DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Contax G lenses better than Nikon Pro lenses


New Member
Sorry for my English...
I own Nikon stuff (F 90x 24 35-70 f 2.8 80-200 f 2.8) and I use only slides.. (Velvia Provia...)
I am satisfied with Nikon but...
My stuff is heavy...
Obviosly Contax G and lenses is by far lighter...
but before buying a Contax G system ... I ask to the experts (difficult question!): are picture taken with Contax G lenses "really" better than Nikon ones... (sharper, more vivid colors...)?
Obviously the most important thing is the photographer...
Thanks in advance
Hi Grabiele, while Nikon lenses are very good (I'm also a Nikon user, FM2, F801s and several lenses), the Zeiss G lenses are both sharper, more vivid in colors and contrastier (which is, by itself, a confirmation of the lens quality). The first roll you develop after using a G system is almost a religious experience.
Gabriele, from an equal comparison with similar high quality lenses from Nikon primes(85mm f/1.4, 28mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, 45mm P, 50mm 1.4/1.8) , on slide film, yes the Contax G slides are slightly more contrasty and has a surreal 3-D affect to them. Other than the 3-D effect, you'd have to look hard at the slide to find resolution differences, but contrast, is definitely slightly better with G lenses. If contax G was a 9 on a scale of 1-10, nikon pro primes would be a close 8.5. I don't see the difference as being that substantial when comparing to pro level glass.

Now that being said, Nikon lenses in that category are much more expensive than the G lenses (except for 45/50mm lenses). Bang for the buck G lenses win.

I have experience using both systems, however I keep both. To me they serve different purposes, and have their own qualities. What you need to do is ask questions more in line with - what kind of photography you do? Do you usually print large prints, and are the prints taken to a professional shop? Depending on what you do, the sharpness/contrast/resolution may not be noticed, due to there being no need to enlarge, or if the print shop is of low quality.

I just enjoy the pictures and pick the right tool for the situation. G2 for around town people shooting, where you need to be inconspicuous, and F100 for those times where I am out hiking, for macro, and telephot, as well as around town if I don't need to be inconspicous. On thing for sure the metering and focusing speed for the F100 is much faster and accurate than my G2, although the G2 can fire off 4 frames per second, close to that of the F100.
Because of te SLR Eqipment is to bulky and heavy i did buy an G2 equipment including a G1 camera and all lenses except the Contax G Hologon and zoom lense.
The lenses are superb, but the picture quality does suffer more because of the lab than you would see a difference Nikon-Contax G lenses.
My experience I made yesterday, I am gonna to shoot the staf in the lab today !

If you got an very good Filmscanner you will beat anything in combination with a Provia Slidefilm. But ask your self if this is it worth just because of litle bether sharpness.
Instead of that you also could get an Mamia 7II wich will satisfie any quality desire.
As a Camera to go traveling with I dont know anything bether than a G1 and the 35mm Lense.
There are few other RF Cameras. Leica M. Voigtländer in 3 different version with a very good lense selection. And dont forget the Rollei and Konika rangefinder.
But be carfull if you want to use a Leica lense on a Konika, the camera has to be adjustet first for that.
To go hiking with i recomend the much lighter G1.Does anyone need 4frames per second ?
I own a Nikon N90s in addition to a Contax G2. The only comparison I can make relevant to your question is between the Nikkor 50/1.4 and the G 45/2. The G absolutely blows the Nikkor away (and I always considered that particular Nikkor to be a fine lens). As mentioned by others, the G lenses impart a three dimensional quality that is easily recognized on your first roll of prints or slides. Luis described it as a religious experience. I can truthfully say that I was stunned by my first roll taken with the 45/2 using NPH.

Four years later, I am still constantly amazed by the G lenses. Recently, I have become enamored of the 90/2.8. I seriously doubt that there is a finer portrait lens on the planet. If you use good film and printing, the images will seem real enough to touch.