I know that this is the Leica fourm, but I also know that many of you are like me and are addicted to buying and trading bodies and lenses and the like. I have found a Contax RX body with 1,4/50 and 2.8/28 new for a very decent price. I have always been intrigued by Contax/Zeiss, but have never owned or tried them out. The apparent age of the lenses, developed for the most part 10 years ago or more and the dated styling and features of the bodies has kept me away. Can anyone help me decide? I love my M and R gear, my Nikon AF too, but is it time to jump into Contax/Zeiss as well? Or am I spending money just to gain bag weight? It's the three pieces above or a new Summilux-M 1,4/35!

-- Sr.May (maggialone@yahoo.com), February 26, 2002

Answers

The answers to all your questions are in the : "M7 Predictions (Dennis Couvillion, 2002-02-25) " thread a few lines down.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), February 26, 2002.

What will the Contax RX allow you to do that you cannot do presently with the equipment you now own? You have a M and R system, and a Nikon AF camera as well? Am I missing something here? A 28/2.8 and 50/1.4 are available in every 35mm system; why would you buy into Contax for these?

-- Chris Henry (henryjc@concentric.net), February 26, 2002.

This is so ironinc. I am just finishing selling virtually all my Contax gear because I am totally pleased with my M6/35/50/90 combo. Oh, I do have a digitial for ebay transactions and e-mail junk.

So if it we me, I get the 28mm Summicron M without hesitation, but, that's just me.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), February 26, 2002.

check out alfie wang's contax question below .

-- leonid (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov), February 26, 2002.

i know this might sound trite, but do whatever you like. if buying and selling camera gear makes you happy, do it! ~J.

-- J. G. (reachskg@yahoo.com), February 26, 2002.

Sr.May,You Have Affluenza.

-- richard b (rubyvalentine@earthlink.net), February 26, 2002.

Alfie has met his match.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), February 26, 2002.

Affluenza!!! That's a great one.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouthlessspam@cox.net), February 26, 2002.

If it were ME I'd get the 35 ASPH...but the RX is (IMHO) the cream of the Contax 35 crop - 95% of the functionality of the RTSIII with 65% of the weight. The focus confirmation is pointless and useless, but can be turned OFF very easily.

I sure wouldn't bother with more than 1 SLR system, though. Make an informed choice, but CHOOSE! Cameras are for picture-taking, not body- building!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 27, 2002.

In the event you are looking for "German glass" by buying into the current Contax system and Carl Zeiss lenses, I am quite certain that it is actually manufactured in Japan by the "Carl Zeiss Society of Japan", or something to that effect. I travel to Tokyo a lot on business, and often visit the major camera dealerships to learn about current developments. Regards.

-- Steve Brantley (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), February 27, 2002.

Well I am one of the few people ( on earth ? ) who uses an old zeiss contarex . I have a 35mm distagon (60's w.german ) for it , and shoot about 4 to 5 rolls of film a week . It's really a nice lens , but I have come to the conclusion that it is no better than one from nikon or canon (certainly less versatile ). To paraphrase the NRA's ( idiotic ) mantra , lenses don't shoot people , people shoot people .

-- leonid (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov.), February 27, 2002.

Leonid

Good for you with the beautiful Contarex. Why is the Distagon a "less versatile" 35mm lens? I don't get it - is it because it is slow? I am great admirer of the Contarex optics. They don't make them like that any more...

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 27, 2002.

No auto-focus , no autoexposure , slow ( at night, the f/2 version is at least $700 ) . Unless I am shooting something that is motionless , having to meter by hand , transfer it to the camera , and then focus isn't always convenient ( and I would like a high eyepoint finder ). I am finding that as I stick my nose into more and more dangerous/dark spots , an autofocus, autoexposure camera may be the thing for me . As much as I love the camera , I 'll probably sell it and get a f100 and 35/2 . But that's just me , so please don't take offense at anything that I've said .

-- leonid (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov), February 27, 2002.

If you have the money and the envy, go for it.

I recently bought a Rollei 35SE just for fun. It's nice and lovely.

Who cares if it's anachronic.

However, the Zeiss Quality is a real thing. You should be pleased.

X.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), February 27, 2002.

Xavier,

The Zeiss "anachronic" lenses used in the Rollei 35 were very good, I believe.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), February 28, 2002.

"In the event you are looking for "German glass" by buying into the current Contax system and Carl Zeiss lenses, I am quite certain that it is actually manufactured in Japan by the "Carl Zeiss Society of Japan"

True (except for some specialty lenses like the 16 fisheye and 300 2.8(?))

Bu of course all the parts and much of the pre-assembly of Leica bodies takes place in Portugal - and many of the 'classic' Leica lenses from 1960-1990 were made completely in Canada. For that matter the CURRENT Leica 80-200-R is made by Kyocera (read Contax!) - and not even the "Zeiss Foundation".

If Zeiss or Leica is prescribing the glass formulas and shapes and specifications, do you think the materials and machinery in the factory 'know' whether the people outside are eating sushi or bratwurst or paella or (hmmm...what's a traditional Canadian dish?)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 28, 2002.