Why Contax and/or Zeiss at all?

[dirk]

" Is it true that zeiss use plastic? How do you know? If so it's annoying because various dealers assured me they were glass only. I can't find material specification on the literature that comes with the lenses. "

Nick,

I do not know whether they are made partly out of plastic or paper or wood, because I do not care as long as I get this excellent optical quality. It does not make sense to elaborate this any further. Either you want to make photos or you want to collect glass, metal - you name it. Also with Leica I do not care whether they use glass or whether they are produced in Germany etc. IT JUST DOES NOT MATTER as long as you like the results!

Dirk

 

[Guest]

<<< " Is it true that zeiss use plastic? How do you know? If so it's annoying because various dealers assured me they were glass only. I can't find material specification on the literature that comes with the lenses. " >>>

The Distagon 35mm f1.4 uses plastic, and is one sharp lens. I agree, if the results are acceptable, who cares what they're made of?
Also, like the papers, don't believe everything that a dealer tells you. I was told the other day by a dealer that MM, ( not mm ), on manual focus Zeiss/Contax lenses stands for millimetres..... Duh !!!

 

[Guest]

> [Dirk, I don't know enough about optics to know whether plastic can give same quality as glass. If it can, fine. But why can't contax tell us what the lens is made of? so that we know what we are buying. (an independent issue). If I have a bizarre preference for glass, I should be able to satisfy it.] >

 

[Guest]

There definitely have been some real technological advances in plastics, polymers, and acrylics in recent years -- for ex&le, the new high-quality, high-impact, scratch-resistant high-density acrylics used in eye glass lenses. (I am wearing a pair of progressives made of them.) That being said, the question remains, how well to they refract and transfer light rays, as compared to high-quality quartz glass?

Ron Myers

 

[Guest]

> Way to go, Dirk ! You present the argument very well and logically. The > result is the thing, not the lens materials used. Still, it would be nice > to hear from COntax just exactly what goes into their superb FFL lenses, > for interest and certainty. But the G2 as a P&S ? No way - it is a > brilliant design of photographic tool that puts into the body the sive of a > Leica all the other bits that Leica have to strap on as extras - and then > the motor won't rewind the film ! Your point about the M7 being the > complete opposite of Leica policy all these years is also well made. Don't > get me wrong, I was a Leicaman tried and true until my eyes went bad. Then > the switch to Contax Gs made me wonder about all the Leica propaganda over > the years. I guess you have to take all advertising with a pinch of salt, > and the end product is "Do you like the results ?"

Robin

 

[Guest]

> Can anyone tell me whether there is discernable difference in quality between contax lenses and nikkor lenses- particularly considering the 24/2.8 D and the 35-70/2.8 D

 

[Guest]

Can we please get a definitive answer from Zeiss about plastic used in G2 lenses? This could be a rumor spread by some Leicaphiles to protect their egos (and investments). Dirk, can you get the hot skinny from Zeiss on this?

Mike Gregory

 

[Guest]

Hello,

I think the lens you're talking about is the Distagon 1,4/35mm which uses an aspheric element.
Aspheric lenses are very difficult to grind. So they probably use a "normal" spheric glass-lens on which a thin aspherical lens is cemented on. This thin lens ist moulded from optical plastic.
This is normally done 'cause of the costs.
Optical plastic plays a big role in modern optic construction. Some nessecary refractive indexes or dispersion are only possible with this plastics.
I haven't got a problem with that fact as long as they don't make front and rear lenses from optical plastic. Those could be scratched too easily as you can see on ophthalmic lenses.

Matthias

 

[dirk]

"Can we please get a definitive answer from Zeiss about plastic used in G2 lenses? This could be a rumor spread by some Leicaphiles to protect their egos (and investments). Dirk, can you get the hot skinny from Zeiss on this?"

Guys,

relax, there is no reason to worry about anything. You know my opinion about this material discussion - a waste of time, because the final picture counts, even if it would have been made with a bubble gum.


But for the people who do think that they can not take pictures anymore before they know it: I do not know which material exactly is used in lens production - neither with Zeiss, nor with Leica/Leitz.

The only thing I know is one assumption of a user in this thread, stating that Leica "always use glass". As long as I do not have any official statement about this from Leica, it is just an assumption, nothing more. The same counts for the assumption of "plastic usage" in Zeiss lenses.

Just the fact, that someone posts something on the internet does not mean that it is true !

Since this subject is so obviously irrelevant for the final picture, you will understand that I do not want to waste the time of Contax and myself by inquiring about this.

If you feel differently feel free to contact Contax and publish the answer here.

dirk

 

[Guest]

I use Contax/Zeiss today because I like the quality of the lenses and equipment. I basically grew up using Zeiss. I actively started photography in the 1960's. I still have my original light meter, a Zeiss Ikon
"Ikophot" 1329c from Stuttgart, Germany. It has worked perfectly from that time, and I still use it today. I also have kept all of my Zeiss lenses.

Some of the Zeiss lenses I have used are: Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 2.8/50 for an Exakta, Carl Zeiss Jena Biometer 2.8//80 for a Praktisix II, Carl Zeiss Planar 3.5/75 for a Rolleiflex {this is one of the finest lenses I have used}, unfortunately the camera now needs some work, and others.

The Zeiss lenses that I currently use on a Contax 137 MA and 139 are Carl Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 and Carl Zeiss Planar 1.7/50.

All of these lenses are superb performers, very sharp with good contrast, and very dependable. That is why I started with Zeiss and use Contax/Zeiss today.

Terry