ZEISS Planar f/2 X 2 (G & ZM)… Film Edition.

Warning: This is a long haul post merging a 2021 post and some recent camera nerdery revelations/machinations. Run now. You have been warned.

A while ago I wrote a post titled:

Contax G Lenses: I’ll admit it. I do not get products sometimes.

I wrote it a few years ago after reading a review of the Funleader Contax 35mm f/2 G. The short version is that this is a re-housing of the lens elements of an AF Contax G 35mm f/2 lens into a Funleader M Mount MF rangefinder lens body. Cool.

After a recent purchase I realized I had the ingredients for an interesting related comparison. But I am getting ahead of myself. Back to that post. <Engage cut and paste for context followed by an update.>

I was impressed by the review and the lens.

• A great review. Well written with great samples. It makes a good case for the lens.
• A good looking lens once complete.
• I really like M Mount lenses.
• The 35mm f/2 G is a fine lens. An excellent choice of optic.
• You cannot go wrong with Zeiss optics. Especially vintage Zeiss optics. They render with an almost perfect imperfection.
• There is a uniqueness to the proposition and I get it.
• The process is reversible also if I follow.

I cannot emphasize this enough. Great article. Great product. I have nothing against either.

Ok. Now back to Eric-ville. Where the Woods family crest is emblazoned with the battle cry, “Never pay retail!” So here is the thing. Or things.

• There are no inaccuracies in the review. I agree with everything stated. But there are a few things the review does not touch upon. Like…
• You know what else is a good looking lens? Any of the Contax G lenses as is. And I could never imagine myself disassembling one or purchasing a reconstituted one.

• While I do really like M Mount lenses (Exhibits a, b, and c), I also really like Contax G lenses.
• The 35mm f/2 G is a great lens, but I have not owned it. I currently chose instead to pick up the 28mm f/2.8 and 90mm f/2.8. If I were to get a faster f/2 G prime it would be the 45mm instead of the 35mm. Purely personal preference. Regardless it is not an option for conversion yet.

• You cannot go wrong with Zeiss optics. Especially vintage Zeiss optics. They render with an almost perfect imperfection.

• There is a uniqueness to the proposition and I get it. But that alone is not enough.
• The process is reversible, but there is another way.

None of those bullets are the real reason why the Funleader is not my cup of tea, even though it is a fascinating cup.

• I still shoot film using a Contax G1 (28mm and 90mm specifically). If I were to convert these lenses that would no longer be an option.

• While they are different animals entirely, Contax G and Leica M, they are contemporaries in my universe. I owned and sold them both. Contax is the only brand of the two that I missed enough to buy back into. The prospect of doing away with autofocus and auto exposure offered by Contax G to manual focus the same optics on film bodies is not an attractive one to me personally. Your mileage may vary.
• $1,200. I fully acknowledge that this is not a lot of money for an M Mount Zeiss lens. But add in the cost of this lens conversion with the prerequisite cost of a Leica M body and you are going through a lot of trouble and spending far more money to shoot with the same optics. For around the same amount I could re-purchase the three M Mount lenses I currently have brand new. I am not saying it is not worth the price. It is. This is just more than I am willing to pay.
• I noticed that the author tested adapted to a Leica SL2-s body. A rangefinder-less mirrorless. The author mentions that they hope that Funleader makes this for even more mounts like Sony E. But you could adapt this M Mount conversion lens to Sony as is with an adapter. Heck, you could even get AF if you throw in a TECHART M adapter. But what if we pass by the M conversion all together and adapt the glass directly to mirrorless?…
• For $29.95 I can buy a Fotodiox Contax G to Sony E adapter and have the best of both worlds for me. AF film shooting natively with a G body and MF digital shooting with Sony E.

…$29.95.

But does it work? Yes. Shots below taken with a Contax G 28mm f/2.8…

…and Sony E using the Fotodiox MF adapter.

And then there is film shooting w/ the Contax G1.

And while not a Leica experience it does make great use of these G lenses while retaining AF and AE for far less than what all manual film, AE film, or digital M Mount cameras will cost you. Another perk is that with the Fotodiox adapter you do not have to wait for a lens conversion release to adapt all of your G lenses. So another Contax G favorite of mine, the 90mm f/2.8,…

…can be used for film…

…or digital also.

There is another issue for me personally. If I were shopping for an M Mount 35mm f/2 lens this lens exists.

Definitely not a Zeiss lens but it shares the Contax G lenses focal length and aperture spec, costs considerably less, and renders a lovely image itself on digital…

…or film.

Lastly, there is my biggest issue. Re-housing Contax G lenses.

• There are only so many of these lenses.
• If this catches on I imagine it will impact/inflate used Contax G lens prices.
• I really like the G lenses as is. I have a hard time signing on to dismantling a perfectly good Contax G lens even if the process is reversible.

So the re-housed Contax G lens recap:

• Great review.
• Impressive product.
• I will keep my Contax G lens as is for now.

<End cut and paste.>

Still there?

Ok. This is the G & ZM comparison film edition made possible by the acquisition of an M mount camera body and similarly spec’d ZEISS Planar lens.

After I started testing this lens, which was excellent in every application similar to the G 45mm variant, I had a thought.

Why would I not buy this M lens instead of rehousing a G lens?

They are both:

• Lenses of similar focal length.
• ZEISS Planar lenses.
• f/2.

The main reason this came to mind was that the Funleader M conversion kit, without G lens, costs about the same as the used price for this ZM lens and a complete conversion lens costs about twice as much.

I shared my thoughts on rehousing G lens for M as compared to buying this ZM lens with a voice I trust. Hamish Gill, who in addition to being the person behind 35mmc is also a part of a company that rehouses ZEISS glass, OMNAR. And as expected he provided a good point:

“I am a bit on the side of the modifiers here. Those old Contax branded lenses were peak Zeiss in my opinion… … I just think the modern lenses don’t quite have as much contrast pop and warmth.”

Fair point. I then admitted that perhaps I had an irrational, and somewhat protective, attachment to G glass. His point was as fair as any had come up with. I also shared that I intended to make a digital comparison using TECHART adapters.

TECHART G and TECHART M adapters for Sony FE. And then it struck me. I can do the film comparison right now. So that is what I did. Non-scientific ground rules were used to level the playing field as much as possible.

• Same film. Fujifilm 400.
• Same setting. Out and about on a regular Saturday.
• Same aperture. f/2 when possible. Started with the G since it has a slower top shutter speed outside and used the same aperture for the ZM.
• Same-ish editing. Minimally edited the rolls back to back.
• Same developer. Cinestill CS41 developed in the same tank.

I was curious if I would see a difference and if so how much? I thought of doing a blind comparison before revealing the result but I will just list the G photos first followed by the ZM pics. I used these two frames taken at the same time with help, as I swung through my local camera shop to pick up some film developing supplies, to tell the rolls apart after I developed them.

Here are the images followed by some thoughts on the images and the cameras used.

My first thoughts?

• I am not seeing a discernible IQ difference between these lenses.
  • Any differences I do see can be written off as:
    • Post editing differences like the more saturated ZM image of the little house behind the One Way sign.
    • Focal length differences.
    • AF vs MF.
• These cameras are much more similar than they are different.
  • While I have yet to find confirmation that these cameras share their heritage after a brief search there are too many mechanical and operational similarities to be a coincidence, in my opinion.
    • Operationally comes down to two differences.
      • 1/2000 vs 1/4000 top shutter speed.
      • AF vs MF.
    • Otherwise similar:
      • Feel and heft in hand.
      • Switchgear like the on/off switch/shutter button assembly.
      • AE performance.
      • 37 exposures out of a 36 exposure roll of film.
      • All auto loading, winding, rewinding feel and sounds.

All that being said I will not discount anyone’s preference for the G lens. Me?

I am good.

Advice?

I have none. Whatever floats your boat?

Want to adapt? Adapt.

Want to rehouse a lens? Rehouse a lens.

Want to buy a native M mount? Buy a native M mount.

This was just an exercise for comparison’s sake. Intentionally not labeled a “vs”. Whichever you choose all the best to you.

Happy capturing.

-ELW