Because at the end of the day, MTF charts are not the only consideration.
Can I see some Contax SLR?
-
A
- Thread starter kivis
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 3 Wooden 8x10 Film Holders
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale CP Goerz Berlin Dagor 7.7/36cm
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale Manfrotto 502AH Pro Video Head
- Started by Barlow
-
Sold Light Impressions Archival Slide Storage Boxes
- Started by Jon Shiu
Forum statistics
Because at the end of the day, MTF charts are not the only consideration.
That, and because I can. I enjoy using different cameras and lenses, and after almost 40 years in photography enjoy the subtle differences I see in the character of different lenses. Whether it's actually there or not.
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
Lens mount adapters. The Canon has a shallow enough mirror box that the lens mount adapter does not push the lens too far from the film plane, therefore infinity focus is maintained. Exposure is via stop-down metering as there is no automatic diaphragm control. It's not the best process in the world but it works.
But if I'm not mistaken, it is a permanent fixture to lens and not a bayonet type fixture. You have to replace whats on lens currently.
There are many C/Y Contax to EF adapters on the market. They are not permanently fixed to the camera.
I didn't say they were. I said they are permanently fixed to lens.
Are you saying that is wrong?
I dont think that is true, but I could be wrong. Others who know more will hopefully chime in and provide an accurate answer.
Well you suggested it so why don't you just point us to one of these many ones you were thinking off so we can see for ourselves.
I just know that there are a LOT of Canon digital users who use Contax glass. Over at FM there are thousands of photos from people using every possible Contax lens on their EF mount digital cameras. I never read about them surgically changing the lenses. I would think that would be a huge topic if every lens needed this.
You can ask in this thread.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1009161/241#lastmessage
Thats what I thought, you have no idea how these mounts work.
All that I said was that it was *possible* to use C/Y lenses on EF mount cameras. My information is factually correct.
That you are too lazy or incapable on how to find out how to do this is not my concern.
Slightly less than 10 seconds of effort produced this information.
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Contax-Yashica-Camera/dp/B002JX1CCG
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Contax-Yashica-Camera/dp/B002JX1CCG
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
Actually, there are two types - ones you mount permanently on the lens and ones you can interchange and are non-permanent. The ones that have been reviewed as best/most successful have been the ones you permanently mount to the lens.
Because of these Canon adapters the Contax SLR lenses of the 80's-90's have increased in price substantially in the last 5 or so years as Canon DSLR owners flocked to them. Especially for the wide angle lenses which do not really need AF capabilities and of which many think the Contax Zeiss glass kicks butt over Canon's offerings in those wider ranges, or at least did at that point.
But even the standard lenses went up a lot. At its lowest point just before Canon DSLRs began to really take off you could get the 50/1.7 Planar used for $60-80 USD and the 50/1.4 Planar for only a little over $100 USD. I had both for a while. Sold the 1.4 later when I saw I could get almost $300 USD for it and because the 1.7 in its mid range of apertures I think might even be sharper. That said the build quality is quite different, you can feel it just turning the aperture ring. The 1.7 using more plastic and just does not feeling as solid, however it's very well built nonetheless. In fact at today's prices (the 1.4 is now $350 to almost $500 USD at KEH depending on AE or MM) I'd always recommend the 1.7 over the 1.4.
Perhaps my fav is the 35/2.8 PC Distagon. An unbelievable over-engineered marvel and terrific performer. Big though especially with its specially designed hood. Others I have and love are the 180/2.8 Sonnar, 135/2.8 Sonnar, 60/2.8 Makro-Planar, and 85/1.4 Planar. I also own the big 100-300/4.5-5.6 Vario-Sonnar. I swear the 100-300 is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, primes included. Quite cumbersome though so I don't use it as much as I should. Two of the Contax Zeiss SLR lenses I've owned and eventually sold were the 80-200/4 Vario-Sonnar and the 45/2.8 Tessar. Just pretty much underwhelmed with them for some reason.
Got anything to add?
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
Here you go- RTS III with 50mm f1.4
The irony of this post is so very delicious!
One gorgeous camera!
Sirs,
The original qestion was whether to buy a 50mm C\Y Zeiss. No info on whether that was for film or digital use.
The answer is that for normal printouts A4, A3 ?? whether on an RTS, S2, ST...or a digital Canon, a properly focussed Zeiss will be splendid.
I do not photograph test charts or brick walls, and do not usually make larger printouts, but i do occasionally make blowups from parts of the frame. I find find that even my occasionally derided 25mm, my 50mm, my 60mm macro and my zeiss Vario Sonnar zoom are all perfectly adequate.
Since I also happen to have a stack of ancient Leica R optics, which I use with film as well as digital, I can state with confidence that for my kind of untutored snaps, the Zeiss products are not at all inferior to its other top end competitors.
p.
The original qestion was whether to buy a 50mm C\Y Zeiss. No info on whether that was for film or digital use.
The answer is that for normal printouts A4, A3 ?? whether on an RTS, S2, ST...or a digital Canon, a properly focussed Zeiss will be splendid.
I do not photograph test charts or brick walls, and do not usually make larger printouts, but i do occasionally make blowups from parts of the frame. I find find that even my occasionally derided 25mm, my 50mm, my 60mm macro and my zeiss Vario Sonnar zoom are all perfectly adequate.
Since I also happen to have a stack of ancient Leica R optics, which I use with film as well as digital, I can state with confidence that for my kind of untutored snaps, the Zeiss products are not at all inferior to its other top end competitors.
p.
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
As an owner of an RTS III, and having shot with both the 50 1.4 and 1.7, I would say that if you want to get the best out of the system, the RTS III is the way to go, for the vacuum film plane. I think it really does give an edge to focus accuracy. And while the 1.7 may be sharper than the 1.4, I like the quality of the OOFAs from the 1.4 better (another way of saying it has more pleasing bokeh than the 1.7).
Someone mentioned the Vario-Sonnar. I have also had the 35-70 Vario-Sonnar before and there was a time where I have said, if I were forced to choose only one lens to keep for my Contax system, that would be it. And I'd stand by that assessment today of that lens. It's a constant-aperture f3.5 through the whole zoom range, and it will macro focus to 1:3 or maybe even 1:2.5 (I forget, it's been a while since I had the lens). It too has a very lovely quality to its OOFAs (Out Of Focus Areas).
Someone mentioned the Vario-Sonnar. I have also had the 35-70 Vario-Sonnar before and there was a time where I have said, if I were forced to choose only one lens to keep for my Contax system, that would be it. And I'd stand by that assessment today of that lens. It's a constant-aperture f3.5 through the whole zoom range, and it will macro focus to 1:3 or maybe even 1:2.5 (I forget, it's been a while since I had the lens). It too has a very lovely quality to its OOFAs (Out Of Focus Areas).
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2012
- Messages
- 213
- Format
- Multi Format
Attachments
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |