one for $120 or so...</TT> <I>(Andrew Robertson)</I><P> That's why they decided to release the 50/1.4 first, just to see if people will be beating down doors to get it. If that's the case, then they'll know how much to charge the most wanted super wides. No big deal, just another marketing chess game.<P> <LI><A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=332699">Jim Rais</A></LI><P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Seems to me that they already know: $2500 for the wide primes. That's the going price for a used one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mawz Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Andrew: The Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 is a great performer. But the 50mm f1.4 Planar simply blows it out of the water for sharpness at f2 and wider open. The MTF for the CZ 50mm indicates it's as sharp wide open as the Pentax 50mm f1.7, which is certainly the best performing Pentax 50mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hall1 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 The ZF/ZS series are going to be digital ready. The 50 and 85 are the first to be released probably because they are just re-mounted Contax versions with insignificant light fall-off when used with a digital sensor. (Of course their focal lengths are popular too.) The wideangles will need more development in this respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 30 year old Takumars are 'digital ready' too. Some features like rear meniscus lenses and multicoating on every element actually help, but 'digital ready' is generally something that is firmly in the realm of Marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hall1 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 >30 year old Takumars are 'digital ready' too. Yep, all those wideangles are more ready to vignette on a digital sensor than on film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 This is a property of the sensor, not the lens. New lenses vignette too. It's not a big deal, as serious DSLR users know that shooting RAW makes vignetting a thing of the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_502260 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I've seen test reports which show that the older 55mm f/1.8 SMC Pentax is sharper than the later 50mm f/1.7 SMC-M. I have both of these lenses myself and they both seem fine. From what I know the 55mm f/1.8 SMC Pentax lens is the same, optically, as the screw mount 55mm f/1.8 Takumar SMC. It's just in a K mount. When Pop Photo tested 50mm f/1.4 lenses in 1999 it found that the 50mm f/1.4 Zeiss lens (new model, 8 elements) was just slightly better than than the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux for the R series Leicas. Separately the Zeiss lens was tested against an old 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar. TMX was used for both lenses and 11X14 printe were made from the same scene. I don't remember what f/stop was used but the results were indistinguishable. By the 1960s standard lenses were almost as good as they were going to get. Most of the improvements made since them were in coating technology. I have also seen tests which show that later model 50mm f/1.4 Nikkors are slightly sharper wide open and closed down a stop or two but not as sharp closed down as the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor SC and K lenses. It's hard to design a lens which is at its best at every aperture. The lenses which come closest to this ideal are usually slower to begin with. If you use a lens mostly wide open then you need one which performs well wide open. If you don't use a lens wide open most of the time then a different lens might be just as good or even better. I am at the age when it is sometimes nice to have a faster lens (manual focus) just to make focusing easier in low light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blumesan Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Forgive my ignorance, but I dont own a digital camera. What little I do understand would lead me to believe that sensors smaller than FF would be less likely to display vignetting, since they capture a more central portion of the image. Also can someone explain how shooting RAW with a DSLR makes vignetting "a thing of the past". Thanks, Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Vignetting can be corrected when 'developing' the RAW file. And it's true that there would be more even illumination across a miniature sensor, but they are inherently limiting and will become more so in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 <Vignetting can be corrected when 'developing' the RAW file. > ... just like numerous other aberrations. I guess all we need are cheapy kit lenses and small and noisy sensors prone to purple fringing. <This is a property of the sensor, not the lens.> <And it's true that there would be more even illumination across a miniature sensor> How consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Has anyone ever tested the mamiya 50mm 1.8 ? It costs about $20 used and is very well made with a metal barrel and engraved numbers. No cheapo rubber grip like Cantax/Yashica! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Fred, CA and vignetting can be corrected in RAW, but I'm not sure that I want cheap lenses. You can't make a low resolution lens into a high resolution lens, nor can you correct coma or other aberrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 <Fred, CA and vignetting can be corrected in RAW, but I'm not sure that I want cheap lenses. > What you want and what you need is clearly different. <You can't make a low resolution lens into a high resolution lens, nor can you correct coma or other aberrations.> And you also said the sensor was the limiting factor, not the lens? In view of your latest remark, show me a kit lens that's out-resolved by a corresponding digital sensor. Those "incorrigible" aberrations clearly do not include one of the most common: distortion. Coma can also be reduced by stopping down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now