I am getting back into 35mm photography because I am starting a project involving world music musicians and dancers where a quiet and fast 35mm camera is needed. I will sometimes be shooting concerts and dance events with the lens wide open. At other times I will be creating portraits of the musicians with their instruments. I am considering getting either a Canon body such as an A2 or Rebel, because they can shoot so quietly, or a Contax, which, I understand, is also quiet, but which also has some supposedly amazing lenses.

I want to know if there is any reality in the Contax lens myth. If I could rent a camera to find out I would, but it is not possible to rent Contax here in Vancouver BC. I was wondering if there was anyone on this newsgroup who has any experience using the Carl Zeiss T* Lenses on the Contax 35mm SLR cameras. I would be very interested to know what these people think of Contax (Japanese or German) optics, especially to know if they deliver superior optical performance to lenses by Canon and Nikon. Sharpness is of course and issue, but I am even more interested in more subtle aspects such as contrast (local and macro), bokeh, tonality, 3-D image quality, performance at full aperture and colour rendition. These lenses are manual focus and quite expensive, so a user had better have a good reason for using them.

If someone has used these Zeiss lenses and found no real world difference between these lenses and some by Nikon and Canon I would like to know about this (as is which Canon lenses equal the Zeiss lenses). If someone has used these lenses and found that the resulting images are distinctly different in certain qualities I would like to know specifically what these qualities are and which of these lenses demonstrate them. In the past, I have used both medium format and 35mm and I find that the Nikon lenses such as the 85mm f1.8 are clearly acceptable. Compared to my images created with a medium format camera my images using Nikon lenses very obviously lacked something. However, Delta 100 is lovely, sharp, and very pleasing film stock and I am wondering if I can get more out of this film using a better lens. Someone once told me you can get results that almost look like medium format with Contax lenses but I find this hard to believe. I therefore am interested in the opinion of people with experience in this area.

Sincerely

Paul Nicholls

-- Paul Nicholls (pnichols@portal.ca), October 31, 1998

Answers

Hey Paul! I live in Vancouver too! I shoot with two other guys and one has a contax (with Zeiss) and the other Nikon. We have talked about this aspect and compared the shots and really don't see a difference. However the guy with Nikon has spent many years getting the best Nikon lenses (all used). Give me a call sometime (731-5122) and I can get some examples for you to see. Cheers.

-- andy laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), November 01, 1998.

Hi Paul: I believe that there is difference between Canon and Contax lens especially when you shoot B&W. I like the smooth tonality of B&W pictures that Contax lens make. I used to own a lot of Nikon equipments before, but I became disappointed when shooting B&W. I never have a chance to shoot B&W with Canon, someone said it is ugly. I never try it because I am quite satisfied with my contax. Some people believe that Leica lens make the most beautiful B&W pictures anyway.

-- Huang Yu Wen (yuwen@genesyslogic.com.tw), November 18, 1998.

Huang,

Have you tried medium or large format? The difference between Nikon, Canon or Leica pales in comparison to the effect of using larger film, B&W or color.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), November 19, 1998.

Zeiss lenses are absolutely magnificent ...and worth the considerable expense. Hasselblad owes its sucess to Zeiss glass. (Why else would we put up with the tweeky, mechanically unreliable things?) Leica's Leitz lenses are probably the best available, but only slightly, if any, better than Zeiss. One of my friends uses Canon and those lenses are suberb. I believe the major factor in the performance of the two German lenses is the quality of the raw glass. With today's modern computer aided design and manufacturing, even mid priced lenses outperform the best lenses of a decade ago.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), December 24, 1998.

"With today's modern computer aided design and manufacturing, even mid priced lenses outperform the best lenses of a decade ago."

But are we getting better photographs now than a decade ago? Certainly, 'tis food for thought.

-- rene (renequan@hotmail.com), December 31, 1998.

Response to Contax Lenses are they really superior?

Popular Photography Feb issue had an article "50mm/1.4 lens shoot out" They tested the 50mm/1.4 lens made by Leica, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta etc Their conclusion: Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm/1.4 lens is the best of all. Looking in more detail, both Zeiss 50/1.4 and Leica Summilux 50mm/1.4 deliver a maximum resolution of 95 line pair/mm Canon, Pentax 80 lpmm.

I have use Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus lenses, personally I like the color rendition of Leica/Zeiss T* lenses. The sharpness is superb too.

One the other hand, many other factors influence the final technical outcome, for example, have you selected the optimum aperture ? Is your hand holdign steady, resolution of film, how good the enlarging lens etc etc. So buy the time all these factors are counted in, the final difference3 between major lens manufacturers if hard to notice in term of resolution; but I feel the German glass seems to provide better color for me.

In terms of bokeh, Leitz/zeiss lens are good, and has fans in Japan, you may dig out pass articles on bekeh in Photo Technique.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), August 31, 1999.

I don't know if it is true or not, but a professional photographer told me the following: Most modern lenses resolve between 110-170 line pairs per mm. A Zeiss lenses start at 170 and can be up to 320 line pairs per mm. The problem is that most films can only resolve to around 150 line pairs per mm. Techpan is the exception, so when he needs that resolution, that is what he shoots.

His suggestion was moving to a larger format if greater resolution/enlarging was required.

-Chip Coons

-- Chip Coons (chip@bellsouth.net), September 01, 1999.