Vario-Sonnar for Contax 167mt

[climbabout]

I have a lightly used Contax 167MT which I've owned since new. Recently my wife resurrected her interest in Photography and enjoys using it. I'm wondering what the options are for a Vario-Sonnar for this camera. Specifically I'm looking for a good all purpose zoom to go from moderate wide angle to moderate tele. Any help out there or recommendations? What are my choices? It's primarily for b&w. would like to stick with an MM mount as my wife primarily uses program mode.
Tim

[TheFlyingCamera]

The 35-70 zoom is a beautiful lens. As far as I know, they were only available in the MM mount. It is a very nice, bright lens with a constant aperture, and will macro focus to about 1/2 life size. If you want a larger range, the 28-85 is supposed to be one of the best zooms ever made, optically. It's a big lens though, much bigger than the 35-70, and I think it lacks the close-focus capability of the 35-70. If you want a longer telephoto, they also made a 35-135 which is massive. I have not shot with the 28-70 zoom, which has a variable aperture, but it might be a good fit for your wife because it is smaller and lighter.

[climbabout]

Thanks Scott - while doing a search of former threads, I saw you had some experience with this camera and hoped you would chime in.
Tim

[TheFlyingCamera]

You're welcome. Optically, all those lenses will be quite good. All-stars are the 35-70 and 28-85, but you'll have to balance performance vs portability. Supposedly the 35-135 is an amazing lens, but even I with my hams for hands, never bothered to try it out because of the size and weight. Also, do consider third-party lenses if you can find them in the MM mount- I have a Sigma 18-35 that fits the Contax and is quite good for the money. There may not be enough of them around to justify the search though.

[cowanw]

my wife has the 28-70 and likes it.
I use the 35-70 and the 25mm and many others. I prefer heavier lens and prime lens. she cannot carry too much weight. All these lenses takes better pictures than I do. You can not go wrong.
regards
Bill

[MartinB]

I too have the 35-70 (and 80-200) and can recommend it as a great walk about lens. I find it very good to excellent optically. I am sure bench resolution tests could reveal differences between it and a prime lens but on a roll of transparencies I can't tell which frames are the zoom and which are the primes.

The 35-70 is relatively compact (67mm filter) and light weight (470g), handles well, only a 1/2 stop slower than a "fast" zoom, and the close focus is handy. When I bought it, I wanted the 28-85 but could only afford the 35-70. Now that I have used it for more than 8 years, I am not sure I would have chosen differently if I had the chance.

I agree with Scott that the 28-85 and 35-135 are bulky and heavy (750 g, 82 mm filters) but are reputed to be sharp like the 35-70. I have also handled but not used the 28-70 which I think was designed for the Aria and was one of the last zooms before the N mount. It is the lightest of the bunch (325 g) but the slower aperture at the long end can make it a little harder to focus in dim light compared to the 35-70. Having both the 35-70 and the 28-70, Bill has the best perspective on the tradeoffs between the 2.

The 35-70 seems to be a bargain in the used market compared to the 2 heavy zooms and I have seen copies sell for around $300. Probably a combination of relative rarity of some models and the perception that 35-70 does "not have much range"

Martin

[climbabout]

Thanks to all of you for your input - seems like the 35-70 would be the best choice for what wer'e looking for.
Tim