N to Eos adapter is it possible

[med007]

I am an avid use or Contax Zeiss MM lenses for my Eos 1DIIK. I have heard that the 24-85 N series zoom is particularly sharp and flare resistant.

Does anyone know how the back of the lens looks compared to the MM lenses and is there an adapter to use an N series lens with a mount taking an MM lens.

Does the back of the lens protrude further so there is no room for an adapter?

Thanks,

Asher

 

[djg]

Last time I asked I got a resounding NO - something about the laws of physics ...

 

[emmawelsh]

I'm in the same boat, Asher: I'd really like to use the N17-35mm on my 1Ds. This is the reply I received from Zoerk when I asked them if it could be done:
------------------------------------
1. Contax N lenses need an electronic device for handling their diaphragm. In this case and in case of their big diameter of the lens bayonet (it can not stick inside the EOS camera bayonet mount) the possible adpter ring must be thicker than 3,5mm and infinity focusing is loosing. Fot Contax RTL , Nikon and Leica R lenses we make adapters for EOS cameras.
---------------------------------------
While not a resounding no, it looks pretty negative. However, there seems to be enough space between the rear element and the wider than necessary N Mount to replace it with a slightly narrower EOS mount. I am in discussion with a local machinist to determine the feasibility of doing this.

 

[med007]

> Is there no aperture ring to manually select aperture on the N lenses? > As far as an adapter is concerned what did the zoerk reference to 3.5 > mm thickness refer too and why would we lose infinity focus? What is > the distance between the lens mount and the focal plane?

 

[rfcontax]

Posted long after the previous post....this is just for the record: try Conurus, who now provide adaptors which also maintain the electronic diaphragm and af control.

 

[djg]

Nope, this is an N-mount to EF-mount, not EOS.

 

[pops]

DJ -
I was going to send my extra 24-85 and 70-300 for conversion(I finally sold the 50mm). I thought that EF was for EOS and F was for the old F1 and AE1 line. Are you sure about the conversion not working for current Canon?

Last time I sent Conurus an e-mail it took them a month to send me the price and mailing confirmation so I'm hoping to get "EF" ="EOS" confirmation here rather than wait for them.

Thanks,
Kenny

 

[djg]

I have to eat my words. Please don't ask me to print them on 24x36 SuperGlossy paper first. You are correct - I was thinking of the FD mount. EF is the EOS line's mount.

Dang! Now you have me thinking!

 

[pascal]

Actually, the conversion is well underway and available.

Conurus has said that he will have conversions available for all Contax 645 lenses and the remaining N-Mount lenses (50mm f1.4, 70-200mm f3.5-4.5, and 28-80mm f3.5-5.6) by this year (2007). The other N-Mount lenses like the 17-35mm f2.8, 24-35mm f3.5-4.5, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 100mm f2.8 Macro, and 85mm f1.4 are now being converted and currently available with EF mount. I have been keeping in touch with the guy and all I can say is he is extremely professional and truly a pleasure to deal with (I am not affiliated with him, but can definitely vouch for the work he does).

If you ever wanted the best of both worlds - amazing high performance digital bodies with high ISO - low noise and the best optics in the world, this conversion paves the way for that. The N-mount lenses hold the reds very well. The micro contrast and true to life "Zeiss look" are now available on Canon's best digital bodies. I was blown away when I saw the first image taken with the converted 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 on the 1Ds and the 5D. The converted lenses work on all EOS EF mount Canon Digital (and film) bodies providing high speed AF (very similar to canon's USM speed almost) and they stop down just like any canon lens - all while providing autofocus/MF. In fact, it's just like using a canon EF USM "L" lens - only better.


I have had my 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 and 70-300mm f4-5.6 converted by conurus. The colors are simply superb - I mean superb. I sold my Canon 24-70mm f2.8, 16-35mm f2.8 L (on sale now), 70-200mm f2.8, and 70-300 DO lens once the conversion was made available. I have recently sent my 17-35mm f2.8 N mount to conurus to get that converted as well. It should be interesting - Canon 5D and 1-series bodies using nothing but Zeiss N-mount glass. I have my remaining N-mount lenses (extra 24-85mm, 70-200mm and N-system up for sale now) except the 50mm f1.4 which I plan to get converted. The Zeiss planar has got to beat or match the Canon 50mm f1.2L for sure.


After the conversion, the aperture ring on the lens is non-functional as EOS bodies use the body to control the aperture. The images - sharp from corner-to-corner, the colors, and the 3D look make up for the cost and everything else. Check out his website as well as the alternate forum on fred Miranda which have a ton of s&les posted.

I had my 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 N-Mount converted because it was smaller (and maybe a bit lighter) than the 24-70mm while being a better performer. When used with my 5D, it gives me a very lightweight body+lens combo for a walk around/travel camera.

I had my 70-300mm f4-5.6 N-mount converted as it gives better results than my 70-200mm f2.8 L and my 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L while being much lighter and smaller than either lens. In fact it is smaller than the 70-200mm f4L in size. Almost comparable to primes.

With the 17-35mm f2.8 L: Well – not much to say here except this is the only lens to come close to the kind of wide angle primes - the Distagon 21mm f2.8 (which has to be manually focused and uses step down metering with an adapter). Comparison tests and s&les of the converted 17-35mm f2.8 comparing it to the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 and Canon 16-35mm f2.8 have been posted on the web and the Contax 17-35mm f2.8 beats both of them on the wide end where this lens really shines.

Also, for those of you that have Contax N-mount lenses, it might help to know that the primes are now almost impossible to find and the prices on both primes and zooms have shot up. The most recent sale I checked on had the converted 17-35mm f2.8 go for $2900 and the N-mount (unconverted) zoom go for $2000 - $2300 (if you can find one). The 50mm now sells for $700 (used to be in the $500 range). The 100mm f2.8 macro which sold on the used market for $699 now sells for $1400 (go figure). The 85mm f1.4 now goes for $2300 (whew !!). 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is selling for $600 - $780. 70-200mm which used to sell for $400 was around $600. So if you have these gems in your bag, having them converted or selling them now should bring in some $$$.

Sorry for the long post, hope this info helps

 

[rfcontax]

Thanks Pascal. I guess it's only a matter of time - and cash - before i get my n lenses converted. i am glad to see the price appreciation of the lenses. there was a time that i almost gave up and sold them all (17-35, 24-75, 50, 85, 100, 70-300, 400). Now with the conurus option, i can look forward to a canon body when my ND packs up for good.

 

[pascal]

The one's that are truly worth converting, i.e. because there is no other lens made by canon or nikon or any other manufacturer that would be even close, are the 17-35mm f2.8 (king of wide angle zooms), 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 (the ultimate walk around), the 50mm f1.4 (although I hear the new canon 50mm f1.2L is quite good), and the 70-200mm f3.5-4.5 (slightly better than the canon 70-200mm f2.8 or f4L) and the 70-300mm f4-5.6 (better than the 70-200mm N Mount).

The Zeiss 85mm f1.4 is about equal to the Canon 85mm f1.2L. In fact, tests show that the Canon 85mm f1.2L is actually the king of portrait mid-tele primes right now.

So based on what you shoot and how you shoot, it is definitely worthwhile to hang on to these and have them converted by Conurus.

 

[dwa]

>Thanks Pascal

But what about the 100 2.8 macro? Did you forget that one or leave it out for some reason?

Dave

 

[pascal]

The Canon 180mm F3.5 L truly is the best macro lens I have ever used and is comparable to the Zeiss Macro - so did not see the point in converting it. Also, before the conversion was available, these were selling for $599 to $699. After the conversion, it is now hard enough to find this lens and if you do find one, sellers are wanting $1000 - $1400 for it (original contax list price) which when added to the cost of the conversion makes it not so worthwhile. Especially when you can get a brand new Canon 180mm f3.5 L Macro with tripod collar for $1350.

Also, I prefer the 180mm focal length with a little more room to get the shot than the 100mm focal length.

If you already have one, and you need a good macro, it may be worthwhile to get it converted. But if you have to spend over $1000 to buy a used one and another $400 to convert it, not so worthwhile.

 

[dwa]

>Thanks Pascal

I have one and use it often If the Canon is truly better, it must be outstanding

Dave

 

[wang]

I wouldn't agree. The King of Portrait in 24x36 format belongs to Zeiss, Contax 85mm f1.2 C-Y.

Does anyone know, if Canon has regained its territories in wide angles by introducing its new EF 16-35 f2.8 Mark II ? How is this lens compared with Contax N17-35mm ?

Thank you for all these infos, it is really nice to know about the continuation, rather than termination, of the N-series, even though I never have any of these N lenses.

 

[rfcontax]

i have both the 85 and the 100. they are very different lenses, and are both my favourites for different reasons. two truly superb lenses, depending on the "look" you want. the 100 is extremely sharp and well corrected; sometimes this is not what one wants though. the 85/1.4N is a good lens at near distance, thnx to floating elements, with that great shallow depth of focus style when wide-open. pascal: the 400 is a great lens too, even tho there are some outstanding canon superteles. thanks to one of the members of this forum, i got my hands on the 400/4, amd it's become a great lens for a certain kind of compressed perspective portrait shot. very sharp, contrasty, excellent bokeh.

 

[djg]

I was tempted by the N 17-35, but my problem is I already have a Leica 21-35 that I really like and has performed really well, even at 21. But I ordered an N 70-300 (I must have re-bought every Zeiss lens I used to have - I think I hear Kenny laughing

) because while I have a whole bunch of CY lenses in this range (85/1.4, 135/2.8 and 180/2.8) plus the Leica 100 APO Macro, I could really use an AF zoom in this range.

In between, nothing will tear me away from my 35-70/3.5

...

 

[dwa]

>Robert I wonder it that is my old 400/4 you are talking about?

In any event, this lense is often overlooked because it is not so great for wildlife/sports action shots. But it is a absolutely knockout close up/portrait lense for the reasons you state.

Most of my work takes me far from roads and rooms. It was simply too heavy to carry. Otherwise I never would have sold mine.

Which brings me too my point. Are we all saying, in directly, that the N series is as fine a line of lenses as was ever produced?

Dave

 

[rfcontax]

David - it's one and the same

Truly remarkable lens. Heavy, of course, especially with the monopod i always attach to it!
re the N lenses: i have had a few Nikkors, Zeiss C/Y, and Zeiss G. I still have leica M ASPH lenses. But my absolute favourites are the N and most of the Zeiss G lenses (providing i could get the G2 to focus in low light).

 

[pascal]

Anyone have a picture of the Zeiss 400mm f4.0 they can post so we can see how big this beast is compared to the CZ 24-85mm or the 70-300mm lenses. Just to get an idea on size and weight.