Contax T2 vs comparable Leica

[bob in seattle]

I've been using a T2 for years and am amazed at how, at 38mm f 2.8, the tiny Zeiss Sonnar T* lens

competes rather well against my R Vario Elmarit 28-90 at the the same view ( 35-40mm range).

 

I can't see myself going away from the R8 and R9. They are my primary tools.

 

But (1) I've actually sold more photos taken with the T2 so maybe it's a "Rangefinder point Of View

Thing" resulting in (2) I still think about the M6 or M7 and wonder what a 35 or 40mm Leitz or Leica M

lens would do that the tiny little Sonnar 38 hasn't already done for me.

 

Does 38 vignette against a blue sky? Uh-huh. Is the T2's built in flash rather wussy? Uh-huh. Does

the autofocus technology screw up now and then? Uh-huh.

 

But I live with that and must confess it's the most robust, reliable camera I've ever owned. I've certainly

read lots of posts from happy Rollei 35 and CL users as well.

 

I've never used an M so have no basis for comparison. I do like the way they feel, which doens't mean

much until I use one.

 

So, at the same apertures ( beginning at f2.8) and view angle + or - 38mm) anybody want to tell me

what I'd actually gain in an M6 or 7?

 

I'm not trying to start a fight. I'd really like to know what you think about this so I can make a decision

about an M in the near future.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Bob in Seattle

[mostly sports]

I've used both T2 and Leica Ms. One problem with auto focus cameras is that you don't

know until you see the negative exactly what was the focus point. With the manual

rangefinder, you choose the focus point. For a lot of travel or scenic photography this is

less of an issue. And there's the limit of one lens. I frequently use 21mm and 90mm

lenses. You just can't do that with a Contax, although I understand that you want to

compare at 38mm. The Contax is battery dependant. I used to have a Contax T2 (and G2

as well) but both have been sold and I now have an M4 with a 35/2.8 Summaron for those

rare times that I shoot film. I think the T2 lens had more contrast and richer color, but the

Summaron was sharper across the whole frame. The Leica set up feels eternal. The

Contax has a lot of little motors, and is not made for a lifetime of heavy use. The Leica

viewfinder is brighter and bigger. The Leica feels solid in the hands, but it won't slip into a

jacket pocket like the T2. I have a lot of good photos from the T2, simply because it was

the camera I had with me.

[jtdnyc]

<So, at the same apertures ( beginning at f2.8) and view angle + or - 38mm) anybody want to tell me what I'd actually gain in an M6 or 7?>

 

I use both a T2 and an M with a 35 Cron ASPH regularly but almost never at the same time. To answer your question specifically:

 

1. You will see better performance from the Cron at f/2.8. At smaller apertures, you may also get better performance from the Cron but whether you will actually see the difference in the final print might depend on enlargement size and other links in the chain between exposure and print.

 

2. You will be able to time the exact moment of exposure more accurately with the Leica. The T2 has a noticeable shutter delay. The Leica has virtually none.

 

3. You will have greater control over setting combinations of aperture and shutter speed with the Leica -- both a broader range of shutter speeds and the ability to set them independently of the selected aperture.

 

4. You will have a better view of the subject with the Leica and will be able to select the exact point of focus more precisely. Depending on your style of shooting, the depth of field scales on the Leica lens may also be helpful.

 

I use my T2 at birthday parties and other events where, for me, photography is secondary. The T2 is easier to carry and in many situations is simpler and quicker to use, especially when low-power flash is appropriate.

 

I use the Leica when my attention is focused primarily on taking pictures and I want to achieve the best results I am capable of.

[terry_rory]

I have have used two T2s at different times in the past. Superb little cameras.

 

Most of the lag you get is to do with the camera getting focus. Once you have depressed the shutter halfway and locked AF/exposure then there is only very little 'lag' after that. It will also allow 'manual' focus using the distance scale on a dial and it is assisted, so an LED in the VF will tell you when focus is correct. This minimises lag also.

 

The VF is very clear and the parallax markings markings quite accurate. The lens is stunningly sharp and reproduces nice bright colours with decent contrast.

 

F/2.8 cannot be manually selected although all other apertures can be manually selected for AE/aperture priority mode. This is a weird little quirk of operation but never, practically speaking, ever got in the way of getting a decent photograph.

 

Actually the full auto mode is pretty good and will err on the side of higher shutter speeds/wider apertures. Metering is basic but effective. Just exercise common sense.

 

I cannot personally recommend the Contax T3. I tried it out once but found it too small and tweaky for my hands. The T2 has a little more heft and has better grip (for me). Otherwise, despite not being my choice, the T3 is also a great little camera.

[terry_rory]

An example shot with T2....

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/50/129065082_5a725c8fa2_o.jpg" width="511" height="768" alt="Solent Sky" /></a>

[terry_rory]

OK just re-read the original post and realised that Robert is not seeking advice about getting a T2. Duh.

 

Sorry Robert. I now realise you have a lot of experience with it already.

 

All I can say is that I had more fun with my T2s than I ever had with my Bessa R3A/50mm Summicron or my Leica M6 TTL/Elmar/Nokton.

 

Guess which I would still like go out and buy a mint example of?

[adrian bastin]

That looks a very characteristic shot for that lens, Trevor ! I have the Contax T which is manual, rangefinder. And with that focal length f8 gives enough depth of focus for most situations.

 

Um, sorry, this is almost off topic.

[adrian bastin]

38mm is an odd focal length, being in between 35 and 50, both of which have their distinct characters. I have not used the 40 Summicron C but I would guess it is quite strikingly similar. Perhaps someone who uses one can add to this. I would be interested too.

[kentish_townie]

That's a tremendous photograph Trevor.

[gadge]

<I've been using a T2 for years and .....I still think about the M6 or M7 and wonder what a 35 or 40mm Leitz or Leica M lens would do that the tiny little Sonnar 38...>

 

A T2 is a great P+S camera isn't it? That little lens is amazing as is portability. In fact, that lens shouldn't give much away in comparison with any 35-40mm lens, so if that is all you are worried about, sleep easy!

 

<So, at the same apertures ( beginning at f2.8) and view angle + or - 38mm) anybody want to tell me what I'd actually gain in an M6 or 7?.

 

Now, what you seem to want above is to restrict comparisons down to only what a T2 does well e.g. work with a fixed 38mm lens @ 2.8 and up. I don't mean to be rude but that's silly and not at all a fair assessment of what an M delivers.

 

An M is far more versatile than a T2. For starters, it does not have a fixed lens! You have the choice of many different focal lengths and faster glass for low light work. You could, and should, be choosing an F2 or even F1.4 lens. It can focus very selectively, instead of the point and hope method of a T2. It is fully manual (T2 works in program or aperture priority modes only with exposure compensation wheel to deal with any complex metering issues). The M can be easily set to work in hyperfocal mode and preset for exposure to capture fast images.

 

So, available/low light photography plus general photography utilizing 28mm to 135mm lenses, with fast, selective, manual rangefinder focusing is what M's do.

 

Most people enjoy using and owning an M but I don't see why it would replace a pocket size P+S in your life or by the sound of it, the R8/R9's (which frankly are far more directly comparable with an M until you want macro or longer than 135mm work).

 

Rent an M7 with 35mm and 90mm lenses and take some pictures.

You will soon know if you can live without one or not.

[gadge]

Adrian - 38mm or 40mm lenses, in use, feel exactly like a 35mm lens.

I have used a T2 (38mm), a Rollei 35 (40mm lens) and a 40mm M CLE Rokkor.

 

The 40mm Minolta when used on an M6 closely matches the 35mm framelines as provided, unless photographing at less than 10'. Then I closely fill the 50mm framelines instead to be certain of no cut off limbs ;-)

[carbon_dragon]

The T2 is a great little camera, but it lacks the creative control you get with the M's or the CL. I want to be able to control the exposure as well as the focus (including using the dof scale on the lens). I still have the T2, but I mostly use it as a point and shoot.

[cpj]

Get an M7 (my preference) or an M6 (I used to own two) and you will never go back to the

Contax. Until I sold it and all my lenses for it, I used to keep the Contax in the car as a

"point and shoot" type camera with interchangeable lenses. It's a nice camera, but I've

owned all the M-series Leicas--usually two at a time as I have now (M7 and M8)--and I

believe you will find it is just a different world. [Losing autofocus will hinder your switch

for the first couple of months, but focusing will soon become second nature as will

selecting the aperture for the effect you are visualizing.]

 

Get an M, then sell your Contax. Forget about all the nuances of 38mm vs. 35, etc. Get an

M with a 35 Summicron--the non asph version is great--and start shooting..

[terry_rory]

<p>CPeter Jørgensenphoto.net patron, Nov 05, 2007; 10:42 a.m.</p>

 

<i>"I used to keep the Contax in the car as a "point and shoot" type camera with interchangeable lenses."</i>

 

<p>You are confusing the Contax T2 (a single focal length P&S compact) with the G2 AF rangefinder with interchangeable lenses.</p>

 

<p>Interestingly, Robert already pointed out that he has sold more photographs from the Contax T2 than from his Leica R8/R9 system so I don't think it should be written off as a mere 'keep in the car' camera or a casual camera just for birthday parties.</p>

 

<p>Robert, I would love to see some of your T2 photographs.</p>

 

<p>Here are a couple more of my T2 shots....</p>

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/49/147514149_bf61fe32d8_o.jpg" width="511" height="765" alt="Last flight" /></a>

[terry_rory]

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/75/195410162_c625e42388_o.jpg" width="750" height="487" alt="Bakery" /></a>

[carbon_dragon]

Here's a shot with my T2 of the Marietta Welcome Center, Marietta, Georgia, USA.<div></div>

[peter]

I have owned a T2 for a few years now and have been amazed at the quality of pictures it produces. I would say it compares favorably with my Leica Ms' late model lenses in terms of image quality. The T3 is said to be even better (although I find this hard to believe but cannot say as I have not experienced it for myself.) The T2 is quite handy for an advanced user in my view as it allows so much user control - aperture setting, focus point, flash, no flash and exposure compensation. I think from memory the flash does over-power the scene at close range (have not used it in flash mode for a while) but this can be adjusted by tweaking the exposure comp. All in all I would rate it as a very competent camera which has few bad habits.

[chris_chow]

I might add 2 things:

 

1. Leica with the latest 35mm lenses (especially the 35mm f1.4 ASPH) has less vignetting.

 

2. Leica allows me to handhold more steadily. YMMV.

[bob in seattle]

I sincerely appreciate the feedback on this topic. I'll keep the T2 but I can see that I really

need to rent an M7 and see for myself. No other answer seems logical.

 

As requested, here are past shot froms my T2.<div></div>

[bob in seattle]

Downtown Seattle last summer. This guy sells a local gossip rag on the streets. I decided

to use the built in flash due to the high surrounding light levels.

[bob in seattle]

Late winter at Pioneer Square's (Seattle) Waterfall Park. Amazing collection of waterfalls

producing quite a load roar - favorite place for private conversations. A walled retreat just

steps away from city hustle and bustle. Note cameilias blooming left background.

[alan_wilder1]

This may help a little. Here are some test comparison shots between the T2, T3 and Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar in a Leica RF mount all shot at f/4: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=696998. The T3 came out the best followed closely by the Rollei Sonnar and the T2 a close 3rd. The biggest difference was the corner sharpness on the T2 which tended to be a little "smeary". I tested the Rollei Sonnar against my 35/2 ASPH Summicron and found them to be extremely close overall except the extreme corner where the Summicron was a little better better. I found the T3 to be the sharpest of all the T series and it's remarkable AF never erred unless I screwed up. The T3's spot focus option really helped and always worked without fail. The T2 has better ergonomics and the MF mode with assist from the electronic rangefinder helps to greatly reduce (but not completely eliminate) focus errors.