G
Guest
I saw an adapter to use Contax MM lenses on Canon EOS cameras, so I wanted to ask you if you think it will work or will it have problems with image quality?
Thanks
Thanks
CI Photocommunity
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
G
Guest
> Funny you mention that adapter, because I just saw one like it this week myself, online. It was on the web site for Bob Shell. He states on his site that it works but that you obviously do not have autofocus with it. And, you will have to manually set the aperature on the lens to shoot. There are limitations since there are large differences between the way the two systems work. He said its price is US$150. I have never used it, but you can read more about it here:
Although as I said, I have never used it, I figure if I'm investing money in Zeiss lenses, it is worth investing in the contax body too. But if thinking of getting the manual lenses, you also have the option of going with inexpensive Yaschica manual focus bodies (very cheap used) which mount flawlessly with Contax manual focus lenses. The glass is responsible for the image quality more than the body - but the body should at least feel comfortable in your hands and for your use of its controls.
-Lynn
Although as I said, I have never used it, I figure if I'm investing money in Zeiss lenses, it is worth investing in the contax body too. But if thinking of getting the manual lenses, you also have the option of going with inexpensive Yaschica manual focus bodies (very cheap used) which mount flawlessly with Contax manual focus lenses. The glass is responsible for the image quality more than the body - but the body should at least feel comfortable in your hands and for your use of its controls.
-Lynn
G
Guest
e.g. zeiss lenses on canon ef, full metallic and manual,works without batteries.
G
Guest
There are no optical elements, so the image will be as good as ever.
Guessing your asking so as to have a digital body, with zeiss optics, remember that the image produced on the d-60 will have a conversion factor of 1.6 due to the smaller sensor area as compared to 35mm film, 1.3 with the eos 1-d and no factor with a 1d-s.
The other factor is that your Zeiss lenses will be used like pre-set. Focus with the lens wide open, stop down for the shot with a dimmer viewfinder corresponding to the amount your closing the aperature.
(where's the DIGITAL RX?)
Guessing your asking so as to have a digital body, with zeiss optics, remember that the image produced on the d-60 will have a conversion factor of 1.6 due to the smaller sensor area as compared to 35mm film, 1.3 with the eos 1-d and no factor with a 1d-s.
The other factor is that your Zeiss lenses will be used like pre-set. Focus with the lens wide open, stop down for the shot with a dimmer viewfinder corresponding to the amount your closing the aperature.
(where's the DIGITAL RX?)
G
Guest
I use this combo and can attest to the effectiveness of the combo. However, for the reasons enumerated by J Wojtaszek I find it best to use these lenses on a tripod. Jack Casner
G
Guest
Ooops, now I found the thread:
German Company Zoerkendoerfer will have an adapter ZEISS-EOS soon.
Price will be about 150 EUR + VAT (due to a preliminary info by them)
matthias
German Company Zoerkendoerfer will have an adapter ZEISS-EOS soon.
Price will be about 150 EUR + VAT (due to a preliminary info by them)
matthias
Hi Matthias,
Zeiss-EOS Adapter is useful,please let me know how to contact Zoerkendoerfer. Do they have a web site?
When I look at the test photos in Contaxinfo. The images of EOS 1Ds supplied by Fotografz is better than ND in terms of sharpness,but some images of EOS 1Ds shows chromatic aberration and this is not found in ND images. The sharpness of EOS 1D is due to the 11 million pixels,but the colour abnormality is due to the canon lens.
I wonder what will happen if we fit Zeiss manual lens to EOS 1Ds with the adapter? It could be a lethal combination.
Zeiss-EOS Adapter is useful,please let me know how to contact Zoerkendoerfer. Do they have a web site?
When I look at the test photos in Contaxinfo. The images of EOS 1Ds supplied by Fotografz is better than ND in terms of sharpness,but some images of EOS 1Ds shows chromatic aberration and this is not found in ND images. The sharpness of EOS 1D is due to the 11 million pixels,but the colour abnormality is due to the canon lens.
I wonder what will happen if we fit Zeiss manual lens to EOS 1Ds with the adapter? It could be a lethal combination.
The website is or . The combination you mention might be very interesting, especially because CANON should be able to bring more digital bodies at an affordable price!
But I just bought a new ST, so I am not interested in the combination EOS/ZEISS any more.
Matthias
But I just bought a new ST, so I am not interested in the combination EOS/ZEISS any more.
Matthias
europanorama
Well-Known Member
>Hi Matthias, >Zeiss-EOS Adapter is useful,please let me know how to contact >Zoerkendoerfer. Do they have a web site? >When I look at the test photos in Contaxinfo. The images of EOS 1Ds >supplied by Fotografz is better than ND in terms of sharpness,but some >images of EOS 1Ds shows chromatic aberration and this is not found in >ND images
how about using google? its
what does ND mean? you mean filmcamera with FD-lenses?
how about using google? its
what does ND mean? you mean filmcamera with FD-lenses?
K
kaisern
>=20 >=20 >=20 > [Let=B9s listen to the actual users who have made thousands or tens of thou= sand > images with ND than just passing negative words. ND is still among the be= st > digital image catching devices, it may not autofocus as fast as an EOS or > Nikon but it uses best optics and at least it can focus as fast as the MM= or > ME mount lenses and provide AF for people who has the patience to explore= the > productive part of it. ] >=20 >=20 >=20
With my reference to the earlier comments I made on EOS 1Ds (Canon digital camera,in case someone who don't know) and ND (Contax digital camera), ND is still the best in terms of colour reproduction (despite it has reaches the end of its production) and free from chromatic aberration,thanks to Carl Zeiss optics. EOS 1Ds leads ND in terms of image resolution because it has higher pixels.
It would be nice if someone could tell us the result of matching EOS-1Ds with Zeiss manual lens thro' the adaptor ring(with the loss of automatic diaphragm mechanism}. I believe it could produce images with even higher resolution and colour reproducibility than EOS-1DS with canon lens.
If Contax is still using the N-series to race with others,she has to produce a digital camera with a higher pixel comparable with at least the 1Ds. Although Contax is always slow in the developments of the "pixels-electronics",at least she is always ahead of the others with the optics. Good optics take a lot longer to develope than good electronics.
It would be nice if someone could tell us the result of matching EOS-1Ds with Zeiss manual lens thro' the adaptor ring(with the loss of automatic diaphragm mechanism}. I believe it could produce images with even higher resolution and colour reproducibility than EOS-1DS with canon lens.
If Contax is still using the N-series to race with others,she has to produce a digital camera with a higher pixel comparable with at least the 1Ds. Although Contax is always slow in the developments of the "pixels-electronics",at least she is always ahead of the others with the optics. Good optics take a lot longer to develope than good electronics.
K
kaisern
>=20 >=20 >=20 > [I did tried the MM or ME lens on 1Ds and overall the Zeiss optics has wa= rmer > tone than the L lenses but resolution is very close. The L lens starts to= have > color fringing on high contrast and is less obvious on the lenses I tried= : > 85/1.2, 100/2 and 135/2. I ended up use more Canon lens still because to= keep > open up and stop down the lens during focusing and exposing is very time > consuming and the Canon lens has becoming very good. ] >=20 >=20 >=20
W
writing4me
I'm going to get off subject here. The post Kaisern just made about Zeiss glass and Canon L glass reminded me of something I read on a web site recently. I don't know if this is true, but I can see some logic in the idea. The site owner said that in the early days, Canon tried to more closely emulate Zeiss glass, while Nikon was trying to emulate Leica. That might explain why if I have to choose glass other than Zeiss, I do prefer Canon L series glass. (Had L series for many years before selling it and loved it). I've had Nikon, but didn't care for the characteristics my photos showed. While on the other hand, my good friend loves Leica and also collects old Nikon gear. We do not share opinions on what makes a photo look pleasing 
I wonder if there is some truth to the assertion about Canon following Zeiss, and Nikon following Leica? Anyone? -Lynn L.
I wonder if there is some truth to the assertion about Canon following Zeiss, and Nikon following Leica? Anyone? -Lynn L.europanorama
Well-Known Member
> >Posted by Chi Yuan Joseph on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 12:33 pm: > >With my reference to the earlier comments I made on EOS 1Ds (Canon >digital camera,in case someone who don't know) and ND (Contax digital >camera), ND is still the best in terms of colour reproduction (despite >it has reaches the end of its production) and free from chromatic >aberration,thanks to Carl Zeiss optics. EOS 1Ds leads ND in terms of >image resolution because it has higher pixels. >It would be nice if someone could tell us the result of matching >EOS-1Ds with Zeiss manual lens thro' the adaptor ring(with the loss of >automatic diaphragm mechanism}. I believe it could produce images with >even higher resolution and colour reproducibility than EOS-1DS with >canon lens. >If Contax is still using the N-series to race with others,she has to >produce a digital camera with a higher pixel comparable with at least >the 1Ds. Although Contax is always slow in the developments of the >"pixels-electronics",at least she is always ahead of the others with >the optics. Good optics take a lot longer to develope than good >electronics. the problem is price. good optics at affordable price. kyocera is always behind because they want to check the others first to be in front later. we will see this with the new higher resolution contax n2? better waiting than having troubles later. for contax 645 there will be a sensational creo/scitex-back. we will see if there will be a similar chip for 24x36.
After reading Kaisern Chen's experience,what I predicted could be right. Mr Chen mentioned about colour fringing on Canon lens but less obvious on 85/1.2,100/2 and 135/2.I suppose the last three are Zeiss C/Y lens. It does suggest Canon L-lens have the problem of chromatic aberration and this is not found in Zeiss lens. Chromatic aberration in 1Ds could be solved by changing the lens to Zeiss. Zeiss lens owner should be pleased.
K
kaisern
>=20 >=20 >=20 > [I can=B9t see any clue that Nikon is trying to follow Leica, may be more s= o > with Minolta. Nikon certainly has many legendary optics but what makes Ze= iss > stand out is the consistency in the entire line of optic and overall high > quality. ] >=20 >=20 >=20
K
kaisern
>=20 >=20 >=20 > [color fringing is more a problem to digital than to film, due to the > resolving power of the digital chips as well its additional optical filte= r to > cause that. The CS glass also has the color fringing problem but less an= d > harder to detect than the L lens. N Digital on the other hand, although = the > resolution is less than 1Ds, have the best tonal range and lens quality i= s > superior =AD 100/2.8 VS-Makro vs EF 100/2.8 macro, 85/1.4 Planar vs. EF 85/= 1.8, > I do not have other range of lens that can do more closer comparison, hop= e > Kyocera will introduce more fixed focal lenses to complete its line soon.= ] >=20 >=20 >=20
O
ou1954
>Posted by Kaisern Chen on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 5:45 pm: > >[color fringing is more a problem to digital than to film, due to the >resolving power of the digital chips as well its additional optical filter >to cause that. The CS glass also has the color fringing problem but less >and harder to detect than the L lens. N Digital on the other hand, >although the resolution is less than 1Ds, have the best tonal range and >lens quality is superior AD 100/2.8 VS-Makro vs EF 100/2.8 macro, 85/1.4 >Planar vs. EF 85/1.8, I do not have other range of lens that can do more closer >comparison, hope Kyocera will introduce more fixed focal lenses to >complete its line soon.
I somehow had the impression that one of the problems in using standard film lenses with digital sensors was the fact that the mechanical structure of the digital sensors (Foveon excluded) in which each sensor element is slightly recessed in a little box doesn't respond well to light reaching it from other than head-on, that is normal incidence. Is this a factor?
I somehow had the impression that one of the problems in using standard film lenses with digital sensors was the fact that the mechanical structure of the digital sensors (Foveon excluded) in which each sensor element is slightly recessed in a little box doesn't respond well to light reaching it from other than head-on, that is normal incidence. Is this a factor?