Deliberate1 Posted August 1, 2016 Share #1 Posted August 1, 2016 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Friends, this post is directed primarily to you folks who have shot both these 35mm iterations. When I bought my 006 late last fall I also acquired the 70mm Summicron as my prime lens. Shortly thereafter I got two Zeiss for Contax lenses - 120mm and 35mm - to pair with the Leica C adapter. I have truly enjoyed all of these lenses, including the Zeiss glass which cost me far less than $2000 for both. And, for the most part, they work beautifully with the C adapter. That said, the images form the the 70mm Summicron draws the light in a way that makes images from the Zeiss glass appear quite clinical and lacking in that 3D look that we all crave. Defintely "Zeiss-like" but not "Leica-like." Part of that could be the fact that the 35mm stops down to f3.5 and the 120mm to f4. But I suspect there is far more to it because images from the 70mm shot at those f stops still have that "Leica look." Standing alone, the images from the Zeiss are splendid. It is only when I put them next to the ones taken with the 70mm that the qualitative differences appear. Having never shot either the 35mm or 120mm Summicrons, I am curious to hear from those of you who have, and whether you note the differences in lens personality that I see when comparing lens of different focal lengths. With the price of used 35's in the $3000 range, I could see picking one of them up, selling the Contax lens and dedicating the adapter to the 120mm Contax. Frankly, switching out that device in the field can be a pain in the tooshie. Obliged for your thoughts. Cheers. David PS: Extra points for sample images. Edited August 1, 2016 by Deliberate1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 1, 2016 Posted August 1, 2016 Hi Deliberate1, Take a look here Contax Distagon 35mm vs 35mm Summicron S. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
John McMaster Posted August 1, 2016 Share #2 Posted August 1, 2016 I have not used the Zeiss and do not know your usage; the S 120/2.5 is my most used S lens plus I prefer (in look and usage) the 45mm over the 35mm... john 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deliberate1 Posted August 1, 2016 Author Share #3 Posted August 1, 2016 John, Obliged for yours. My order of use: 70mm > 35mm >120mm. I would certainly consider the 45mm, as it is closer to FF 35mm, though I have come to appreciate the breadth of the MF 35mm perspective. On a more practical note, the 45's on the used market are rare as hen's teeth, and for the price of a new one ($7800 at B&H) I could live quite comfortably in a third world country for several months. D Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 1, 2016 Share #4 Posted August 1, 2016 Just to be clear, the 35, 70 and 120 S lenses are not Summicrons (f2), they are Summarits, f2.5. The only S Summicron is the 100. Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted August 1, 2016 Share #5 Posted August 1, 2016 On a more practical note, the 45's on the used market are rare as hen's teeth, and for the price of a new one ($7800 at B&H) I could live quite comfortably in a third world country for several months. Indeed, I got my 45CS for a good price s/h :-) john Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2016 Share #6 Posted August 1, 2016 I started with the 35 and eventually sold it and acquired the 45. I think that for me the 45 has a beautiful rendering of space and wonderful detail. The 35 is a very good lens. Extra points ? Sure .... Bob Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/263082-contax-distagon-35mm-vs-35mm-summicron-s/?do=findComment&comment=3089024'>More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2016 Share #7 Posted August 1, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Another with a different perspective .... Bob Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/263082-contax-distagon-35mm-vs-35mm-summicron-s/?do=findComment&comment=3089025'>More sharing options...
mgrayson3 Posted August 1, 2016 Share #8 Posted August 1, 2016 (edited) I have both the Contax 35/3.5 and the S 35 Summarit. The Contax is a very good lens. The Leica is better. Stopped down, the Contax is sharp corner to corner. The S produces Moiré wide open across the frame and is a stop faster. I have always liked the 28mm FF FoV, so the 35 S fits me perfectly. I know people love the 45, but it's not a focal length I often use. I also have the S 70 Summarit, and have borrowed the 120/2.5 APO-Macro. I own the Contax 120/4 Macro and 140/2.8. The 140 is difficult to use and the 120 is MF only, although it goes to 1:1 and the S only goes half that far. The S 24 and S 120 are the two lenses I'd like to get next. If I shot more portraiture, the S 100 Summicron would be irresistible. Samples. All taken with an S(006) Contax 35 And now with the S 35 Best, Matt Edited August 1, 2016 by mgrayson3 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deliberate1 Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share #9 Posted August 2, 2016 Matt, if my eye was more critical or my sensibility more discerning I might be able to articulate the obvious distinctions among these Contax and Leica images. Frankly, I see none. You clearly know how to use your gear to its best advantage. And that gives me considerable GAS relief. I will just have to spend that money elsewhere. Or, God forbid, not at all. I thank you for that. David 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deliberate1 Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share #10 Posted August 2, 2016 Another with a different perspective .... Bob Lovely image, Robert. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgrayson3 Posted August 2, 2016 Share #11 Posted August 2, 2016 Matt, if my eye was more critical or my sensibility more discerning I might be able to articulate the obvious distinctions among these Contax and Leica images. Frankly, I see none. You clearly know how to use your gear to its best advantage. And that gives me considerable GAS relief. I will just have to spend that money elsewhere. Or, God forbid, not at all. I thank you for that. David Most of the difference is that the Leica can be used at f/2.5 and has pleasant color. The Contax really benefits from f/5.6 or f/8 and has a different look. I went for the S(006) mostly for the color rendition of the S glass. It's not an APO lens, but I've seen no chromatic aberration in the OOF details. My goal was to show the best that I could make each lens do. They both ARE great lenses. --Matt 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 2, 2016 Share #12 Posted August 2, 2016 Matt, if my eye was more critical or my sensibility more discerning I might be able to articulate the obvious distinctions among these Contax and Leica images. Frankly, I see none. You clearly know how to use your gear to its best advantage. And that gives me considerable GAS relief. I will just have to spend that money elsewhere. Or, God forbid, not at all. I thank you for that. David If online viewing is the goal, save your money....lots of gear will suffice. I can't assess gear without making prints using my own files. And then there are dozens of variables in the overall camera to print/display workflow influencing the result (including one's skills and judgment)....thankfully....otherwise everybody using the same gear would produce similar results. The only way to really know is to experiment (rent, demo, borrow) and choose the tools that best suit your needs and tastes. And if you're already satisfied, no need. Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted August 2, 2016 Share #13 Posted August 2, 2016 A quick shoot of the lenses in question, one subject (tree), handheld. It was very easy to see the Leica had greater contrast/sharpness. The Zeiss had this wonderful subtlety of tones, slightly greater than the Leica. Ultimately I sold the Zeiss and purchased the 30mm Leica, the focal is my favorite wide and native mounts are less an issue than adapter/cap switching in difficult situations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deliberate1 Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share #14 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) .... and native mounts are less an issue than adapter/cap switching in difficult situations. True that. I have but one adapter and have to switch it back and forth from the 35mm to the 120mm. It takes time and usually balks most when time is of the essence. Sometimes it can be a real challenge getting it off the lens mount. Purchasing a second adapter would resolve that issue - but to have $4k tied up in adapters makes me wince. In point of fact, my adapter was a certified item from Leica Miami for about 60% of retail. When it would not function I returned it and Leica NJ sent me a brand new one which has worked well. Good customer service there. Noting but praise for the folks at Leica Miami. David Edited August 2, 2016 by Deliberate1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.