The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Contax 645, 35mm Distagon rendering qualities?

AndyPtak

Member
I'm considering getting this lens and adapting it to my Sony a7r3. I have a number of 35mm Contax lenses I use on the Sony and really like the rendering. Does anyone know of the rendering qualities of this lens? I'm considering it because it will be a 21mm on the Sony and fills an important hole in my collection, but know little of it's qualities. Thanks.
 

MartinN

Well-known member
645 35mm -> full frame is not converted into 21mm, it's still 35mm so absolutely not very wideangle, if I don't misunderstand how you 'convert'.
 

MartinN

Well-known member
If it would be possible (image circle) to use a full frame(Sony) 24mm lens on a 645 camera that would still be 24mm but the view angle on the 645 camera very wideangle.
 

AndyPtak

Member
645 35mm -> full frame is not converted into 21mm, it's still 35mm so absolutely not very wideangle, if I don't misunderstand how you 'convert'.
Thanks. That's what I had thought too and then I saw an equivalency chart and thought I must be wrong. I'm looking for a wide image circle to mount on a shift adapter and when I saw that I thought that 645 might do the job.
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
Thanks. That's what I had thought too and then I saw an equivalency chart and thought I must be wrong. I'm looking for a wide image circle to mount on a shift adapter and when I saw that I thought that 645 might do the job.
If you like how the lens renders -- and I certainly do! -- it will work fine as a shift lens with your A7RIII, projecting an image circle that will allow as much as ~20 mm of rise / fall movement without significant vignetting (at f8 and focused at infinity) or reduction of image quality at the edges. For example, here's a photo I took with mine in the Palouse region last summer using only ~5 mm of rear fall:



I use mine with an A7R (IMO, it's still the best of the A7R series for the type of low-light, long-exposure-at-base-ISO nighttime photography I typically do, hence I've purposefully not upgraded to any of the subsequent versions) in combination with a modified Cambo WDS to provide rise / fall / shift movements and it works very, very well indeed for my purposes:



And for that matter, so do the 45/f2.8, 55/f3.5, and 80/f2 C645 lenses I also use with this setup.

There is a catch when using these lenses as shift lenses, though, and that's controlling their electronic apertures. I have tried several different schemes for doing this over the past few years and while I've managed to get them working on the bench, getting them to work in the field has so far eluded me. So I now resort to presetting the aperture using a Smart adapter before I mount them on my modified Cambo and for the most part, this works well enough that I have stopped trying to come up with a suitable way to gain control over their electronic apertures and just use them as they are. <shrug>

FYI, Cambo offers a modification service that will convert the 35/f3.5 C645 lens to a manually controlled aperture and while I'm certain they do a very good job of it, it's not inexpensive at (IIRC) $1075 plus shipping.
 

AndyPtak

Member
If you like how the lens renders -- and I certainly do! -- it will work fine as a shift lens with your A7RIII, projecting an image circle that will allow as much as ~20 mm of rise / fall movement without significant vignetting (at f8 and focused at infinity) or reduction of image quality at the edges. For example, here's a photo I took with mine in the Palouse region last summer using only ~5 mm of rear fall:



I use mine with an A7R (IMO, it's still the best of the A7R series for the type of low-light, long-exposure-at-base-ISO nighttime photography I typically do, hence I've purposefully not upgraded to any of the subsequent versions) in combination with a modified Cambo WDS to provide rise / fall / shift movements and it works very, very well indeed for my purposes:



And for that matter, so do the 45/f2.8, 55/f3.5, and 80/f2 C645 lenses I also use with this setup.


There is a catch when using these lenses as shift lenses, though, and that's controlling their electronic apertures. I have tried several different schemes for doing this over the past few years and while I've managed to get them working on the bench, getting them to work in the field has so far eluded me. So I now resort to presetting the aperture using a Smart adapter before I mount them on my modified Cambo and for the most part, this works well enough that I have stopped trying to come up with a suitable way to gain control over their electronic apertures and just use them as they are. <shrug>

FYI, Cambo offers a modification service that will convert the 35/f3.5 C645 lens to a manually controlled aperture and while I'm certain they do a very good job of it, it's not inexpensive at (IIRC) $1075 plus shipping.
Thanks for the advice and the shot - I still have my a7r too and use it a lot. My main question about this lens is not about sharpness, I think that's a given and I also think too many people obsess about it. I'm hoping that it has real "character" and the famous Zeiss 3D pop. Does it? Regards.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
That was my first lens for the Leica S. It was great! Note that the second picture is in color. No desaturation.







Matt
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
Thanks for the advice and the shot - I still have my a7r too and use it a lot. My main question about this lens is not about sharpness, I think that's a given and I also think too many people obsess about it. I'm hoping that it has real "character" and the famous Zeiss 3D pop. Does it? Regards.
In my limited experience -- I don't have much experience with the other brands of medium-format 35 mm lenses, alas -- I would say its character is more like that of the vintage Contax / Yashica line of 35 mm-format lenses than that of the modern Otus or Milvus or Loxia lenses.

It's a Zeiss lens (although I don't know how much input Zeiss had in its design) and renders like a traditional Zeiss lens, although perhaps not in quite the same way as modern Zeiss lenses render. On a continuum with the C/Y lenses on one end and the Otus on the other end, I'd place it roughly in the middle or perhaps a bit further toward the Otus side. Ditto for the Contax N lenses, which have a very similar character to most of the C645 lenses. (FYI, I am a Zeiss fan and have 8 C/Y lenses, 4 CN lenses, and 5 C645 lenses, all of which I still use on a regular basis and happily so.)

As for sharpness, it's plenty sharp, IMO, but noticeably not as sharp as, say, the 28 mm Otus. Objects within scenes are rendered with a more of a rounded, dimensional quality than with die-cut sharpness and to my eyes, the transitions between in and out of focus areas are a bit smoother, less obvious. (IMO, the 55/f3.5 is an exceptional performer in this respect, so if the focal length works for you, you might consider one of these lenses as well.)

Colors and contrast are typical, traditional Zeiss, which you either love or you don't. (Obviously, I do!)

As for "pop," it performs well enough in this respect for me, but it varies from photo to photo and perhaps doesn't quite pop as much as the best of the C/Y lenses on a good day.

Honestly, though, as is often the case in these situations, no one can fully answer this question for you and you'll probably have to buy or borrow one and see for yourself. <shrug>
 

AndyPtak

Member
In my limited experience -- I don't have much experience with the other brands of medium-format 35 mm lenses, alas -- I would say its character is more like that of the vintage Contax / Yashica line of 35 mm-format lenses than that of the modern Otus or Milvus or Loxia lenses.

It's a Zeiss lens (although I don't know how much input Zeiss had in its design) and renders like a traditional Zeiss lens, although perhaps not in quite the same way as modern Zeiss lenses render. On a continuum with the C/Y lenses on one end and the Otus on the other end, I'd place it roughly in the middle or perhaps a bit further toward the Otus side. Ditto for the Contax N lenses, which have a very similar character to most of the C645 lenses. (FYI, I am a Zeiss fan and have 8 C/Y lenses, 4 CN lenses, and 5 C645 lenses, all of which I still use on a regular basis and happily so.)

As for sharpness, it's plenty sharp, IMO, but noticeably not as sharp as, say, the 28 mm Otus. Objects within scenes are rendered with a more of a rounded, dimensional quality than with die-cut sharpness and to my eyes, the transitions between in and out of focus areas are a bit smoother, less obvious. (IMO, the 55/f3.5 is an exceptional performer in this respect, so if the focal length works for you, you might consider one of these lenses as well.)

Colors and contrast are typical, traditional Zeiss, which you either love or you don't. (Obviously, I do!)

As for "pop," it performs well enough in this respect for me, but it varies from photo to photo and perhaps doesn't quite pop as much as the best of the C/Y lenses on a good day.

Honestly, though, as is often the case in these situations, no one can fully answer this question for you and you'll probably have to buy or borrow one and see for yourself. <shrug>
A friend is pushing me to ignore MF Contax and go for the 21 mm C/Y Distagon instead. He claims it's actually almost identical but a lot more practical. Do you know ?
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
A friend is pushing me to ignore MF Contax and go for the 21 mm C/Y Distagon instead. He claims it's actually almost identical but a lot more practical. Do you know ?
I don't know what to make of your friend's suggestion, because the field of view of a 21 mm lens is so vastly different from that of a 35 mm lens, I can't imagine anyone ever substituting one for the other or considering them otherwise interchangeable. <scratches head>

Yes, the two lenses do share many design similarities, as well as a general style of rendering, but the 21 mm C/Y also has a significant amount of mustache distortion, which makes it not very well suited to the mostly architectural-type photography I do.

(As an aside, and probably not relevant to your purposes, it also projects a very small image circle, which makes it not very useful as a pseudo-shift lens and as a result, I sold the used one I bought to try in fairly short order.)

IMO, before you take anyone's advice on lens purchases -- including mine! -- you need to determine what your needs are, then determine which focal length lens will best serve them, and only then start to investigate / research the suitability of specific lenses that fall within the general parameters you've set.

As always, though, YMMV and lenses that work well for one photographer may not be at all appropriate for another!
 

AndyPtak

Member
I don't know what to make of your friend's suggestion, because the field of view of a 21 mm lens is so vastly different from that of a 35 mm lens, I can't imagine anyone ever substituting one for the other or considering them otherwise interchangeable. <scratches head>

Yes, the two lenses do share many design similarities, as well as a general style of rendering, but the 21 mm C/Y also has a significant amount of mustache distortion, which makes it not very well suited to the mostly architectural-type photography I do.

(As an aside, and probably not relevant to your purposes, it also projects a very small image circle, which makes it not very useful as a pseudo-shift lens and as a result, I sold the used one I bought to try in fairly short order.)

IMO, before you take anyone's advice on lens purchases -- including mine! -- you need to determine what your needs are, then determine which focal length lens will best serve them, and only then start to investigate / research the suitability of specific lenses that fall within the general parameters you've set.

As always, though, YMMV and lenses that work well for one photographer may not be at all appropriate for another!
Thanks. Like you I shoot mainly architecture so this doesn't sound like a good suggestion at all. I have three Contax lenses and love the character in their rendering, but none of them are really suited for a shift capable wide angle which is what I'm looking for now. As we all know, the web (and friends) can be a pretty unreliable source of information and it's hard sorting through the crap. I have the 17 and 24 Canon tilt shifts and they are excellent, but I'm looking for something less sterile (a harsh way of putting it, I know) and neutral looking to add to my working collection.

I actually love the look of my Sigma Merrills more than my Sonys or Phase Ones, but Sigma never took them to the place that the sensor deserves and they are of limited use professionally. Such a shame.
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
Thanks. Like you I shoot mainly architecture so this doesn't sound like a good suggestion at all. I have three Contax lenses and love the character in their rendering, but none of them are really suited for a shift capable wide angle which is what I'm looking for now.
Maybe and maybe not ... how much shift and/or wide angle do you need?

FYI, I photograph mostly at night, so the corners of most of my photos are hidden in inky black shadows, so I'm usually not too concerned about any vignetting or a loss of resolution that occurs at the outside of the image circles. I find that ~5 mm of rise / fall (approx. 20% of the frame height) to be adequate for 95% of my photos and most (but alas, not all) C/Y lenses I've tried so far can handle that.

Unfortunately, the 18/f4 is one of those that can't handle that, as it's limited to just 2-3 mm of rise / fall before vignetting hard; ditto for the 21/f2.8. The 28/f2.8 is limited to 3-4 mm of rise / fall, but the 25/f2.8 and 35/f2.8 are good for 5-6 mm. The 45/f2.8 Tessar starts to go soft at 5-6 mm of rise / fall but vignettes softly out to 10-12 mm, so if you don't have much detail in the corners, it works surprisingly well. And so you know, I haven't tried the 15/f3.5, 28/f2 or 35/f1.4 lenses, so can't comment on those.

One lens that does work surprisingly well for shift movements on an A7R sensor is the Contax N 17-35/f2.8 zoom, as it's good for at least 5 mm of rise / fall movements from ~20 mm to 35 mm and peaking at ~12 mm between 33 to 35mm! Of course, it has an electronic aperture, which is a bit of a PITA to work with, and there are no commercial shift adapters available for it, so you'll have to adapt and/or fabricate one yourself.

I have the 17 and 24 Canon tilt shifts and they are excellent, but I'm looking for something less sterile (a harsh way of putting it, I know) and neutral looking to add to my working collection.
Prior to my switch to using C/Y lenses as my primary lenses a few years ago, I had been using five Sigma Art lenses, including the 24-35/f2 zoom. I initially bought into them because of their f1.4 apertures, even though I almost always take my photos between f5.6 and f9, because the faster aperture makes composing and focusing my photos at night considerably easier than at f2.8 (or f3.5, in the case of my C645 lenses). Most of them also projected oversize image circles, so offered an adequate range of rise / fall movements for my purposes.

After ~15 months of working with them almost exclusively, though, I started to find their rendering style to be -- as you put it -- too harsh and sterile and over another 4-6 months, this really began to bug me. At which point, I was asked by another photographer to determine the size of the image circle of the C/Y 35/f2.8 and he sent me his to test. In the process, I also took a few photos with it and was reminded of how much I enjoyed the look of the C/Y lenses I had used way back in the 1980s before I moved on to larger formats and view cameras.

Unlike the photos I took with my Sigma Art 35/f1.4 lens, the photos I took with it were anything but harsh and sterile looking and I immediately fell in love with it. When I reported my results to the owner of the lens, he decided the image circle it projected wasn't sufficient for his purposes, so he agreed to sell it to me and within a few months, I had sold all of my Art lenses and acquired a half-dozen C/Y lenses to replace them.

FWIW, I also have a decent amount of experience with the Canon TS-E lenses owned by a couple of my friends, so know exactly what you mean when you refer to them as being "sterile." (That said, the new 50 mm TS-E lens is an absolute gem and if I used that focal length more than just a few times each year, I would seriously consider buying one. But I don't, so my C/Y 45/f2.8 and 50/f1.7 primes, and especially my 35-70/f3.4 zoom, are adequate for my purposes on those occasions when I need a lens longer than 35 mm.)

I actually love the look of my Sigma Merrills more than my Sonys or Phase Ones, but Sigma never took them to the place that the sensor deserves and they are of limited use professionally. Such a shame.[/QUOTE]

I loved mine, too! But for my low-light, long-exposure-at-base-ISO nighttime photography, the files they capture are orders of magnitude too noisy and as a practical matter, they are best used for exposures that are significantly shorter than, say, 1/2 second, which makes them a non-starter for me. <sigh>

Anyway, I've rambled on for too long here -- I didn't have time to compose a short post ... lol! -- so good luck with your decision and whatever direction you decide to head from here!
 

AndyPtak

Member
Maybe and maybe not ... how much shift and/or wide angle do you need?

FYI, I photograph mostly at night, so the corners of most of my photos are hidden in inky black shadows, so I'm usually not too concerned about any vignetting or a loss of resolution that occurs at the outside of the image circles. I find that ~5 mm of rise / fall (approx. 20% of the frame height) to be adequate for 95% of my photos and most (but alas, not all) C/Y lenses I've tried so far can handle that.

Unfortunately, the 18/f4 is one of those that can't handle that, as it's limited to just 2-3 mm of rise / fall before vignetting hard; ditto for the 21/f2.8. The 28/f2.8 is limited to 3-4 mm of rise / fall, but the 25/f2.8 and 35/f2.8 are good for 5-6 mm. The 45/f2.8 Tessar starts to go soft at 5-6 mm of rise / fall but vignettes softly out to 10-12 mm, so if you don't have much detail in the corners, it works surprisingly well. And so you know, I haven't tried the 15/f3.5, 28/f2 or 35/f1.4 lenses, so can't comment on those.

One lens that does work surprisingly well for shift movements on an A7R sensor is the Contax N 17-35/f2.8 zoom, as it's good for at least 5 mm of rise / fall movements from ~20 mm to 35 mm and peaking at ~12 mm between 33 to 35mm! Of course, it has an electronic aperture, which is a bit of a PITA to work with, and there are no commercial shift adapters available for it, so you'll have to adapt and/or fabricate one yourself.



Prior to my switch to using C/Y lenses as my primary lenses a few years ago, I had been using five Sigma Art lenses, including the 24-35/f2 zoom. I initially bought into them because of their f1.4 apertures, even though I almost always take my photos between f5.6 and f9, because the faster aperture makes composing and focusing my photos at night considerably easier than at f2.8 (or f3.5, in the case of my C645 lenses). Most of them also projected oversize image circles, so offered an adequate range of rise / fall movements for my purposes.

After ~15 months of working with them almost exclusively, though, I started to find their rendering style to be -- as you put it -- too harsh and sterile and over another 4-6 months, this really began to bug me. At which point, I was asked by another photographer to determine the size of the image circle of the C/Y 35/f2.8 and he sent me his to test. In the process, I also took a few photos with it and was reminded of how much I enjoyed the look of the C/Y lenses I had used way back in the 1980s before I moved on to larger formats and view cameras.

Unlike the photos I took with my Sigma Art 35/f1.4 lens, the photos I took with it were anything but harsh and sterile looking and I immediately fell in love with it. When I reported my results to the owner of the lens, he decided the image circle it projected wasn't sufficient for his purposes, so he agreed to sell it to me and within a few months, I had sold all of my Art lenses and acquired a half-dozen C/Y lenses to replace them.

FWIW, I also have a decent amount of experience with the Canon TS-E lenses owned by a couple of my friends, so know exactly what you mean when you refer to them as being "sterile." (That said, the new 50 mm TS-E lens is an absolute gem and if I used that focal length more than just a few times each year, I would seriously consider buying one. But I don't, so my C/Y 45/f2.8 and 50/f1.7 primes, and especially my 35-70/f3.4 zoom, are adequate for my purposes on those occasions when I need a lens longer than 35 mm.)

I actually love the look of my Sigma Merrills more than my Sonys or Phase Ones, but Sigma never took them to the place that the sensor deserves and they are of limited use professionally. Such a shame.
I loved mine, too! But for my low-light, long-exposure-at-base-ISO nighttime photography, the files they capture are orders of magnitude too noisy and as a practical matter, they are best used for exposures that are significantly shorter than, say, 1/2 second, which makes them a non-starter for me. <sigh>

Anyway, I've rambled on for too long here -- I didn't have time to compose a short post ... lol! -- so good luck with your decision and whatever direction you decide to head from here![/QUOTE]

Thanks for the advice. i'll check out the 17-35 zoom. Sounds very promising. All the best.
 

Sarnian

Member
That was my first lens for the Leica S. It was great! Note that the second picture is in color. No desaturation.
I have a Contax 645 35mm waiting to go on my Typ 006 but the adapter is SO expensive (£1,000+) that I might have to abandon the idea. :banghead:
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
I'm considering getting this lens and adapting it to my Sony a7r3. I have a number of 35mm Contax lenses I use on the Sony and really like the rendering. Does anyone know of the rendering qualities of this lens? I'm considering it because it will be a 21mm on the Sony and fills an important hole in my collection, but know little of it's qualities. Thanks.
Hi,

A 35 mm lens is a 35 mm lens, weather you put it on an APS-C camera or 4”x5”. But the angle of view will be different.

So, if you need a 21 mm lens, you buy a 21 mm lens. The only exception is if you would use it with a focal length reducer. In that case a focal length reducer may reduce your 35 mm to 21 mm.

AFAIK, the Contax C/Y 21 mm is essentially the same lens as the present 21/2.8 from Zeiss and it is a lens in which Zeiss takes considerable pride, so I think it is pretty good.

Best regards
Erik
 

drevil

Well-known member
Staff member
i was able to use chrismuc's c645 35mm on my gfx50s for a few days, imho i wasnt blown away, it was more or less similar with the canon tse17mm. just without the curvature issue.
wide open and slightly stopped down, at close distance, it was great though. but not for architecture.

also the need for permanent stopping the lens down to its optimal Fstop of F11 wasnt helping for achieving ciritcal focus. some members on this forum say they have no issues with this, but i do.

i, as a gfx user, am waiting for a ts lens in that range, natively from fuji, i guess i my waiting will be long.
 

AndyPtak

Member
Maybe and maybe not ... how much shift and/or wide angle do you need?

FYI, I photograph mostly at night, so the corners of most of my photos are hidden in inky black shadows, so I'm usually not too concerned about any vignetting or a loss of resolution that occurs at the outside of the image circles. I find that ~5 mm of rise / fall (approx. 20% of the frame height) to be adequate for 95% of my photos and most (but alas, not all) C/Y lenses I've tried so far can handle that.

Unfortunately, the 18/f4 is one of those that can't handle that, as it's limited to just 2-3 mm of rise / fall before vignetting hard; ditto for the 21/f2.8. The 28/f2.8 is limited to 3-4 mm of rise / fall, but the 25/f2.8 and 35/f2.8 are good for 5-6 mm. The 45/f2.8 Tessar starts to go soft at 5-6 mm of rise / fall but vignettes softly out to 10-12 mm, so if you don't have much detail in the corners, it works surprisingly well. And so you know, I haven't tried the 15/f3.5, 28/f2 or 35/f1.4 lenses, so can't comment on those.

One lens that does work surprisingly well for shift movements on an A7R sensor is the Contax N 17-35/f2.8 zoom, as it's good for at least 5 mm of rise / fall movements from ~20 mm to 35 mm and peaking at ~12 mm between 33 to 35mm! Of course, it has an electronic aperture, which is a bit of a PITA to work with, and there are no commercial shift adapters available for it, so you'll have to adapt and/or fabricate one yourself.



Prior to my switch to using C/Y lenses as my primary lenses a few years ago, I had been using five Sigma Art lenses, including the 24-35/f2 zoom. I initially bought into them because of their f1.4 apertures, even though I almost always take my photos between f5.6 and f9, because the faster aperture makes composing and focusing my photos at night considerably easier than at f2.8 (or f3.5, in the case of my C645 lenses). Most of them also projected oversize image circles, so offered an adequate range of rise / fall movements for my purposes.

After ~15 months of working with them almost exclusively, though, I started to find their rendering style to be -- as you put it -- too harsh and sterile and over another 4-6 months, this really began to bug me. At which point, I was asked by another photographer to determine the size of the image circle of the C/Y 35/f2.8 and he sent me his to test. In the process, I also took a few photos with it and was reminded of how much I enjoyed the look of the C/Y lenses I had used way back in the 1980s before I moved on to larger formats and view cameras.

Unlike the photos I took with my Sigma Art 35/f1.4 lens, the photos I took with it were anything but harsh and sterile looking and I immediately fell in love with it. When I reported my results to the owner of the lens, he decided the image circle it projected wasn't sufficient for his purposes, so he agreed to sell it to me and within a few months, I had sold all of my Art lenses and acquired a half-dozen C/Y lenses to replace them.

FWIW, I also have a decent amount of experience with the Canon TS-E lenses owned by a couple of my friends, so know exactly what you mean when you refer to them as being "sterile." (That said, the new 50 mm TS-E lens is an absolute gem and if I used that focal length more than just a few times each year, I would seriously consider buying one. But I don't, so my C/Y 45/f2.8 and 50/f1.7 primes, and especially my 35-70/f3.4 zoom, are adequate for my purposes on those occasions when I need a lens longer than 35 mm.)

I actually love the look of my Sigma Merrills more than my Sonys or Phase Ones, but Sigma never took them to the place that the sensor deserves and they are of limited use professionally. Such a shame.
I loved mine, too! But for my low-light, long-exposure-at-base-ISO nighttime photography, the files they capture are orders of magnitude too noisy and as a practical matter, they are best used for exposures that are significantly shorter than, say, 1/2 second, which makes them a non-starter for me. <sigh>

Anyway, I've rambled on for too long here -- I didn't have time to compose a short post ... lol! -- so good luck with your decision and whatever direction you decide to head from here![/QUOTE]

You've got me wondering about the 17-35 now. Damn! Don't know much about the N series in Contax. Is it the same mount as the C/Y lenses? Doesn't look like it.
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
You've got me wondering about the 17-35 now. Damn! Don't know much about the N series in Contax. Is it the same mount as the C/Y lenses? Doesn't look like it.
The Contax N line of film cameras and lenses didn't last very long -- IIRC, from approx. mid 2000 until late 2005 -- and after the Contax N digital camera bombed, leaving a very large crater, Kyocera decided to pull the plug on the entire Contax brand, including the C645 cameras and lenses.

Fortunately, the supply of used Contax bodies is plentiful, as are most of the lenses, except for a few of the primes, which weren't made in very large numbers, hence can be difficult to find these days and expensive to purchase when they are.

The Contax N mount is not the same as the C/Y mount -- it's larger in diameter and at 48 mm, it has a 2.5 mm longer FFD -- but there are adapters available for several camera mounts, including a couple of Smart ones that will control their electronic apertures and autofocus mechanisms.

For many years, there was also a company in Canada called Conurus that converted CN and C645 lenses to work on Canon EF cameras, but they appear to have gone dark these days (which isn't surprising, as the owner was also the person who designed the Metabones smart adapter and buying one adapter for all lenses was much less expensive than converting each lens individually, so the royalties he received from those sales were likely quite a bit more lucrative than performing the conversions using bayonent mounts purchased from Sigma.)

I only have experience with the CN zooms, but to my eyes, their rendering style really is a cross between the vintage C/Y lenses and the modern Zeiss lenses: i.e., the images they capture are not quite as characterful and dimensional as the best C/Y lenses but they're also a bit sharper and more resolving, albeit nowhere near as sharply resolved and clinical / sterile as the Otus series (which IMO, isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course!)

I'm not aware of any commercially available shift adapters for the CN lenses, so you'll have to fabricate your own or modify an existing adapter. And while the 17-35/f2.8 projects a generously large image circle across most of its focal range, the 24-85 projects an image circle that is masked internally allows for zero movements ... yep, not even a millimeter or two!

Also, for the first few mm (say, between 17 mm and 19 mm) the thick cover glass ahead of the sensor sometimes causes a bit of smearing in the corners of the frame, but the Kolari thin-filter mod reduces this effect to more than tolerable levels. (In my case, it also ruined the camera, but I'm over that now, so won't go into that here.)

As a practical matter, though, using the CN 17-35/f2.8 lens as a shift lens on a Sony A7RXXX body is anything but and I honestly can't recommend it to most photographers, so I apologize if I have raised your hopes by mentioning it. But it potentially works very well indeed and despite its limitations, if you have the ability and/or resources to realize this potential, as I do and have, then the resulting payoff can be significant! :)
 

CAMBOUSA

Member
I'm a little late to the party here, but as it has already been covered Cambo can retrofit this particular lens for use with our Actus View-Camera

See the links below for more info:
https://www.cambo.com/en/actus-series/actus-b-mini-view-camera/actar-35-retrofit/

https://www.facebook.com/CamboBV/posts/the-actar-35-aka-distagon-35-conversion-or-why-we-choose-to-do-it-the-way-we-do-/1878710125524825/

List price is $1075 (Plus shipping and any applicable taxes) and requires you provide a donor Contax 35mm 645 lens. And of course, you will need an Actus camera to be able to use the lens (naturally).
 
Top