Contarex Bullseye Manual High School
Posted By admin On 12.10.19German optical manufacturer Zeiss has announced a new range of lenses called Loxia, designed for full frame cameras using the Sony E mount – essentially the Sony Alpha 7 series at the moment. The Loxia 2/35 and Loxia 2/50 are based on the company's existing 35mm f/2 Biogon and 50mm f/2 Planar lenses from the ZM range.Both models will allow users to deactivate the 'click' of the aperture ring by turning a screw on the lens mount, making these lenses suitable for videography as well as for stills. Zeiss claims the lenses will also transmit data to host bodies regarding EXIF information, as well as to trigger viewfinder magnification when required during manual focusing. Sorry lost a section because of the 999 character limit. Loxia 50mm focus helicoil jumps the image into DMF 7.2x focus as soon as you turn, which is wonderful.
Butkus, 29 Lake Ave., High Bridge, NJ. CONTAREX PDF MANUAL CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE TO ZEISS IKON CONTAREX - Mode d'emploi.
This is a manual lens diaphram so focus at f:2 and then close down, without changing the focus at all! All EXIF info is saved to the camera after exposure and viewing the image after exposure at max magnification revealed a very sharp image on my A7r.
The image quality is the equal to the more expensive Zeiss AF lenses in Prime lenses for the Sony A7 FE series camera, just slower in use. If speed is NOT an issue for you or price, this is a very interesting lens. My new Loxia 50mm F:2 arrived, so i got out my trusty Test Chart and ran a test on the Loxia 50 mm, Summircron 40mm/2 CL and Sony SEL2870 kit lens. All exposures shot at 1/400@F:4.5. Loxia has the best colors and image brightness, Summircron resolves slightly better than the Loxia; and the SEL2870 comes in third in resolution. The SEL2870 was shot at the 45mm setting on the Zoom.
Contarex Special
I used the Summircron with a Tinray Macro focusing mount L/MNex adapter. So that lens affords me 40mm view angle & macro focus and sharpness, but the colors are not as bright.I used a Sony A7r for the test cameraBack to the Loxia 50mm, its smaller than normal for Zeiss, but its chunky heavy build quality is noticeable.
Its a work of Art, for sure and its builder is Cosina. The Loxia is a great product, with beautiful color rendition and contrast & sharpness almost as good as my favorite lens the Summircron 40mmF:2 CL lens of Germany. Regards, Don@Eastwestphoto. What is optimized for digital?
The laws of physics don't change for a digital camera.One could also use the ZE version and get the EXIF data if one prefers. It's all marketing.
They could as easily make them dual functioning: AF with manual aperture and a 180 degree focusing ring. This sort of thing creates 'schools' of thought and bias making the real lens this one and the other an impostor. It's laughable how hard the camera makers try to convince everyone that their product is the one true photographic experience, all bow down. My understanding is that the angle of light rays emerging from the rear of a lens on a digital camera need to be more perpendicular to the sensor, in order to avoid vignetting and chromatic aberration, than for film. This is a physical characteristic of photosites, which are sensitive to the incident angle of the light.
Pixels towards the corners of a sensor receive less perpendicular or 'weaker' light rays from lenses not optimised for digital use, resulting in poorer optical performance there than towards the centre of the sensor - it's the law! The solid build and wonderful look are certainly promising especially to photographers who are longing for responsive prime lenses.As to whining about the price tag: Take into account that Loxia lenses represent high (maybe highest) standard in lens making. Manual focus isn't a shortage, but - in terms of build - an even bigger challenge.
Moreover, when it came to pricing maybe nostalgia ('good old MF-times') has come into play - and, of course, the brandname Zeiss.In case camera and MF-lens work well together and are capable of top IQ the price tag might be justified to some. Only those who do not appreciate CZ lens quality would think they are expensive. I have a few of those ZE mount ones for Canon and I wouldn't give them up for anything else. The 35mm f/2.0 is an entry level CZ lens and usually is the first one would get. Then, once you are hooked on the unique image quality one would start buying the rest, the 21mm, the 50mm f/2.0 macro, the 85mm f/1.4, the 135mm f/2.0 APO and the 15mm f/2.8.The Canon equivalent just can't beat them on image quality. However, Canon is still holding its ground on the AF super telephoto like the 400mm f/2.8 or the 600mm f/5.6.Compared to Leica glass, I still prefer the CZ character. I would have appreciated a back photo from DPreview, showing the contacts and lens mount.
This series of lenses may be MF, but; I like seeing the data transmission contacts so i can compare with my other Sony FF AF lenses. I was never a English major in college, I went to college for Photographic technology and science and optics and mechanics and electronics are important to me.I use MF all the time on Sony A7r & Sony Nex 7, I never trust anybody's AF system to be as good as magnified focus assist. Thus MF zeiss lenses using the time tested Rangefinder, SLR Planar design, with a modern aspherical elements, will hopefully be a very high resolution lens? I think the 50/2 is more to my liking, I have both of these lenses on a Contarex Bullseye SLR from yesteryear and a Contarex Nex adapter also. The planar 50/2 was a amazingly great lens in the film days of Zeiss glory. Regards, Don. They look a nice pair of lenses.In fact in terms of specification being F2 and 35 and 50 they are what Sony should have brought out themselves instead of the slow (by modern standards) 35mm F2.8 and the too-long 55mm F1.8.I don't buy this idea that had they (or CZ) come out with AF versions of the 35/F2 and 50/F2 they would have to be larger lenses.The Canon 35mm F2 which has both AF and Optical image stabilization is 335g in weight whereas the CZ 35mm F4 is 5g heavier at 340g.
The Canon has 67mm filters v 52mm but it is only just over 3mm longer. Nothing in it. You have the right attitute. This two new lenses from Zeiss should be excellent. I like the small size, weather sealing and fully manual operation.
Like you have noticed, no fly-by-wire. If it is well made with excellent optical quality, the asking price is actually quite reasonable.
Unfortunately, I am not so fond of Sony mirrorless bodies. Wished they would make a similar range for micro 4/3.I must say those Zeiss lenses made for the Canon and Nikon mounts are almost as good as money can buy but unfortunately without weather sealing. @Ruy PenalvaFor Videographers, and also ppl like me which appreciate aperture control directly onto the lens (just like the good, old days) and manual focusing, it's perfect.if there wouldn't be the typical ZEISS price.sad, but true. I find it personally a strange thing to dial the wanted aperture just via click wheel otherwise onto the DSLR/DSLM body.and all electronically, too. So the aperture is wide open always to give you a bright picture into the OVF, and just when you hit the shutter the aperture stops down to your dialed-in setting.with a mf lens, i set the aperture onto the lens itself and see the choosen aperture directly into my viewfinder, either way optical or via EVF.Videographers can continously dial their desired aperture clickless (stepless) continously, which is a big plus instead of jumping from f-stop to f-stop.and to prevent some camera shake, too whileas doing so. Zeiss and Leica have typically limited their focal length to shorter range, mostly 100mm and less, much less zooms.Zeiss Loxia was meant to be manual focus option. Sony users already have AF lenses: Sony Zeiss 35 and 55mm.
Zeiss also has Touit line for AF lenses but as of now, APSc only (I won't be surprised if it is expanded into FF).That being said, I would say, for video, Loxia lenses might be a better option than Sony Zeiss FE 35/55, mainly for being designed as manual focus lenses and they also have an option to turn off aperture clicks. The AF lenses do not have hard stops, and are a pain to focus manually (drive by wire mechanism to begin with).Even for stills, many of us do prefer the feel of a proper MF lens so these two are great additions. They provide what people wanted to use E-mount bodies for: Zeiss and Leica lenses. My old manual, full metal Nikon 50/1.4 was 150$ on e-bay. And I doubt at no moment that this Loxia has absolutely nothing it can teach to my 'old' Nikon. I do MF only and no video, so I do not care about Loxia's video ability. I wait for a set of manual lenses from Sony that are not tagged with blue squares and that is affordable for just anyone.
If you operate Sony, unless you use old manual glass with adapters, your are condemned to buy cameras at dumping prices and lenses where you need to be a millionaire to afford them. This Zeiss mania sucks. Well, there is nothing strange about it.Double Gauss is one of the best lens designs ever made and some of the worlds most expensive lenses are based on this design. (as well as the worlds cheapest lenses).Most of the Canon and Nikon long tele, that cost $2-3K are based on even older Triplet design (modified triplet).
Manual High School In Indiana
Many still use modified Sonnar, Ernostar etc (btw, that Opic lens you are talking about will cost you around $3000 today)Most of my lenses are DG design. Many use DG today, so the price is not about the design, the price is about Glass formula, materials and tolerances.P.S. The bicycle is also very old design, but you still pay $5000 for a very nice specimen, don't you? BarnET2,There are different glass manufacturers, and some are better than others, like Schott glass from Germany.So that, plus tighter tolerances, possible slightly better mechanics/materials will be a welcome feature for some. For some people even slight advantage in any of those features are good enough reason to spend more $$$.
To me for example, if this lenses will match optical performance of ZM line, plus electronic contacts, plus click less aperture, makes for a good buy. (but me 8 years ago will probably agree with you).
@Barn,just because Zeiss is capable shoving 15 elements inside a lens, doesn't mean they should do it for every lens they make. You are looking for a problem to your solution.50mm f2 is perfectly fine with DG design 6 elements. If you want to add speed, then sure add few more elements, if you want to add more angle, sure add more elements to deal with distortions, etcZeiss has Schott glass in their lenses, its pretty much what Leica also uses or has been using.
(colors, tonality, micro contrast are all better). If i could ever afford one - yes, of course! But Zeiss stated some time ago, they won't produce one.:(Imagine, a digital Zeiss Ikon with A7R or A7S Sensor.and/or inside the Design of a digital Zeiss VEB Pentacon/Contax S Design!.cough.
Contarex Bullseye Manual High School Peoria Il
Pure Camera Porn, forget the need for a digital Nikon FM2 then.If i'd be a billionaire, i'd goto ZEISS and loan these guys a lot of money for a resurrection of the CONTAX brand. A digital Contax S2 perhaps, would also be very handsome.I'd suggest that the Contax brand needs to be back from the dead like a phoenix with highend quality & materials. Even Panasonic reanimated the oncefamous Technics brand from the grave nowadays - why not Contax? Obviously you didn’t do enough research—“The Biogon T. 2/35 ZM and Planar T. 2/50 ZM are based on decades of proven optical designs whose roots stretch far back in the history of ZEISS. They combine good value for the money, small size, robustness and a long service life.The Loxia 2/35 and Loxia 2/50 build on THESE proven designs and are ADAPTED for use on modern digital mirrorless full-frame system cameras.
As well as the possibility of CAMERA-INTERNAL (.I guess they mean “in-camera”) image optimization, the Loxia 2/35 and Loxia 2/50 feature a far shorter minimum object distance than the Biogon T. 2/35 ZM and Planar T. 2/50 ZM: 0.3 m compared to 0.7 m for the Loxia 2/35 and 0.45 m compared to 0.7 m for the Loxia 2/50.”Comment Area, emphasis mine.