Contax G2 Lenses Question

[TheNightSquatch]

Hi Guys, I have a question. I have always heard how sharp the Contax G series lenses are but after scouring the internet for examples, such as flickr, I'm not seeing it. Atleast not on a whole. Is this a product of too many ppl shooting wide open or having shaky hands? From your experience how do the lenses stack up?

See I'm in the market for a convenient, easy to use 35mm camera for an upcoming trip. budget around 1k. I want to maintain Aperture Priority at minimum. So no Yashica t3/t4. I've considered the other P&S like Contax T2,T3, Nikon 35TI, Ricoh Gr1... Hexar Af. But I liked the idea of having interchangeable lenses and a decent shutter speed. After all my research I was sold on the contax g2 until I did one last search...

Am I crazy here thinking the Contax g lenses aren't that impressive?

 

[chip j]

I have 5 Contax G lenses---they are SHARP (see Ken Rockwell's review), and have a sparkle & liquidity that is amazinging beautiful. I shot lots of color slides and viewed thru both Zeiss & Leica 5x loupes--what a thrill!!! The Zeiss loupe beats the Leica for Fabulous Color.

 

[TheNightSquatch]

I feel like I keep hearing that, I just wish I was blown away by what I see on flickr and the like. I did read Ken Rockwell's review he seemed extremely positive about the system. Maybe it's the Bokeh that's throwing me a bit. idk...

I have 5 Contax G lenses---they are SHARP (see Ken Rockwell's review), and have a sparkle & liquidity that is amazinging beautiful. I shot lots of color slides and viewed thru both Zeiss & Leica 5x loupes--what a thrill!!! The Zeiss loupe beats the Leica for Fabulous Color.

 

[ruilourosa]

be wise and go (cheaper) into medium format for the thing you are looking for

 

[ruilourosa]

be wise and go (cheaper) into medium format for the thing you are looking for

 

[TheNightSquatch]

be wise and go (cheaper) into medium format for the thing you are looking for

I already have a few Medium format cameras. My goal is to find a good 35mm option that I can take on my trip to shoot slides. It's actually my honeymoon. I want to photograph the trip and then display them at a local reception we're having. I have an old caramate slide viewer I was going to use.

Plus, 120 film gets expensive when you only have 10 exposures per roll. Medium format is great for specific projects but is too $$$ and difficult to use for documenting a trip.

 

[Gerry M]

I have/use Contax G1 & G2 with 28/2.8, 35/2, 45/2 and 90/2.8. I don't think that you can get a real life feel for the lens capability with web shots.

 

[PittP]

find a good 35mm option that I can take on my honeymoon trip to shoot slides... and then display them at a local reception... I have an old caramate slide viewer I was going to use.

TheNightSquatch, that all sounds quite phantastic. Will you be on your honeymoon or on a photo trip? Set priorities, go from there.
And you plan to buy a 2nd hand camera and use it straight for what might become some of the most precious memories of your life?
Technical:
The G-system, while seemingly a better point-n-shoot, needs a bit of getting used to (framing, focus point, exposure & DOF). Some love it (e.g. me), others just get worked-up (mostly routined users of automatic AF-SLR). In a used G-body, you have to verify the autofocus and exposure, before doing anything serious. The Zeiss lenses are outstanding (!!!). There is NO way to convey this in a flicker-compatible jpg.
You seem to be concerned about quality output? And you want to show your slides with this?

Please reconsider!
Wishing you good luck in your choices and then a most enjoyable and relaxed honeymoon trip.
Cheers, Pitt

 

[btaylor]

I had a G1 years ago. The lenses were what they are cracked up to be (I had 3). I was projecting Ektachrome slides, and they were stunning. I don't know that you can see the difference on websites, you're looking at a digital approximation, not the slide. The optics are as good as people say. If you do get a system, I suggest the G2 body, it solved some things I didn't like on the G1.

Ultimately I didn't like the autofocus and I never got used to the ergonomics. I finally ended up with a Leica M2, which is really what I wanted in the first place.

 

[TheNightSquatch]

TheNightSquatch, that all sounds quite phantastic. Will you be on your honeymoon or on a photo trip? Set priorities, go from there.
And you plan to buy a 2nd hand camera and use it straight for what might become some of the most precious memories of your life?

Cheers, Pitt

Thanks for all the replies! Hahaha I don't mean for it to sound too fantastic. Maybe with a bit of background it will sound more reasonable. I've been shooting just about every kind of camera since I was about 12. I'm pretty familiar with a lot of systems, most being quirky and all manual. My first camera was an Exakta VX 1000 with the waist lvl finder, lol. Definitely not the easiest camera to learn on. I am pretty confident I can get proficient with an automated system fairly quickly. But maybe that's unrealistic.

And regarding whether it's my honeymoon or a phototrip, it's a bit of both. Haha
My fiancé and I are both photographers, so taking time to focus on getting good shots is something we enjoy doing together. I'm not worried about risking capturing the trip on a new, unknown film camera because, for one, I'm sure I will still take a good amount of shots on my other cameras (Nikonos for ocean shots, Olympus XA & Minox GT-E for backup, Kodak Retina IIc because it's beautiful); Also my fiancé will be shooting digital. And she's arguably a better photographer, hahaha. So i'm not worried.

I know it may seem silly to be questioning the quality of the contax output when my most immediate goal is to display them on that Caramate, but I plan on using the system for more than that later. And a thousand bucks is a thousand bucks, haha. I don't want to be disappointed.

So what I'm hearing is the photos online do not represent the lvl of quality the G lenses produce. I appreciate all the first hand advice. Maybe the majority of photos are just bad scans, idk... It does seem as if, almost any other SLR system has more impressive (optically) shots on flickr compared to the G2. Don't even mention shots taken by Leicas...

How are the G lenses wide open? Maybe that's a weak spot? I may have to just take the risk on the G2. It looks like everything I want. Thanks again for all the replies

 

[boodalu]

I got back into film a few years ago with a contax 2 and 3 lenses 28; 45 & 90. Nice camera. However I now shoot with a Nikon F100 and F 6. The Contax will soon be on the block.

 

[TheNightSquatch]

I got back into film a few years ago with a contax 2 and 3 lenses 28; 45 & 90. Nice camera. However I now shoot with a Nikon F100 and F 6. The Contax will soon be on the block.

Is there a specific reason you moved to the Nikon f100/F6?

 

[TheNightSquatch]

I have/use Contax G1 & G2 with 28/2.8, 35/2, 45/2 and 90/2.8. I don't think that you can get a real life feel for the lens capability with web shots.

Aww man, Beautiful piece of kit you got there. How does the Nikon 35TI compare optically to the Contax? I've been considering the Nikon for a bit now.

 

[chip j]

You will NOT get "sparkle" w/Nikon lenses.

 

[Gerry M]

Aww man, Beautiful piece of kit you got there. How does the Nikon 35TI compare optically to the Contax? I've been considering the Nikon for a bit now.

The 35Ti is a really great P&S (+), but does not come up to the Zeiss G lens image quality. However,the 35Ti is a much less expensive camera. Very capable for it's intended purpose.

 

[locutus]

Another one to keep in mind, do you enjoy nice viewfinders? Thats something the Contax G doesn't have....

 

[Gerry M]

Another one to keep in mind, do you enjoy nice viewfinders? Thats something the Contax G doesn't have....

What the G2 does have: AE, AF, 4000 shutter speed and focus lock on back panel. The VF is used to compose, verify focus distance and shutter speed. Among many other bodies, I have an M4-2 and even tho it has a fantastic VF, the G2 is much faster to use in real world use. Just my opinion.

 

[TheNightSquatch]

Another one to keep in mind, do you enjoy nice viewfinders? Thats something the Contax G doesn't have....

Good point to bring up. Of corse I enjoy nice viewfinders, who doesn't! Haha But that isn't a deal breaker.

The things that are important to me are IQ, lightweight, and quick-ish handling.

Which has lead me to the Contax G2, until I started to question IQ. But more specifically sharpness when wide open.

After all the replies it seems apparent that no one is dissatisfied with the IQ of the G lenses. I think I have to give it a shot.

 

[chip j]

When the 45mm came out, it was the sharpest normal lens ever tested by Pop Photo. Ditto for the 90mm--it was the sharpest ever tested.

 

[Lachlan Young]

You will NOT get "sparkle" w/Nikon lenses.

Rather than condemning a massive & diverse range of optics out of hand, perhaps you'd care to take 5 minutes to consider that an awful lot of the iconic photographs of the rangefinder era were shot with Nikon or Canon glass on Leica bodies...

Of course Nikkors and Zuikos and Planars and Summicrons etc give different looks (and thank goodness we have that choice), but very often a great deal more of it comes down to the manner of printing & the intentions of the original exposure & the materials used.

 

[GarageBoy]

Ironically, a g1 with lens in some instances will be cheaper than a t2/35ti etc

 

[chip j]

Rather than condemning a massive & diverse range of optics out of hand, perhaps you'd care to take 5 minutes to consider that an awful lot of the iconic photographs of the rangefinder era were shot with Nikon or Canon glass on Leica bodies...

Of course Nikkors and Zuikos and Planars and Summicrons etc give different looks (and thank goodness we have that choice), but very often a great deal more of it comes down to the manner of printing & the intentions of the original exposure & the materials used.

All true, but when you have an affordable choice, why not get the best? Most of those "iconic" pictures were meant as press pics, NOT as art. I use a Nikon slr because I can't afford the Contax slr euip. that I really want.

 

[iakustov]

I own a G2 with 4 lenses and the quality of the prints / slides one can get out of the 35mm film is stunning. This is my only camera in 35mm. Although it is not as nice to handle and use as an SLR, it is compact and result you get with Zeiss lens is the main reason I use it.

 

[chip j]

I get the most fun out of using my G1 & G2 than I ever did w/Nikon manual focus or AF, or Leica M4 & M3.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I bought into the Contax G system just for the lenses and for the fact that I want to get rid of all my other 35mm equipment. My lenses are 28mm, 45mm and 90mm and my bodies are two G1's. One green label and one plain vanilla. I actually get by just fine with the G1 bodies, but might pickup a G2 someday. Over the years I've own some really great 35mm gear (Leica M's, Leica R's, Leica M39's Plus Canon's, Nikon's and Pentax cameras with some of the best glass), but now I use mainly 4X5 and 120 film with Digi taking over most of my 35mm jobs. I do miss the view finder on the Leica M's, but since the G1 is AF I find I can get by OK. Now for the G Glass...............it's really some of the best or maybe the best glass I have ever used in 35mm. Even wide open my shots are very sharp, but what surprised me was the level of contrast and low flare these lenses have at there max aperture. I have a shot I did with the 45mm enlarged to 16X20 on my Leitz Focomat enlarger that sold me on the G system. Oh, this quality glass is a steal at the going price also. I bought all but one lens from Japan and one of my bodies from there also. The other nice thing about the Contax G equipment, at least the lenses anyway, is that if you pay a fair price you can always turn around and sell it for very close to what you paid. It's like being able to try the system for almost no money loss or risk. If you are going to try it out I'd go with the non-green label G1 and the 28mm. That's about as cheap as you'll get for body and lens. Trust me, it's worth a try if you shoot much 35mm.