Contax 45mm f2 Carl Zeiss Planar T* for G1/2

What I have to say here repeats what I said about the 28/2.8 Bigon. I have used many different 50mm lenses from Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Nikon and Leica. The 50 is usually the base lens and sets the benchmark for all lenses in a camera line, so tend to be very good. For me, nothing beats this 45 and the 50/2 Summicron I had on my M. But, for sheer value, as both the Zeiss and the Leitz are so similar, the Zeiss wins for quality and value. Such sharp, distortion free images ACOSS ALL F STOPS are to my eyes, a notch above all the SLR brands. I like this even more than my 50/1.4 Planar for my Contax RX, which beats all other SLRs. A great, grat all around lens

Super sharp, rich color compact
It's a Zeiss!
Very inexpensive now

No DOF on th elens

50's from Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta and Leitz

Never needed-moot

Wow!!! That is what I have to say about this lens. I just recieved my second hand Contax camera with a 90mm and a 45 and I did a street photography test with it, and the truth is that, after scanning the pictures I did with slide film I was quite impressed.

This lens has a great res. and quite good balanced colour and contrast, better then any other of my reflex lenses I have. Perhaps it isn't the lense with the widest aperture in the market, but even so it is great.

a 10 in image quality, probably the best lense I have seen up to date.

Its aperture, it's a f:2... why didn't they do it a f:1,4? it is just a question of puting larger elements and making a bit higher price... I don't think that it wold have worstend the overall quality of the lens and we wold have had more possibilities in working under poor light conditions.

No focusing ring, I wold like to be able to use manual focus on the ring of the lens.

Carl Zeiss Sonnar 90mm f:2,8
Carl Zeiss Biogon 28mm f:2,8
Nikkor Micro 55mm f:2,8

Not needed yet... and I hope it takes its time

For practical, general use (not photographing test charts on a wall under controlled conditions) is the single sharpest lens I own. Period. And my camera bags and cases include a Zeiss 120 f/4 Makro-Planar for Hasselblad, Zeiss 50 and 85 f/1.4 Planars and 100mm f/4 Makro-Planar for MM mount, and several L series Canon EF lenses including the 50 f/1.0, 85 f/1.2 and a couple of L zooms. Not one of these lenses can beat the 45mm Planar G mount for overall sharpness or presence. As much as I love the Zeiss 50 1.4 for MM mount this rangefinder lens is significantly higher-performing, there is no question. Film grain of 35mm will distinguish 35mm results from medium format. No lens can change that. It CAN distinguish and resolve details that a 6x7 with a soft lens would not, but there is a distinctly different feel. So comparisons with medium format in my opinion are unfounded. However, what many here refer to as the "3D" feel, while I don't think is such a great way to put it, I'll agree. I refer to it as a feeling of "presence" that lesser lenses do not have. Mind you, I think people often put too much stock in the sharpness of a lens and think that is the hallmark of great photography. Great photography is often made with horrible lenses, and is none the less for it. However, greater sharpness and contrast and that feeling of "presence" comes at an equipment premium, and if your work could benefit from that, or you want to see that in your work, this is a great lens. I have never used any of the modern Summicrons, but I've messed with some older versions on an M3 (not sure exactly how old these lenses were I must confess, they seemed a similar vintage to the body) but this lens seems to outperform them. I'd love to use myself a modern Summicron and see how it stacks up against this lens. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Leica and its outrageous price beat it, but by how much? Wide open at f/2 it's very sharp, from f/2.8 the magic really begins. Excellent local contrast and highly suppressed flarity unless you point it straight at the sun (and I sometimes do), zero distortion that I've ever been able to detect with use, and very even illumination across the field with no visible vignetting at any aperture. And all this in a small compact package. Wonderful.

Very sharp wide open, stopped down a single stop it gives a feeling of presence like no other lens I own (and I own some impressive lenses, and have used many more). Excellent contrast, flarity suppression, evenness of illumination at ever aperture, and no detectable distortion.

That you can only get this sort of performance in a rangefinder lens. Wish an SLR lens of any format (35mm, 645, etc) offered this sort of presence. I've got a few that come close, but this is it.

Lots but most particularly Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar MM mount, Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L, Zeiss 80mm f/2.8 for Hasselblad, 120mm f/4 for Hasselblad.

none yet

This is a great lens I used KODAK High defination film 400. I got results as good as Fuji 6x7. format camera. Guys with this new film you can compare results from this lens to MEDUIM FORMAT camera results. Tack sharp very high resolution excellent colors. I have done meduim format photography for many years. Contax G1 with 45mm lens and HD kodak film can compete with Meduim format......

Very sharp and great color contrast.

Slow auto focus..

Contax 35mm, Fuji 6x7, Mamiya 6x7, Mamiya 645, Kive 66.

This has to be one of the most overrated lenses known to man. Sure, there's nothing wrong with it, it's a fine lens. But based on other reviews, one might think that this lens has some supernatural other worldly quality that gives photos a "3D" look, or gives you medium format quality from 35mm. No, there isn't anything wrong with the photos. No distortions, no glare, no chromatic aberration. But nevertheless, I don't confuse the photos with medium format. And I don't see this "3D" thing happening. I've been able to evaluate the photos using a 4000 dpi scanner, which is like looking at the film through a high powered microscope. If there was any otherworldy sharpness in there, I think I would see it. This lens is still the best prime lens I own. My other prime lenses for an SLR camera have noticeable defects compared to this lens. But you can buy other other normal prime lenses for a song. Is this lens really worth the price of admission? If you seek Carl Zeiss quality, you could get a Contax Aria and the 50mm lens, and the total package would cost you significantly less than a G2 with this 45mm lens. I think my Sony F707 digital camera takes almost as sharp a photo as the scanned slides and negatives from the 45mm F2 Planar. Of course, the Sony also uses a Carl Zeiss lens :)

No defects found.

No zoom. F2.0 is slow considering the price. Canon or Nikon F1.4 50mm a better buy.