What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Zoerk contax to canon adaptor

> I picked up a Canon D20 a few weeks ago. The unit was very plasticy ... and the viewfinder mediocre. I had the ND and showed the Canon Rep the difference. He was impressed w/ the ND viewfinder ... and the way the Contax felt. He had never seen one before.

Michael Hahn.
 
> All the lenses mentioned, the Z/C 35,50, 85, 28-85 are all very good. > I have all these except the 35mm since I have decided to get the 35 > 1.4L by Canon which is so outstanding. The 21mm Distagon is a very > desired lens. Lenses longer than the 85mm are so good in Canon L > series and autofocus, that it is questionable whether any C/Z is a > better choice. Even the 85mm would be better restricted to use with > more static objects, unless one is using it for relatively slow work, > as even the 85 1.8 by Canon, which is cheap cheap is so good that the > extra quality of the Z/C is questionable. The 28-85 is my standard > walk around lens where I have the casual ability to focus wide open > then stop down. The 85 2.8 Z/C being 2.8 would, I'm sure be brighter > wide open, and hence even easier to focus. I also have the 18mm C/Z > which I like very much, but you should look at the Canon 16-35L and > the 17-40 L before deciding.
 
Michael, don't compare the ND's viewfinder to the 20D, as this is like comparing a red apple to a plum ... or comparing a DSLR to a prosumer camera's viewfinder.

The 20D is not a full-frame camera and sells for like 1/4 of the original price of the ND. Compare the ND's viewfinder to the 1Ds ... and you would be comparing apples to apples.
 
Matt and Asher, thank you both for your insights into lenses. I appreciate the input from people with hands-on experience.

Matt I do love my 85(1.4) (my favorite lens) so will not part with it. I think you are right, I will end up keeping the 35mm and possibly replacing the 28-85 with the 24-70 Canon.
Do you know how the 24-70 Canon compares to the 28-85 Zeiss in terms of size and weight??? I have seen photos posted on the web from the 24-70 and it looks very nice... I think noticeably better than some other CAnon lenses (even just on the web).
I like to shoot portraits/people, so will use the 35 and 85 for that, but I also like to shoot animals and need a fast AF and longer lens for that.
Thanks again for your thoughts,
Susan
 
How does the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS compare in size and weight to the zeiss 28-85 (just trying to get some feel for portability)?
Also, will the Zeiss 85mm still be a good choice as a portrait lens with the 1.6 factor of the 20D????
Susan
 
Susan, Contax 28-85 is a far better lens than Canon 24-70 in terms of image quality and bokeh. Canon is bigger and heavier, but it's a faster lens with constant aperture.
70-200/2.8 is a really big and heavy lens compared to 28-85 zeiss. It is also white, which makes it very noticeable on the street and therefore creates problems for candid shooting.
 
> Hold off on buying the 24-70 or in selling your 28-80. Go to > Robgalbraith.com, the 1D/1Ds threads section in Forums and there is > currently a thread on the 24-70. It is said to be a great lens. > However, I especially bought the 28-80 and am happy with it. For an > event, the autofocus on the 24-70 can be a great advantage. howeever, > you would do far better in every way with the 35 1.4 and the 50 2.5 > macro, the latter is perhaps the sharpest macro save the 60mm C/Y and > probably the very best bargain out there!

Asher
 
> The 28-85 is relatively light for what it is, but not compared to a > 45mm z/c or 50 1.4 z/c. I have both the 70-200 4L and the 2.8L IS. The > first is an incredible easy to use, light marvel. So sharp and a > wonderful bokerh! As sharp or even a tad sharper than the 2.8L IS. The > latter is a magic lens too but considerably heavier. I rest it on my > cupped left hand and hold the camera in my right hand and hand held > slow shutter pictures are sharp, magnificent color and great contrast. > Both these lenses are pretty equal optically. The f4 can fit in a > pocket....a guys pocket or a jacket or a camera bag. A great walk > around lens or hiking or travel lens. The 28-85 c/y and the 70-200 4.0L make good companions.

Asher
 
The 70-200mm is quite a large lens, about 2 1/2 times the length of the 28-85 and almost twice the weight. I find it a comfortable lens to use and don't mind its size at all.
However, I'm quite strong and happy to handhold an RTS3 and 300mm f2.8 for several hours, it may be more of an issue for a smaller framed woman. And yes, unfortunately the white colour does draw attention, I think I may have to get a camouflaged lens cover!
The autofocus is lightning fast, and able to track moving objects so for animal pics it's ideal. If considering the smaller f4, always bear in mind the massive advantage of the 2.8's image stabiliser.

I have no direct experience of the Canon 24-70mm, but I don't imagine there would be a major difference in size and weight from the 28-85.

Your 85 1.4 will make a superb portrait lens with the 1.6 factor, equal to about 135mm. Remember that the characteristics of the lens will not change, it is not being magnified, just cropped by a smaller sensor.

Also, when it comes down to it, remember that the whole point is to take great photos and enjoy yourself. You can stress and strive for the perfect combination to the point where it takes your mind away from why you're actually into this photography thing. I've been there, and I'm sure many others have too.
In the end does that tiny bit of extra sharpness at the corners really matter to you? Only you can decide.
(Sorry if that sounded pretentious and patronising!)
Best wishes,
Matt
 
> Bobby,

I respectfully disagree on several points.

First, the ND is almost 3 years old and the D20 is brand new. I think the D20 criticism is fair that the view finder is poor. Perhaps this is another disadvantage of a partial frame CCCD that people don't think about ... the the viewfinder tends to be small. I also reviewed the Nikon D70 and felt that its' viewfinder was better then the Canon D20.

Also, while the Aria is a 600 dollar camera and the N1 is a 1,300 dollar camera, the Aria's viewfinder is still very good. There is not necessarily a direct correlation between price and the quality of the view finder, especially when you consider that one camera is new than the other!

For a thousand bucks the advanced amatuer wants a good camera with a good viewfinder. I was disappointed in the Canon's viewfinder.

Michael.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top