Contax Zeiss on your M?

[Leicawit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey all,

 

Just wondering who else uses Contax Zeiss (RTS) lenses on their M's. I picked up a lens adapter made by Shimada-san/Elefoto a couple of weeks ago from Photo Village (CameraQuest discontinued theirs) and I'm really loving using my Zeiss glass on my Leica. I have had my Contax rig for about 10 years now and I've grown very fond of the glass, especially the 28mm Distagon. Hoping to save a little money, I bought the adapter mainly to use the 28 on my Leica. Even though you must distance scale focus the lenses, the Distagon's huge hyperfocal distance makes it very easy to use this way.

 

After a couple of test shots, I immediately noticed the higher contrast of the Distagon compared to my Summicrons. I had just picked up a 50 Cron (third version from 1970) so I was still getting used to it and controlling its flare so the first back-to-back test shots were a bit extreme but now I've gotten used to them both and the differences are becoming less although you can still definitely tell the Distagon is tuned for more contrast.

 

Some shots:

 

First shot taken with the 28 Distagon on M6, Kodak BW400CN

 

Another 28 Distagon shot (didn't quite nail the hyperfocal in this one)

 

I did take a shot or two with the 50mm Planar but they didn't turn out so well. I'll keep trying. I haven't taken any shots yet with the 35-135 zoom yet.

 

Just for comparison, here are some shots from my new 50 Cron.

 

This is from another roll (of BW400CN) and the entire roll ended up a little lighter than the last. Next time I will be shooting the 28 and the 35 and 50 back to back, same roll, same subject, same exposure to really see what the differences are and how well the 28 can match the Summicrons.

 

(still getting used to shooting architecture with the RF)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[adan]

Personally, I made the mistake of comparing my Zeiss/Contax G lenses to a Leica 21 pre-ASPH - and switched to Leica. But that was mostly for the "wrong" reasons - lower contrast, cooler color rendition.

 

It's just a taste thing.

 

Your second Zeiss 28 image shows what I didn't like - very hot highlight areas in the building window frames and white Mini (especially on B&W film) that were very difficult to scan right from the neg. The Leica/Leitz 21/28 from 1980-ish just have a smoother roll-off in the highlights.

 

The Zeiss looks good in the softer light of the church shot.

 

But modern lens design philosophy favors maximum macro-contrast, and even the current Leica lenses are mostly too "hot" for my taste.

 

It will be interesting to see what you think once you try both in similar light.

 

BTW: The Contax RX was THE BEST modern motor-incorporated SLR I ever used - nice manual control dials, minimalist LCD, solid build without too much weight, not too short and not too tall. I wish there was a digital SLR equivalent today.

[Dan States]

As with any system you have to expose and develop based on the capabilities of the optics and the traits of the metering. A bit more exposure and less development time caps those highlights nicely and smoothes out the grain to boot.

 

I regularly use the original Contax Sonnar on my M Leica along with Summicrons and modern ZM sonnars and planars and have gotten into the habit of pulling the film about a stop to match the range of my scanner. That Planar is really hot and you have to take care or your negatives will be hard to print.

 

On the other hand on slide film the contrast looks great!

 

Enjoy your new hybrid system!