OT: Is Contax Zeiss 50mm f/1.7 worth buying?

I want to give it a try but is it worth buying for say $50-$60?

Is it better than the 50/1.4?

I also need to get an EOS converter as well as focus confirming chip.

http://slrlensreview.c​om/content/view/369/51​/

I dunno..i've thought of getting one, I usually see them selling for twice that!

Thanks for that link. Very interesting read.

I have my contax planar 50mm ƒ1.4 for my 40D... is better than my EF50 ƒ1.4mm USM.

Both planar ƒ1.4 and ƒ1.7 are incredible lenses. Go ahead.

Its a very sharp lens with excellent contrast, but you will have to deal with manual focus and stop down metering (not really a big deal). You don't need an EOS converter and a focus confirming chip...you can simply get a C/Y to EOS AF-confirm adapter (already has the chip and electronics on the adapter). I'd recommend two ebay dealers for the AF-confirm adapters...big_is (will code the adapter for the lens' focal length) and happypagehk (will code the chip with focal length and lens' max aperture). This info will appear in your EXIF data.

I use adapter from both of these dealers...both are very good and reliable...never had a problem with either one.

Back in the 1980s UK magazine 'What Camera?' used to test lenses and compare their resolution characteristics against the best and worst they'd ever tested. The worst was the Domiplan 50mm f/2.8, and the best was the Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.7. I had one as part of my Contax Yashica system in my film days and it was incredibly sharp, even at f/1.7. I used it for some star photos at night, wide open, and the stars were points all the way across the image. That's a very stringent test. If you are happy to put up with manual focusing and stop-down metering, it's well worth a few dollars.

Thanks guys but I decided to pass up this lens.

Because of this I took my 50/1.4 out for some around the house shots and they ended up very good. So I'm going with the OEM in this case and keep the AF.