Contax 167MT

I own a 167MT too. Generally, I like it, but a major complaint about it is that the elctronics occasionally gets screwed up and I have to reset the camera. This leads to a reset film counter and a new film loading sequence at the net exposure, losing a couple of frames.

It seems to me that the 167MT elctornics are sensitive to moisture, I've most frequently noticed this problem coming inside from the cold or in the autumn.

Also, the first body I got almost immediately went completely dead, and I had it replaced.

Otherwise, the 167MT is a very solid piece of equipment.

Since Sean concentrated on what features the 167mt does not have that are available on other Contax bodies, I wanted to add that the 167mt does also have some features that are not available on all other Contax bodies:

1) The 167 has the most sophisticated programmed auto-exposure modes of any Contax body.

2) In manual exposure mode you can set the shutter all the way to 16s instead of 4s (I find this handy).

Like many people around the world, I bought the 167MT to gain entry into the Zeiss lens system. This my second flirtation with the system, the first was some 15 years ago when I first started out with a 139, 50/1.4 and 135/2.8. I sold that system off to partially finance my studies...a decision I still regret at times today.

But I digress...the 167MT has proved a reliable and smooth workhorse which has worked flawlessly for me. I now own it with the 35/2.8, 50/1.7, 85/1.4 and 135/2.8. It's interesting what people say about the 3-D signature and bokeh effects of the lenses. After some investigations, I have to confess that there is some truth to that statement. There is also something about the colours and contrast about the Zeiss lenses which are subtly different, yet more fulfilling on an emotional plane.

My frame of reference is my Minolta 800si with a similar set of lenses (but no 135/2.8). I love this system for what it is: an awesome amount of technology which at times negates the need for a photographer. With my baby daughter as a subject, comparisons shot in similar conditions have yielded very different results. Although sharpness is comparable, especially for the 50mms, there is something about the zeiss shot in terms of contrast, colour and bokeh which, to my eyes, makes for a more satisfying image.

Having said that, the Minolta AF and 14 segment metering has enabled me to catch some wonderful shots of my baby girl which I know would have escaped the manual focus Contax system. But I can't help feeling that as she grows physically and I grow in terms of my photo taking ability, I will gradually move entirely to the Contax plus Zeiss system. (Apologies for the touchy-feely nature of the comment...but I do tend to view photography as an art and therefore an emotional experience.)

I own a contax 167 mt since 1992 and i have been using it a lot (even if i am an amateur). I had a couple of little troubles with it like the diaphragm indicator resetting to f/1.2. Anyway i think it is one of the best cameras i have ever used. I find very handy the spot measurement which (when used with planar f/1.4) lets you take stunning shots (especially portraits). I want to remark that it is the only contax who allows you to take pictures with t=16 sec in manual mode who is really handy in night scenes. One thing i miss on my contax is the chance to rewind the film leaving a peace of the roll outside the can.

I have owned/traded numerous different systems over (and over again) during the years but I still own a Contax 167MT. Here's why:

#1 - AE lock - Let's face it, most other systems have an exposure hold, not an exposure lock. Once you lock in an exposure in spot metering, that's it. No continually pressing in a shutter button half way. No fuss. No muss. You can walk away from the camera for hours, fall asleep for 50 or a 100 years like old Rip Van Winkle and, barring nuclear explosions, thieves walking away with your camera, and the definite possibility that your batteries are already dead after so many years, so long as there's power, your meter reading is mainted, locked in all its perfection not "held." Also, shift the exposure setting and the meter reading is still locked at an equivalent exposure value. But

# 2 - Should the exposure be outside the range of what you had the camera set at there's "safety shift" to the rescue to make sure the exposure is adjusted to what would the camera can record as a good exposure. Now that's the kind of camera over-riding the photographer feature i like! Especially usefull for faster breaking situations (i.e. candid people photography/etc.) when you have to shoot then think in order to capture the moment.

# 3 - When I do have the time and want ultimate control over minute changes in exposure (especially useful for slide film in contrasty/"unsure" situations) I use a combination of both auto-bracketing to get slides that are 1/5 or 1/6? of an f/stop apart for a wide range/coverage of different densities on slide film.

# 4 # 5 #6 - Depth of field preiew, depth of field preiew, depth of field preiew! Need I say more, need I say more, need I say more ? I will say more anyway. Any camera w/o one is lame/partially usesless since part of the reason people use SLRs (besides for the wide range of lenses) is for both the lack of parallax (compared to a range-finder system) and the ability to preview depth of field effects at any of your lenses' various apertures.

# 7 - This is a solidly built, durable camera that bespeaks quality and heft (w/o being too weighty) in an era of lightweight plastic "chocolate bars" (my term for me-too plastic cameras that seem to be made simply for their cheapness/economic considerations and not for how they'll stand up through the test of time/use, like cheap injection molded hi-tech plastic cookie or chocolate bars). I have nothing against lightweight cameras or the intelligent use of plastics - I do not like plastic cameras that seem to be built little better than thick plastic milk cartons. I don't slam my cameras into the sides of mountains, but I still want a camera that won't split apart if dropped. A camera should inspire confidence, not take it away. This camera inspires confidence!

I'm sure I could go on but I've said my most important points. I believe this is the fifth time I've had a Contax system, I've had this camera for about nine years, and I'm glad both it (and me) are around to take many great pictures. Even though the Aria looks like a great camera (despite the fact that its lighter and may use more plastic than the 167), I hope Contax continues to make this camera into my old age. Its a great camera, and along with several other cameras whose heydays were in the eighties (like the Nikon F-3 HP, Leica R-4, etc.) deserves its status as a "current classic."

P.S.: I've heard that the Aria will be replacing the 167MT - I hope this is not true - if they do I will die and have "dieAria" - hey, everybody's entitled to at least one bad joke and that was mine, if you don't think that was ver punny, make up your own. On a more serious note, even though the Aria seems like a well made though lighter weight Contax SLR (I don't know if it is well made or not, I'm just assuming it based on the spec and photos I've seen of it), I think that there is still a place for the 167MT even though both cameras share many of the same features. Now if they could only make an auto-focus the size and weight of my Contax 167MT called the 177MT. I like and have held the AX but it is too expensive (for me) and a bit too heavy - sort of reminds me of a miniature version of a balloon at that New Mexico balloon fest or an RTS III on steroids. . . "The Incredible Bulk" - perhaps some Richard Simmons of the camera engineering world could figure out a way of putting this hyperbolic monster on a slimming diet whilst still retaining the unique "camera w/i a camera"/moving back feature. Also, if you're going to have a camera w/ a moving back, why not have it do tilts and shifts (and just for the thrill of it while its doing movements it could also do "The Macarena"). Anybody for a tilt shift fisheye lens (to keep all those bent lines parallel, ha, ha)? On this kind of new Contax AF camera it would be seem a possibility. . . For those interested, check out my comments (sans jokes) about the the 28mm f/2.8 MM Carl Zeiss Distagon lens (a lens I'm also in love with) at:

http://db.photo.net/com/philg/photo/contax/28-2.8. html

I could also write odes to/about the Carl Zeiss Distagon 16mm full frame fisheye I own (sorry, w/o a 177MT it won't do tilts and shifts) but don't get me started. . .

P.P.S.: This is only tangentially related to the 167MT (and other Contax cameras) but I think its a point that we, as Contax users (or future Contax users) need to consider. Why does Contax have variable aperture zoom lenses w/ cameras that have exposure locks but no means of keeping the aperture constant as you zoom? For example, let's say that I was shooting a relatively fast breaking event w/ a Zeiss 28-85mm zoom (or the newer 28-70mm Zeiss zoom). My normal habit would be to zoom into the subject and both focus and take a spot reading and lock this spot reading at 85mm. Now suppose something happens where I want to zoom out a bit and include more people/surroundings/etc. If I forget that I have to take and lock in a new exposure reading at this wider zoom setting, or don't have the time to re-lock the exposure at this new wider zoom setting, my slides will be over-exposed due to the zooms variable aperture. This doesn't make me happy - especially for a camera system who's #1 claim to fame (besides the lens quality and the build/features of its bodies) is its exposure lock feature. Both Canon and Minolta cameras (and the obscenely expensive Nikon F5) have the ability to hold a constant aperture at everywhere along the zoom range just as long as you don't set the camera at its maximum/minimum apertures (for example, so long as you set a 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 Canon zoom lens's aperture to at least f/4.5 or smaller, or so long as you didn't set the smallest aperture beyond f/22 (my geuss) as the smallest aperture, no matter where you have the zoom set at, f/8 will always be f/8. Why can't Contax incorporate this "constant aperture" feature into their lenses and/or bodies? If they care about the ultimate in exposure precision (their spot metering AE lock), why not extend this courtesey to their variable aperture zooms (and/or better yet why not make additional and/or replacement zooms at a constant aperture - a 25-50mm (or out to 85mm) f/2.8 Carl Zeiss zoom that focuses to 1 foot sounds great (another dream) (O.K. you could make the constant aperture of this zoom an f/4 if you wanted to keep the zoom smallish and less weighty and less expensive, but since I'm just speculating here, why not go for the gusto of an f/2.8 aperture especially since Contax is coming out w/ more lenses w/ lighter than metal plastics in them). These are just thoughts, but thoughts worth seriously considering. Anybody know the home phone number or URL of the head honcho at Contax responsible for making these kinds of decisions? Do you think any of the real "Contax men" (and women) who propose/design the cameras and/or the lenses ever get to read these cooments? I hope so.

"# 3 - When I do have the time and want ultimate control over minute changes in exposure (especially useful for slide film in contrasty/"unsure" situations) I use a combination of both auto-bracketing to get slides that are 1/5 or 1/6? of an f/stop apart for a wide range/coverage of different densities on slide film."

If you don't mind me both quoting and commenting on my own comments here goes. . . I left out the fact/word phrase above that I use a combination of both different exposure compensations (in 1/3 stops) and exposure bracketings (usually in aperture priority in either 1/2 or 1 stop increments) to get my 1/5 or 1/6 stop variations/"subtle exposures." This is very helpful not only for contrasty situations where "the right/my right" exposure for the scene can be anywhere along a continuum and I'm making an educated/bracketed geuss, but its also useful for situations where I don't think I'll be back (trips to other parts of the country) or in case something should happen to a slide I'll always have a usable backup (yes, I try to take multiple in-camera originals when I can, but its nice to know that I'll be covered with a usable exposure when I can't/don't take in-camera multiple originals). Film may not be cheap (especially in the 1990's) but when it comes to important shots, to quote myself again, "better paranoid than sorry."

I have been a long fan of the bronica etrs(i) medium format cameras and used a canon A2 for a back up. Last week a good friend of mine finally convinced me to by a contax 167MT with a 35-70 macro zoom len and 380 TLA flash. I can say nothing but good for this setup. First day out I shot 8 rolles of kodak elite crome and I was very impressed with the edge to edge sharpness that my bronica cant touch. This camera make my now retired canon look like a simple point and shoot with poor quality. Sharp, vivid is just a few good words to discibe contax.

I bought my 167MT in 1989 and just had it repaired - winding mechanism, light seals, re-skinning. I have had great success with the 1 degree spot meter lock feature. I lock in a background such as a sunset sky, and then take a flash exposure of a person in AV mode - the results are spectacular, especially when I give a slide show. I have also used the 3-shot autobracketing to photograph my wife's oil paintings. I'm guaranteed of getting a right exposure with some convenience. My favorite use of the 167MT is with the Contax auto bellows system. Using the Zeiss 50mm 1.7 MM lense and the Contax focusing rail, I have been able to create some spectacular photos, which are also a crowd pleaser when giving a slide show. I am considering buying the right-angle finder and copy stand to facilitate my macro photography even further.

My dream camera would be an Olympus OM4t with a Zeiss mount. Having said that the 167 is about as good as it gets. It's a full featured workhorse that has everything you really need and not a thing more. Controls are logical. Thought the Aria would change my opinion but it hasen't. Played with an RX for a few months but went back to the 167 and spent the extra dollars on glass - haven't regretted the decision once. Thought I would hate the "slide bar" for changing shutter speeds - it's actually far superior to the dial once you get used to it.

Only bad feature - camera hates low batteries with a passion. Keep fresh batteries on hand or you'll see the "screwed up electronics" everyone is talking about. Love the visual confirmation that the film is loaded correctly. Wish it had a dedicated battery level indicator.

Overall - it's a solid 9 (only the Om4t with a Zeiss mount would get a 10). FWIW, pass on the 80-200 zoom and find yourself the older 200 f4 prime.

It is not true that the only reason to get a Contax is the glass. As many people have mentioned, Contax's spot metering/lock combination is superb, and on higher end cameras there several unique features. Some Contax features would, in fact, probably work better with other manufacturers lenses. The RTS III's Vacuum back would do wonders Canon's vast area of super-high speed lenses (50mm f/1, 85mm f/1.2, 200mm f/1.8, 1200mm f/5.6) and the AX's internal AF would be nice on Nikon's old MF lenses. The RTS III's pre-flash spot could also be one of the main reasons to buy Contax.

i own contax 139q body, and the only thngs that i i would like to have added to it are a 100% view-finder,multiple exposure feature,and a high eyepoint viewfinder for eyeglass wearers.of all the lenses tht i own of the zeiss line probably myfavorite is the 35mm 2,8. the color, sharpness,and the contrast are truly pleasing to my eye.the other lenses are a 25mm 2.8 which i find verysharp and of very low distortion for such a wideangle lens,a 50mm 1.7 which i find remarkbly sharpan 85mm 2.8 which i hve not used for so long butremember the truly incredible detail that it pro-duced.

Perhaps I should put this comment up on the Nikon FE2 page, but first, one question: What's the big deal with Zeiss optics? The T* mount lenses that Contax SLRs use are made in Japan by Kyocera (spelling?). I know some Hasselblad users who don't even consider these Zeiss lenses to be real Zeiss lenses, because in actuallity they are not. And price? They are still exhorbitantly expensive when compared to Nikon. So what if "everybody" has a Nikon? There is a simple reason; Nikon makes the most reliable bodies and top class lenses that can certainly hold their own against any psuedo-Zeiss. Contax bodies are notorious for their mechanical failures, as are Leicas. Are you buying a camera as a tool are a status symbol?

For a comment about Timothy Breihan's note:

The Zeiss lenses built in Japan are Zeiss lenses. No, they're not "psuedo-Zeiss" as you seem to think. A recent test of all the 50mm 1.4 lenses showed that the new Zeiss was superior than any other. But of course, I'm sure people will discount this test because "I know a guy that says thats not true blah blah blah and he knows everything about photography blah blah blah and I never believe tests blah blah blah and he tested those lenses and found X to be better than Y blah blah blah but I never believe tests blah blah blah".

Also, does this mean that the Nikkors that are made for Nikon by Cosina are "psuedo-Nikkors"?

I was a Nikon user for 15 years. I recently switched totally over to Contax/Zeiss (after a brief trip through Minolta land...but that's a long story as to why). I have my own reasons for doing this. In my opinion, Zeiss has better optics than anything Nikon can throw out. But hey, that's my opinion.

Also, not all Contax lenses made in Japan. Some are still made in Germany. The ones made in Japan are under Zeiss direction.

Also, I've yet to hear of any major problems with Contax cameras, far from your "Contax bodies are notorious for their mechanical failures...".

So bottom line, I don't understand your post. Do you want to see everyone using Contax to "wake up" and switch to Nikon or something? Are you personally offended or hurt in some way because someone uses Contax? Or is it the classic case of someone spending a ton of money on a system and to feel better about their purchase, they have to cut down all other systems?

Remember the saying: "Nice equipment kid...now lets see your pictures."

I agree with Scott's comment, I dont understand Timothy Breihan's post at all. Possibly he has a case of camera envy. As a card carrying Nikon user for twenty years, I could not conceive of using any other camera. However in looking at other photographers work, I became intrigued with the image qualities that were consistently produced by the Zeiss lenses. I decided to experiment and two years ago purchased a used G1 and a couple of lenses. The G series is an amazing little range finder camera that got me to get into the Zeiss lenses, but what changed my opinion forever was when I had one of the images enlarged. The level of contrast and clarity of detail in that image is extraordinary. I have since purchased a used 167Mt and a 35-70 zoom. These wonderful tools are not status symbols but a natural evolution of a photographer seeking the means to improve their craft and ultimately their images.

I really agree to Scotts opinion: I had a Nikon many years ago, and switched over to Contax in 1982 and am still very satisfied. Some of my lenses are japanese, some are german. I can not see any differences, wheter optical, nor mechanical. Contax might give you a superior feeling because you spend tons of money and you get some of the best lenses you can get, and some of the most reliable bodies. But this has nothing to do, that someone might feel to be a better person due to his Camera. Most important are the fun that you should have with your hobby, and the pictures that come out. Never be so arrogant to "smile" at other photoenthusiats who uses other cameras.

I am on the verge of upgrading from my beginner Rebel system. I too was intrigued by the images produced by the Zeiss lenses. I have lost sleep over my decision, am I thinking Contax for status or is it really worth the extra dough? I have spend hours reading all the comments here and all over photo.net. I am probably more confused than when I started, but if I can annoy one lense envy prone yuppie, then the contax may be worth the extra dough. Ah, the heck with it.I'll go medium format.

Interesting to read about the different opinions regarding Contax cameras and lenses versus other makers. I had a (far too long)period of being a gear-junkie. I switched over from Nikon two years ago and I have had most Contax SLR's in my possession: 139,159,167,S2,RTSIII,RTSII,ST and Aria. In that order. All had their pros and cons, and the ones I have stuck with I now feel comfortable with. Sadly I must admit that the Bodies although they ooze Quality almost all have malfunctioned at times, especially the 167MT and ST. Still I would not switch brand again as the lenses are far to good for letting go of. Yes, some lenses of other brands are equal to Zeiss, but the consistent quality throughout the range comes hard to match. I currently have the 25mm2.8,35mm2.8,50mm1.4, 60mm2.8AE(beauty) and a Hasselblad FE 150/2.8 with the Contax Mount Adapter (incredibly sharp!!!) and I have previously had nine other Zeiss lenses, mostly in the tele range which I got rid of after getting the HBL lens. I currently own an Aria which I like except for its rather dark and murky viewfinder(compared to other Contaxes)and less solid feel. Is there perhaps a brighter viewfinder available? Would make a hell of a difference when focusing on smooth textures. I also own a RTSII which I simply adore for its silkysmooth release and(so far)reliability. Still, with the Nikon Bodies I never felt the insecurity I have felt with the Contax bodies. When travelling none of the Nikon bodies have ever let me down over the years. And I have had seven of them. With the Contax bodies I always had that gnawling feeling of not knowing if they would hold up. And I don't overly abuse them either. I live in New Zealand at the moment and I have had to send for parts and new cameras from England and Sweden which has led to an awful lot of down time and I now always carry two bodies with me. (Although in Sweden during a photojob both my 167MT and my backup 139 failed - indoors!) Despite the criticism the 167MT has been given I will get another one (with the P5) when I can get hold of one for a good price as it did serve well when looked after and offers pretty much everything you need delivering well exposed images with that 'solid' feel, and the viewfinder image is clearer than in the Aria. (Arias 2nd Curtain flash I hardly ever use, and the multi-segment metering isn't that good I must say.) When I don't need a motordrive I always take my RTSII; it handles extremely well, has a mirror lock-up and a bright viewfinder with high magnification. But after all, it is the lenses that make the difference, isn't it?

A brief comparison between the 167MT and Aria

The Contax Aria is the natural evolutionary successor to the discontinued and now unavailable 167MT. Since I don't actually own the Aria (I've played with it a couple of times though), I'll keep this comparison short and cover the main feature differences.

Kyocera has addressed most of the egregious shortcomings of the 167MT including: A. the dated user interface (particularly the goofy mode change lever), B. the off-centered tripod socket, and C. the lack of second curtain flash sync and multiple exposure capability. They also added matrix metering, enhanced TTL flash functions, and some custom functions, mostly dealing with film transport (e.g., leader out on rewind). They also made it a lot lighter by moving to a hybrid poly-metal construction.

The Aria has a new sprocketless drive that uses an LED to advance film; the local Contax sales rep admits that it fogs infrared film. Also, the 167MT had three (3) program exposure modes; the Aria has only one. In manual exposure mode, you can set a shutter speed as low as 4 seconds on the Aria (16 sec. for the 167MT), although both cameras have a Bulb setting. Some owners claim that the newer Contax SLR bodies meter differently with vari-focal zoom lenses.

Summary: the Aria is even better than the very capable 167MT and both bodies are powerful, feature-laden tools for the beginning and advanced photographer alike. While some might yearn for a bigger, heftier body with an outdated user interface, I admit that I am not one of them; in any case, there are plenty of bigger, heftier (and pricier!) Contax bodies from which to choose.

[N.B., Kyocera is confident enough about its Contax product line's reliability to offer a 3-yr. warranty on bodies and lenses. I'm not sure where Mr. Breihan got his figures, but I doubt that Kyocera would be consistently voted one of the best managed corporations in the world if they manufactured products that are "notoriously" unreliable; it's just not a smart business practice to do so and I doubt if it would slip by financial analysts and investors.]

September 1999 addendum: I've owned the 167MT and Zeiss 50/1.4 for over three years now and I haven't encountered any of these "notorious" reliability problems. I own three other SLR lenses, a TLA flash, and the G2 rangefinder + 45/2 lens and they all function just fine. I've gotten lots of really great shots despite some of the abuse I've put my two systems through.

hello fellow photo lovers. pls note my email addy is kbharv@hotmail.com.

i have need for some input from you all. i have used nikons for 25 yrs now, and i have stuck mostly to their mechanical ones. i am finding that most of todays cheaper (less than USD 600- )nikon lenses and zooms and other 3rdparty makers are not really upto par, as it seems either sharpness or contrast/ color balance suffers. i need to replace some of the older nikon lenses as they are falling apart, and their current best is the micro nikkor series..thats all really..

but, i have heard a lot now about zeiss and leica. it would seem leica is out of reach for me too, due solely to its price. have any one of you observed the differences when trying the following ?

using fixed focal lengths from zeiss , try them on contax bodies, and now, try them on yashica bodies. you can kindly enlighten me firstly on the outcome how are the pictures ? same ? or very different, and yashica not recommended?

is it correct that the zooms from zeiss are not as sharp as their fixed lenses?

G2 system also claims manual focus. well, with a rangefinder? i guess there is electronic assistance, and probably macro mode would suffer ? but is it true that this G2 system is even sharper than the SLR zeiss optics ?

thanks, kbharv.

I truly didn't mean to offend so many Contax affecionados, and a review of my post reveals that it was both rather impetuous and superficial.

I started with Minolta equipment, as my mom had an old Minolta and several MD lenses. I added onto this system until becoming dissatisfied not only with the unavailibilty of fast professional lenses but of the diminishing selection of lenses in general. I was at first somewhat intrigued with Contax, as the original Zeiss-Ikon company has been making SLRs since the stone age. Also, I was interested in not taking the autofocus route, which left Nikon, the exhorbitantly expensive Leica, and the rather mysterious Contax.

So, I visited a local camera shop, where I was assisted by a veteran photographer who was employed during the 1970s by the Department of the Interior. As part of a U.S. Geological Survey team, he travelled to Alaska with mechanical Contax's and Nikon F2s. The Contaxes, he told me, had their lens mounts broken with the bumps of field work and many suffered from shutters that forze up in the cold. The Nikons on the other hand performed flawlessly.

What about the optics, I asked. Zeiss optics, he told me, are the best, but if you want them, buy a Hassleblad.

So, I purchased neither a Contax nor a Hassleblad. Instead, I got a Nikon FE2 with a 50/1.4 AIS and a motor drive. I added a 28/2.8 AIS, 300/4.5 AIS and an old 180/2.8 AI. The system was rounded out with a SB-16 flash and several B+W filters for under $1200.

So no, I did not spend to much for my system, and no, I am not a "lens envy prone yuppie." Perhaps my question is, "What's the big deal?"

I suppose that with that attitude I will never truly appreciate a Contax. Perhaps it is fair to say that a Contax is more an expression of camera-making art, while Nikon and Canon are tools.

Finally, I could not agree more with the statement, "Nice equipment, lets see the pictures," for I am convinced that, while your lenses cost two, three or four times what mine did, your images will not be twice as contrasty or highly resolved.

______, Contax?, whatever...

I have been using contax now for 4 years. The Zeiss lenses are wonderfull. I first thing I discovered about Zeiss lenses was in printing. I don't need to burn, dodge or flash prints as much. (if at all) And contrast and sharpness remains the same at any F number.

That other "made in Japan" camera company that I used for 18 years was only a name to. I could go on... but whats the point.

I have been a editorial photographer for 22 years, and in that time no one I ever worked for has ask me what kind of camera I used to make my images.

Contax is great equipment for me!

I have the feeling that the weakness of the lens mounts maybe a designed-in feature. In one accident with my 139Q and a 200 mm lens it worked as a "mechanical fuse": little damage was caused to the lens except from the mount and no damage at all to the body. It would be nice to know what really was the intention of a design with a ring held to the lens by three tiny screws... but I suspect it was NOT an oversight.

As for reliability, I have had a 139Q as my main camera for almost 20 years. It has never failed, and I have used it mostly in the field, sometimes while wading through ponds photographyng birds. I have recently bought a second hand 167MT.

The only repair the 139Q ever had was the replacement of the "leathers", and one of the light seals on the back lid. I replaced them myself after getting them by post from the local Kyocera branch.

In fact in the last 27 years I have owned five different cameras made by Yashica/Kyocera, none has ever failed.

Thanks Timothy for adding your extra comments. But you went on to say:

"...for I am convinced that, while your lenses cost two, three or four times what mine did, your images will not be twice as contrasty or highly resolved."

Well, I didn't pay twice or three times the price for MY lenses. I have only three lenses which I bought brand spanking new. My 28mm f/2.8 for $330, my 50mm f/1.4 for $270 and my 135mm f/2.8 for $390. These were all brand new lenses...and I could have gotten them cheaper to be sure.

Just for laughs I checked prices for Nikon lenses at the same focal length and it came out respectivly to $220, $250 and $380(this was a manual focus lens, the others were the autofocus D ones...I went with the lower priced where I could since you're model of Nikon can take either manual or AF lenses). As you can see, they're not quite 2 or 3 or 4 times more expensive. These prices are from B&H by the way...so you're miliage may vary.

So my whole camera kit as it stands today isn't at all expensive. I've never ever had an iota of problems with any of the Contax equipment and they keep chugging right along, just like Canon and Nikon equipment do! I do notice a lot of people state when talking about lenses comments like "well, you can't tell the difference when the lens is stopped down 3 or 4 stops anyway...so why bother". Well, I almost always shoot wide open! Compare your lens shooting wide open with a Zeiss lens shooting wide open. THEN compare the two.

But hey, it's still all subjective...use what you feel best with. I've said it over and over...I've seen crap taken with Hassys...and beautiful art taken with a Holga camera with plastic lens. What matters is the person behind the camera. I personally choose Zeiss lenses because they're what I was looking for...you obviously are not looking for the same things as I am.

"What's the big deal" you ask? There is no big deal. People that like Zeiss and Contax are just like people who like Nikon and Canon. What's the big deal with Nikon you could ask. Why are THEY so expensive? Have you noticed that the F5 cost more than ANY Contax camera out there? Have you priced out a SilentWave 80-200mm zoom lens lately? There's expensive equipment out there to be sure. But don't think that Contax users are deep pocketed snobs...far from it. I'm working on a budget right now!

Well I'm glad I've found this discussion. Lately I myself have been loosing sleep over whether to switch to Contax. It is an emotional and financial decision that confounds. Currently I have a Nikon F3 and an uneven set of lenses. One non AI 3.5 28mm, an AI'd 43-86 zoom which I've read very bad things about, a new 1.8 50mm AF (still trying to figure that purchase out), a 2.8 100mm series E, a really old and battered both inside and out 2.8 135mm. I do a little photo journalism work while going to school, but my level is "serious amateur". If someone knows how to make a living as a photographer please clue me in. Anyway...I got the F3 as it was the logical progression in my development after using a Nikkormat FTN and a Nikkormat EL. I can't say that I'm thrilled with the F3. I find the layout inside of the viewfinder to be a little lacking and uncomfortable. The eye has to move up and over to the left to see the LCD display. Meter readings are given in + - fashion...something I surprisingly found to be annoying. Flash is also a problem. It's akward setup makes for great precariousness using my Viv 283 and AS-4 adaptor. Can't use TTL with this setup and never was able to do the math for fill. As I've grown as a photographer I have seen features out there that I would like to use. These features were always in an autofoucs package ahowever. Once I stumbled onto the Aria... I was interested in the fact that it was essentially a traditional manual focus SLR with advanced features that I think are good ideas and intuitive to taking pictures. So the irony for me is that I am looking at a contax system because of the body...not the lenses. I've also seen the 139Q and it is everything I wanted my EL to be. I am in a quandry now. Do I stay in the Nikon system and buy a MD-4 motordrive and a dedicated sb 16 or 17 flash that can only be used with the NIkon system or do I go Contax. Money is an issue as I am a student. Plus...despite it's shortcommings I've grown attached to the F3's feel and ruggedness. At this stage I've been increasingly wary with nikkor lenses because Inever know what quality I'm getting. My favorite and most used focal lengths are 28, 50, and 135(ish). I've only used a zoom when working and don't consider it something I would need for personal work. What I'm saying is that my expected lens need is fairly conservative. I also am not able to do my own developing and printing so the likelyhood for much enlarging beyond 8x12 is rare ...for now. Does anyone have any objective comments for exactly what the difference between Zeiss and Nikkor lenses are?

I am very pleased to find your duscussion. I bought this camera three years ago and since then I seemed to be the only one contax user in the world. Ofcause to the day when I found your discussion. The Contax 167MT is my third camera next to Zenit and Yashica FX-D Quartz. Before buying the Contax I had considered for a long time which of two systems: Contax or Nikon. When I visited the shops, it was very surprised to me that Nikon's lenses (with the same focal legnth and maximum apeture) are much more expensive than the Zeiss lenses (in Poland). Thefore, Contax system was my rational choice. I have also used many cameras (Nikon, Canon, Minolta) borowed from friends, but I love my Contax. Somebody say that if a photographer (amateur or profesional) sees his camera as something more than the tool for picture taking (similar to the pen for a writter) then he is not the true photographer (amateur or profesional). I think it is not true. I am a technical engineer and I love the arts too. For me photography is the meeting place of technics and the arts. The thing is similar to a car. It is not only the mean of transport for me at all. For some years of using this camera, I can list some individual opinions of it: >> plus: A powerfull, simple way to adjust ambient light/flash ilumination ratio. >> minus: The camera may have metal top cover. For me, the camera body made from metal is natural thing such that the lens made from glass or the wine is made from grapes. I am ready to hold the heavier camera and pay some more money for the equivalence between metal and plastic.

For a few years I too have been shooting with Nikon. I have been utilizing the FM10 (an entry level camera) with a nikor 50mm f/1.4. I decided that I was going to dedicate my life to photography and I after I felt that I was comfortable with my technique, I decided I was ready for a more serious camera. I wanted the conveinent handeling of a 35mm camera and also the advantage of a medium format. I did some research and chose to go with the contax 645 af. Although I know this particular forum is for 35mm, I just wanted to say that for anyone considering going to medium format, the Contax 645 is truly an awsome camera and my Zeiss 80mm f/2 lens is truly amazing. This camera and lens has really enhanced the quality of my work and I am forever sold on zeiss. I know that comparing my nikon FM-10 to my CONTAX 645 is like comparing apples and oranges but issues of sharpness and color rendition should'nt be affected by things like film format and I have to say, my Ziess lens blows the Nikor lens out of the water. please excuse me for adding in the element of medium format, but it is the only conection I have with Contax and Zeiss. Thank you

Jeff Tiemann Tiemann Photographie

Big fun to read this page. Scott Gant looks like a hooligan standing in the wrong part of the stadium. Some kind of englishmen in the german section. I like these kind of photoclub discussions but i am happy that it is about nikon vs contax! There is some kind of saying in dutch that when two dogs are fighting the third one walks away with the bone. Let me be the third one, i use an old canon F1 and F1n. The best camera system! ever made. Wouw, now i am starting to talk on the same level, but it doesn't matter, like i said i like these kind of discussions. I am curious what will be the reactions? Well this page will be read by a lot of contax favourites, so i can already imagine! If somebody wants to buy a contax, after reading this page i think he better don't do it, why? because it's like listening to a too enthousiastic salesman who almost sleep with the product he sells, not because it's so good but because the image. BxPDª“ wayÄk think it's a good camera, but like somebody says, ok nice camera, but let me see your pictures. This person uses the good sentences but in a wrong way! it's funny he don't even recognise it. But there is scott gant again he surely made big points by telling this guy that he definitely agrees with his opinion, nice camera but let me see your photo's! I think the contax is great, (like the canon, the nikon and surely also the olympus and maybe the leica too) only some users suck! Those perfectionist people (let we assume for a while that the contax really is the best) must learn that beauty has nothing to do with perfect sharpness even at 1.4.

a bit stupid from me, yes i am not a perfectionist. But in the above comment i only wrote one thing wrong! The name scott Gant must be replaced by Timothy (Breihan?)

why i bought a 167 MT. last week was because it was the cheapest solid old camera with spot metering i could find. us$230 with 50mm lens. oh and $6 for a padded case cos they reckon the ol leather ones looked nice but drew in moisture and caused problems ...and that a new one would cost so much , i'd have to pawn the camera to get one.

I love these Contax cameras for the superior quality of their finders - the older 137MD and 137MA have excellent finders that are much better than the Nikon FM2 (although the FM3a may up the ante), for example. I am averse to autofocus, because it never focusses on what I want, or forces me to "lock" focus and recompose, while with the Contax I can focus using other portions of the finder screen (modern af finders lack sufficient "apparent size" and "contrast" to allow me to do this well) and at least once I focus the camera doesn't go and refocus (on the background!) when I try to take the shot. Also, I have lost grab shots on the street with autofocus when the camera hunted because I didn't have time to choose a contrasty area for the af sensors; with the Contax the focus can be pre-set for grab shots. Turning the af lens to manual focus isn't a good option, they have such little resistance to turning they quickly knock off a pre-set distance. All in all Contax cameras are so easy to use - the controls are simple and really ergonomic. There is also less time lag between pressing the shutter release and completing the exposure than on most other cameras - Contax was the innovator of the "Real Time System" for getting the lag more in line with that of rangefinder cameras. On some modern af cameras the lag is terrible - confirm the af, fire up the exposure system, flip the mirror, open the shutter. Oh - if you need a quieter camera, the Aria seems a little quieter (the 167 is a little screechy). The Aria lets you "lock" the exposure in any of the three metering modes (spot, centerweighted, evaluative) and lets you set a custom feature so that you can lock the exposure with the shutter release (pressed part way down) for a quick one-off shot, or lock it with the collar lever for a sequence of shots (my favorite exposure locking technique is to meter on a face in a cafe with the spot meter to get maximum mileage out of my film speed - the reading is quite different from an averaging reading under such lighting conditions - the face comes out perfect, with the setting getting only minimal exposure in the shadows, fine for me).

Hello, its me again.

Greetings from the 21st century! - where terrorism seems in over abundance and Kodachrome 25 is being phased out (wish it were th other way around). Its been roughly 3 years or so since my last entry and just wanted to say that my Contax 167MT is still going strong after about 12 1/2 years (this is not eons of time, but nothing to sneeze at either).

Other than the longevity/durability of this camera I want to mention several more reasons while I still have it...

The viewfinder - I now own a Maxxum 7 (as well as the 600si) and am very glad for its automatic features and ³customizability.² The Minolta lenses are way under-rated (but that¹s another story). Besides the Maxxum 7 being/having one of the few cameras w/ a feature set that challenges even my photographic abilities, one of its main advantages is its very bright viewfinder screen/system which is much better than the 600si (which I thought was good, especially comparing it to an ³ancient² EOS 630 I own). The 600si, besides being a bright viewfinder has the problem of the viewfinder edges being much less clear in terms of focusing ability (imagine if someone had smoothed/smudged a very thin layer of vaseline progressively towards the edges/corners of the viewfinder w/o the vaseline being there, just the impression of slight to moderate unsharpness at the extremes of the viewfinder). Well the Maxxum 7 is much better in its overall focusing clarity, but both its brightness and its edge to edge clarity are left in the dust by my 167MT. Funny thing is I always considered my 167MT slightly on the dim side at least in terms of brightness (and especially compared to the ST, AX, RTS III and even the A2 (Canon EOS), but recently I compared all three of my camera¹s viewfinders on a whim (I stopped down the 50mm f/2 Yashica lens to f/4 so it would havean equivalent aperture to the 24-50mm f/4 Maxxum zoom on my other 2 Maxxum cameras mentioned above) and I was amazed by both the brightness and in particular the edge to edge clarity (and ease of focusing) of the 167MT¹s ³80¹s technology² viewfinder. Yes I know that the 167 is a manual focus that is geared brightness/contrast-wise to maximize the MF lenses (its viewfinder contrast/focusability is not sacrfiiced at the expense of brightness like some AF cameras are, particularly the Canon A2, which, though having a superbly bright viewfinder image my 630 could only dream about, seems to be quite a bit less easy to manually focus w/ fixed wide angle lenses and/or zooms (17-35mm f/2.8 in particular)), but I just want ³y¹all² to know what a breath of fresh air and a joy having such a clear viewfinder to focus with is on this camera (the 167MT). I¹m not about to sell off my Maxxums any time soon (at least not the 7 anyways ;-)...) because they fullfill a niche for me for fast paced photography/photojournalism where people and their actions do anything but wait for you to focus precisely, but in slower situations w/ people, fine art, or anything more static where I have the time to select focus exactly and at my leisure the 167MT is superb!

I also have an ³unsung hero² of a lens, my ³lowly² Yashica 50mm f/2 lens. The lens has beautiful pillowy soft bokeh (rendition of the out of focus parts of the image) that is similar to the effect you get w/ the Zeiss lenses and great sharpness. The sharpness is good I feel even wide open and it becomes really snappy at f/2.8. I have been going out of my way to look for opportunities to use this lens do to its expquisite sharpness almost at or near wide open, soft bokeh and its exquisite metal barreled feel while not as ³perfect² in construction as my Zeiss glass, it does feel like a tank/luxury liner compared to most AF lenses (including even my metal barreled Minolta Maxxum lenses.

The lens does have a very slight bit of flare when the sun is either in frame or near the edge of the frame but that is easily stopped w/ a propitious hand to block the sun/etc. and I even like its flare/glare spot effects sometimes. Actually I am fond of flare sometimes (when its used for artistic effect) and I find its rendition quite pleasing (much more pleasing than the milky white haze/wash that my Tamron 24-70mm zoom delivers).

I am very fond of the selective focus effects I get at f/2 or f/2.8 or thereabouts that really pops out the subject (ie. a person) from the background as well as ³beautifying² the look of background clutter when subject and/or camera positions can¹t be optimally controlled.

The color rendition of the lens is very good to excellent and it is quite contrasty but I do think that the Nikon lens coating is very slightly better than the Yashica¹s (perhaps excellent for Nikon verses the very good to excellent of the Yashica¹s) but I have owned the 50mm f/1.4 Zeiss lens in the past and that¹s color/contrast (and most likely flare supression) would rate a superb - but at the price I got it (free/a gift) and for the quality it gives me I feel ³blessed² by its capabilities - I have not checked out its price on ebay/keh but a (Yashica) lens of this quality my guess would go for a song since there are not many Yashica lenses being made anymore but a tremendous backlog of used gear floating around out there at very undervalued prices (for the quality you get).

What does the above have to do with the Contax 167MT? Well, a very important part of the Contax/Yashica system that seems to get brushed over in the ³blazing glory² of Zeiss lenses (absolutely surreal color/contrast/3-dimensionality that exceeds everything optically except Leica/Schneider and perhaps Angeneiux glass) and Porsche designed bodies is the fact that Yashica optics are not only cheap, but well made and optically give you tremendous bang for the buck and should definitely be a consideration when filling out a Contax 35mm SLR system.

Even though I hate doing it (carrying more than one camera, and especially two different cameras from 2 different systems) I find myself carrying both my Maxxum gear and my Contax 167MT to the same (people) event because both fullfill their functions so well. More than 12 1/2 years (18 years if you count my Contax 137MD that I started my serious photography taking w/) of trading systems (Nikon/Leica M and R/Konica/Pentax/Canon EOS, etc. etc. etc. and by the way... etc.) and shooting my *ss off (I have no more *ss ;-)) and my needs changing in many differnet ways over those many different years, I find that my Contax gear still has both a place in my bag and in my heart. Every camera should suit its user that long, that well.

To any Nikon/Canon/etc. users that say, well, what¹s the point (of buying Contax/Zeiss) all I can say is that you get what you pay for, and if you buy used you get more value than you paid for. Contax 35mmSLR cameras and Zeiss lenses fullfill a specific niche that has very little to do w/ status (unless its just to other rich doctors/lawyers/or envious wannabe snapshooters/²photographers² w/ expensive gear, but in that case you might as well buy your status by getingt a 1v or an F5 if money is no object, though your pictures will still be more or less the same) and a lot more to do w/ craftsmanship, optical excellence and most importantly being the right tool for your kind of photography. People who want or need mainly fast accurate AF and long range and/or fast zooms would probably get a better bang for the buck w/ Minolta/Canon/Nikon systems or the G1/G2 for a rangefinder AF system. Zeiss lenses (not to mention the Yashicas but I will anyway)/Contax cameras are a bargain at any price and an especially good value in the 28-135mm fixed range of primes compared to the other big four Japaneese brand lenses/prices. Look either you can see the differences optically or you don¹t and no amount of argument will chage that. There¹s no need to put down one system at the expense of another, each system has ³Arias² (little Contax pun there) that they excel at and other areas where they fall behind the competition. I am not a rich Yuppie (I¹m actually quite financially the other way) but my pictures are better not because of the ³status² of the equipment but because of the care and thought (aesthetically andf technically) and love I put into making each image. Having owned most (and used most of the rest) latter day 35mm film SLR systems (as well as the EOS D30) of the late 20th (and early 21st) century all I can say that some people can see and appreciate that extra whatever small percentage in contrast/clarity that the Zeiss glass gives and some don¹t/won¹t. Status and brand image snobbery are meaningless if your pictures look like crap anyways - and if your pictures are good, why begrudge others the extra boost in optical quality the Zeiss glass gives as well as that indefinable extra pleasure using a capable well designed Contax body gives? Or if you believe Zeiss/Contax quality/durability is all malarkey/baloney/balogna why begrudge others their ego boost - shoot w/ what suits you best. There is more to life than sharpness and photographing Air Force test chart line pairs/bars - either your eyes can see the difference a particular brand/lens makes or they can¹t. If they can¹t live and let live...

By the way the following is my website where you¹ll find several hopefully ³non-crappy² images taken by Zeiss glass/the Contax 167MT (not that you can tell much over the web and from scanned dupes or copy slides off of prints)... In particular look in the SILVER DREAMS GALLERY for the following images: ³SILVER DREAMS² (16mm f/2.8 Distagon which is a portion/crop of about one half or so of the image of the total frame); ³I SHOT R.M.² (same lens as ³SILVER DREAMS² but all of the frame was used, not just a cropped portion); ³RENAISSANCE COUPLE WITH DOG² (same info as before); and ³FLYING EMBRYONIC SKELETON² (more an example of the unique color fringing effect that the 16mm f/2.8 Distagon Zeiss full frame fisheye lens delivers when it is set between two of its built-in colored filter settings than the quality of Zeiss glass, but I have yet to find a fisheye that will enable me to do this effect):

<H3>http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm</H3>

Hopefully I¹ll be alive to report back how my 167¹s doing in the 22nd century when its been retrofitted w/ a multi-phase plasmic induction holographic camera back capable of simulating all those retro chemical image capture mediums like ³Velveeta² and ³Karaokechrome² ;-).

But until then I¹ll just keep on using my Contax 167MT w/ those funny looking little yellow and green cartridges containing East Indian Water Buffalo substrates w/ silver halide emulsions. Yum, yum... :-) Pass me the silver nitrate and spare me the silicon chips, I want to go out shooting w/ my Contax (set on aperture priority w/ spot exposure lock, setting/using its still as simple as pie as ever) yet again...

Really fun to read the comments, especially "Scott Gant looks like a hooligan standing in the wrong part of the stadium. Some kind of Englishmen in the German section." that really makes me laugh : )

Now back to serious comments...maybe I can have some credits for I have gone through 3 systems before I use Zeiss glasses. When I first learn photography when I was a little girl, I got a Minolta Dynax 600 (is it called Alpha 507?or something on the other side of the Atlantic?) as a birthday gift. There was nothing wrong about the Minolta. It is much affordable, and soon I built up a range from 20mm to 300mm, a wide angle Tokina, a Minolta normal zoom, and Minolta 100-300 APO. Later I got a (2nd hand) 28-70G and I first know what quality mean...

There was nothing wrong until one day I was traveling on a national park... and I drop the camera WITH the 28-70G from 3meters (10 feet high), the camera and the lens break, just as my heart. Unable to afford the repair cost (need a new shutter, new mirror and new top...total loss to the lens) I give up photography for a few years...

?@

Then my uncle passed out the left me with his 20 years old Nikon FM, AIs (or AI?? i dun know..) 50/1.4, 135/2.8, a 20/2.8, 2x and AI 35/2, I love them. There are not comparable with Minolta. That's complicated...I will say they are of different "taste", I feel Minolta shows more tonal difference, while Nikon is sharper and higher in contrast.

The digital era come and soon I consider migrate into AF bodies and lens for future upgrade ... then I was so unhappy with Nikon. Nikon is MEAN! How can they make consumer bodies like F80 incompatible with Ai lens.... After renting an F100, a 18-35 and a 70-200VR...I won't be in Nikon's trick to buy expensive bodies and new lens.... In handling they may be good but they just cannot catch up with older lens... in terms of quality...not to mention those cheap Nikorrs...

?@

Here is how I switch to Canon. With an adapter mount my friend bought me from Japan...I can use old quality Nikorrs with metering, also I could enjoy immediate quiet focusing with USM. L lens wide angles may not be up to par with Nikon, at least until 17-40L that I have now, but Canon tele lens are impressive.. good sharpness/contrast/resolution, nice bokeh. Until one day i was told that EF mounts can accept Zeiss lens and Leica R lens via an adapter ... such a temptation.

Those Leica R lens are out of my reach for their price tag, but Zeiss are not expensive (comparing Nikorr ED or Canon L), I bough a Plannar 50/1.7 Distagon 35/2.8 and a Distagon 18/4, surprisingly they all added up to the price tag of a 16-35 L only.

On a sunny day out, I bring along with me the Eos 30 (Nikonians note, no Contax here), adapter mount, Ai Nikors, Zeiss 18, Canons and Sigma 24/1.8.... I shoot some EB3 and some RDPIII, the result is impressive. Sigma are being knock out in the first place... poor colour, low contrast.. then Zeiss head to head with Nikon/Canon, i couldn't tell the difference but wait....I didn't put CPL on Zeiss, but the slides are just as impressive as those Nikon/Canon with CPL, look closely with a 6x lope...I just cannot believe the 3-D like feel, and nice details. I sell the Nikors, but that's another story... so is it about prestige?? No. I was just using a Canon. Don't let your love blind you. I can remember when I was learning photography, I had been told "camera itself is only a black box, it is the glasses that counts"!

I read Lewis's posts and I don't know whether to laugh or to cry .. His sentences remind me of a joke : what is the difference between a mafioso and a post-modernist ? The post-modernist will make you an offer you cannot understand ..

I hope that no one who reads these posts and concludes that the jury is still out on the Contax Zeiss lenses. One ought to disregard as nonsense statements like ".. Zeiss lenses (absolutely surreal color/contrast/3-dimensionality that exceeds everything optically except Leica/Schneider and perhaps Angeneiux glass)" ... Can you see the difference, Lewis ? You are making an extraordinary statement, and therefore need to offer an extraordinary proof to the reader who might be tempted to buy Zeiss glass but now is thinking "Wow, maybe I should pay more for Leica R glass - a Contax user said it's better .." I offer the following humble advice to the would-be Contax buyer: rent (or borrow, if you have kind friends) Contax and Leica R primes, shoot them wide open and stopped down, print the results really large and then decide if the Leicas are worth the extra $$ ...

Hi Ive just bought a nice 167mt kit with carl zeiss 135mm f2.8 and zeiss 50mm 1.7 and zeiss 28mm and a tamron 17mm having looked through the viewfinder WOW after looking through my Contax g1 its lie having the blinders off...yet to take photos with it Ill keep you up to date.. robert

I once owned a used 167MT and I found that it is a very capable camera. The quality of the photos taken with this machine was fine. The one complaint that I had was that for some reason the 167MT was not so comfortable for me to hold. I traded it in for an Aria and I find that for me the Aria is much more comfortable. But if I didn't have the option of trading the 167MT in I would have been happy with it despite not being fully comfortable in holding it. I attribute this quirk more to me than the camera itself.

"I read Lewis's posts and I don't know whether to laugh or to cry .. His sentences remind me of a joke : what is the difference between a mafioso and a post-modernist ? The post-modernist will make you an offer you cannot understand ..

I hope that no one who reads these posts and concludes that the jury is still out on the Contax Zeiss lenses. One ought to disregard as nonsense statements like ".. Zeiss lenses (absolutely surreal color/contrast/3-dimensionality that exceeds everything optically except Leica/Schneider and perhaps Angeneiux glass)" ... Can you see the difference, Lewis ? You are making an extraordinary statement, and therefore need to offer an extraordinary proof to the reader who might be tempted to buy Zeiss glass but now is thinking "Wow, maybe I should pay more for Leica R glass - a Contax user said it's better .." I offer the following humble advice to the would-be Contax buyer: rent (or borrow, if you have kind friends) Contax and Leica R primes, shoot them wide open and stopped down, print the results really large and then decide if the Leicas are worth the extra $$ ...

-- Retro Man, November 17, 2004"

Can you get your head out of your ass long enough to see what I was actually saying and not put your own intents in my mouth?

Keep your moronic mafioso/post-modernist joke to yourself! Or better yet go laugh and cry simultaneously till you choke and it makes you stop your mindless lambasting long enough so you can actually _read_ what I said, not what you think I said.

First, learn how to read and don't take what I've written and use it to make false assumptions about me and/or twist my statements. I said "exceeds everything optically except" which means that I find Zeiss glass to be above everything else _except_ Leica R/etc., _not_ below Leica R/etc. just on a higher level than most other glass. Zeiss glass is just different. And exactly how is it (Zeiss glass) different? I mentioned how it is different/exceptional when I said "Zeiss lenses (absolutely surreal color/contrast/3-dimensionality" _before_ I mentioned "except". Except doesn't mean better, except means other than (but at the same level as Leica/etc.). So read next time. Don't read into/put implications into my statements I neither wrote nor intended. I never said that Zeiss glass was inferiror to Leica R glass, I just stated what I believed to be its _exceptional_ qualities ("absolutely surreal color/contrast/3-dimensionality"). Can _you_ see the difference "Retro Man"? Obviously not.

The only "nonsense" or "extraordinary" I see is in your extraordinarily nonsensical sneering attitude. I am not boasting in my reccommendations/opinions and _you_ are not being humble in yours (just a pompous ass). I am relaying my _actual_ experiences and my commentary/opinions based upon actual experiences. You are relaying a truism/rote advice about experience and some mindless digs based on seemingly no experience or knowledge about me or my work (pictures and/or experience).

At least I give advice from my experience, you only give pompous dumbass remarks about my remarks based on nothing (no knowledge of me or my experiences with the glass I comment upon and most assuredly no contact with the prints I have made from exceptionalZeiss/Leica glass/etc.).

You've seen exactly how many of my actual prints from Zeiss/Leica/etc. glass? You've been withme on exactly how many shoots when I shot with Zeiss/Leica gear? How many times have you stood over me as I've printed &/or had other print enlargements from this gear? You know through actual experience exactly what about my quality standards?

Nada.

And that's what your comments are (except for the last one about renting which is old hat advice from me/others though stil useful).

Your attitude is a retro joke, "Retro Man"

Yes "Retro Man" (a perfect name for your attitude?) _I_ can see the difference and there is nothing extraordinary to my statement. It is based on _years_ of experience of taking slides,color and black and white negs with Contax Zeiss SLR lenses (16mm Distagon, 28mm Distagon, 50mm f/1.4 Planar, 80-200mm f/4 Sonnar), Schneider (50mm f/1.9 Xenon) and Leica M (35mm Summicron in both screw mount and M mount (pre-asph, 35mm Summilux, 135mm Hektor, etc.) Leica R (16mm Elmarit, 28mm Elmarit, 35mm Elmarit, 50mm Summicron, 90mm Elmarit, 100mm Macro) I've even shot with Hassleblad (40 and 8Omm Zeiss lenses)and a Rollei SL35M and Rollei SL26 (126 format SLR with interchangable Zeiss 28mm, 40mm and 80mm lenses)as well as Nikon, Pentax Canon L and standard lenses, Konica SLR, Minolta manual focus and Maxxum gear and I am probably leaving a hell of alot of equipment I've shot with over the past 30+ years out from what I've just mentioned. And I have printed both Leica R and Leica M and Contax Zeiss AE and MM lenses up to 20x30" and even 30x40". Roger Hicks even mentions my quality standards in a few of his books and a Shutterbug article.

So before you go shooting your mouth off or laughing with it at what I have backed up with years of actual experience not only in _shooting_ but in _printing_ in a _real darkroom with color/black and white enlargers_ on real EP-2/RA4/etc color photographic paper, _not_ inkjet, consider that my opinions are more than just mere wishes or post-modern obfucation but clear as day emphatic real life based observations based upon my own real/factual experiences. Leica and Schneider _do_ have better micro contrast than Zeiss (SLR AE/MM) lenses though the Zeiss in my experience have better edge sharpness. Both generally have exquisite renditions in both these areas (micro contrast, edge sharpness/"acutence" and bokeh) and I find that though my Nikon lens(es) have superb sharpness wide open (especialy the slower normal lenses) they seem to have a harsher tonal rendition ("soot and chalk" (blow out highlight transitions in the upper register of exposure/borderline overexposure on faces)) compared to both Zeiss and Leica lenses. From what I remember (since I no longer own Leica R, though I shot with it for years) both Zeiss and Leica are distinguished with superb wide open sharpness (and closed down to f/22 or thereabouts with the Zeiss) and one needs to look at their own budget and "taste" as to whether one prefers the extra micro contrast of the Leica lenses or the surreal edge sharpness and color saturation (not to mention flare resistance) of the Zeiss T* coated lenses.

As for the rent/"try before you buy" advice I have been giving that advice for years (as have others) both in print (Shutterbug), in person and in the rec.photo.equipment.35mm newsgroups. Go there. Shoot the glass (as I did) yourself. You might learn something as opposed to being a wise ass snob making comments on something you know nothing about - me and _my_ experiences.

Proof? Experience is my proof. My prints are my proof. Even my images in books are proof (despite being removed from the original prints) that my opinions are based on experience/fact with the Zeiss/Leica/etc. lenses I speak of. Where's your proof that what I speak of is wrong you pompous blow hard? How many large blow ups (20x30" or greater) have you done from Leica and Zeiss gear? Go take your own advice and rent out some Leica R and Zeiss gear (and make large blow ups/optical prints directly from the slide/neg) before _you_ verbally sneer at the differences I see and have been experiencing for years with each of these lens lines. You truly are a jerk! (My apologies to any real jerks that would not want to be unduly classified in the same category as the aptly titled "Retro" Man).

IS IT GETTING POLITICAL HERE?

Zeiss lens give you sharpness (as Leica) AND ADDITIONAL CONTRAST. If you properly set lighting, or stand and shoot AGAINST light source (sun), then Zeiss lens give you VOLUME in your photo-pictires. No other lens including Leica will give you that volume. That is usually called "3-Dimensional imaging of Zeiss lens". So, if you want to make nice, alive, volumed pictures with bold color rendition - use Zeiss optics. To use Zeiss lens you need Contax camera (like this Contax 167MT), or as an alternative - Nikon camera with special Zeiss dedicated for Nikon F-bayonet "ZF" lens. Contax 167MT is good: metering and exposure is precise, near perfect, I normally get 35 out of 36 frames with normal exposure in very difficult situatons against light source. As shutter gives you 1/4000 sec exposure, available usually only in good cameras, you can easily take photos with open aperture, which gives your pictures additional perspective and natural look. The pictures taken with Contax 167MT camera are always alive-like. BUT the reset of camera's electronics after shutter close is very boring. Time to time camera hangs. This does not always lead to frame loss, but it will disturb you, as you sometimes need to reset camera by special knob or simply turn it off/on once or twice after taking shot. Without film camera hangs more often. I also use my Contax 167MT with Metz MZ40 flash with special Contax shoe adapter. Flash exposure is near perfect, but with 167MT you get almost everything for flash exposure control *except* DIFFERENT manual exposure compensations on camera and on flash.

"To use Zeiss lens you need Contax camera"

I write this long after the Contax 167MT has been discontinued; several years after the Yashica/Contax lens mount was dropped in favour of the short-lived autofocus N-Mount; and indeed several years after Kyocera ditched the Contax name entirely. I spotted this thread after seeing a 167MT on eBay, and wondering if it was the one that moved the film back and forth to autofocus, but no, that's the AX.

The cameras are overpriced eBay fodder that will never sell, but the lenses still have life in them. I have one of the 35-70mm macro zooms mentioned way up the thread, way above Lewis Lang's overly verbose drivel, and it's a superb lens on my Canon 5D. Sharp from corner to corner at all focal lengths at f/8, bitingly so in the centre, contrasty, with a "Zeiss purple" look at night. I have seen samples from a Contax 100-300mm that impressed me no end with their sharpness and purpleness and contrast, and the lens itself is solid enough to use as a defensive weapon. The 28mm Distagon seems to attract good reviews as well.

That was Lewis Lang's last post, and his homepage is dead. Perhaps he himself is dead. That's the only pleasure I can take from death, in a world where good people are so rare. The knowledge that, for every good person who dies, ten bad people also die.

Contax/Yashica - EOS lens mounts are widely and cheaply available and although the lenses themselves are not cheaply available, they were built to last and still survive in good condition. Although the 50mm primes have been overshadowed by a newer generation of Zeiss production, they still have fans, and the 50mm f/1.7 is a bargain. One of those plus a Contax/Yashica - EOS adapter is slightly more expensive than a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and is optically just as good, except that the bokeh is more circular and it doesn't have autofocus. But no-one will ever praise you for owning a Canon 50mm f/1.8. The Contax name and T* on the front of the lens is a babe magnet and people will pay for that.

As far as I know there is no way to mount the lenses on Nikon bodies, although that is partially moot on account of the fact that Zeiss now makes at least a 50mm and 85mm for the Nikon mount. The lack of alternative lens options is one of the major drawbacks of the Nikon system from my point of view.

The Japanese thing always comes up. Japan is of course famous for its shoddy workmanship and shoddy machinery and the genetic Japanese inability to operate technological items and inability to understand complicated technical diagrams. Is it an American thing? Do Americans feel unclean at the thought of owning a lens that has been assembled by machines operated by Japanese fingers?

Every discussion about modern Zeiss lenses attracts at least one post that goes out of its way to mention that they are not real Zeiss lenses, they are Japanese lenses, although they are almost just as good as the German-made lenses of yore. What is it about German people that excites you? Do they have better eyesight and steadier hands than the Japanese? Less slipshod, less likely to go home early of a Friday and assemble the lenses quickly? Is Germany less dusty than Japan?

And of course the discussion eventually moves into Taiwan-bashing or China-bashing, ad infinitum. Indian-bashing next, probably.

The Lens'es May have not been Made in Germany But they were made under strict control by Zeiss, To me thats just as good , I have 35-70mm F-3.4 {T} Macro Vario-sonnar that I tried to use on my EOS 20D But to no Avail, not able to constant in focus foto, after I had it checked over by Zeiss in Germany ,and try-ing to sell it ,which did not sell so I bought a Contax 137MD and it looks nice on that Camera: and I am able to focus it Better on the contax camera?