L
ltsdnce
Does anyone have experience with this adaptor? How does it compare to the Shell or cameraquest adaptors in quality and ease of use?
Thanks,
Susan
Thanks,
Susan
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The adapters are divided to two principal types: secured by a small screw (BobShell.com or Zoerk.com or secured by a spring, Cameraquest.com and a guy on ebay. for heavier lenses I would use the spring type. I currently use the cameraquest version to my satisfaction.
The Zoerk shift adapter allows use of MF lenses to get wonderful panoramic images.
asher
The Zoerk shift adapter allows use of MF lenses to get wonderful panoramic images.
asher
I can't comment on the quality of the shell or zoerk, but I think in practice the need to use tools to change adapter could become tiresome at best in daily use (at least I would find it so).
The cameraquest adapter needs no tools and is solid and secure, without free play or slack.
I suppose it depends on how often you would change lenses, and on how easy/cheap it would be to obtain replacement screws when you (inevitably) lose them in the middle of nowhere.
That zoerk shift adapter sounds interesting though...
Cheers,
Matt
The cameraquest adapter needs no tools and is solid and secure, without free play or slack.
I suppose it depends on how often you would change lenses, and on how easy/cheap it would be to obtain replacement screws when you (inevitably) lose them in the middle of nowhere.
That zoerk shift adapter sounds interesting though...
Cheers,
Matt
L
ltsdnce
Thanks for the help! I just got the cameraquest in the mail yesterday.
Best regards,
Susan
Best regards,
Susan
L
ltsdnce
The cameraquest adaptor did not come with instructions...can someone help me with how to attach/detach it to the lens and camera body?
Thanks,
Susan
Thanks,
Susan
Hi Susan,
The adapter should have a white arrow which you line up with the red dot on your lens, then rotate clockwise and it should lock into place.
Ensure that the brass clip is locked down.
Then simply attach the lens to the camera as normal and away you go!
To remove the clip, detatch the lens as normal, and to remove the adapter just push the brass clip up and rotate anti clockwise.
Happy shooting,
Matt.
The adapter should have a white arrow which you line up with the red dot on your lens, then rotate clockwise and it should lock into place.
Ensure that the brass clip is locked down.
Then simply attach the lens to the camera as normal and away you go!
To remove the clip, detatch the lens as normal, and to remove the adapter just push the brass clip up and rotate anti clockwise.
Happy shooting,
Matt.
L
ltsdnce
Thanks, Matt. Now if my ordered 20D will arrive, I'll be ready to go.
Best regards,
Susan
Best regards,
Susan
Ahh the waiting is always the worst...
You won't be disappointed though.
The Canon telephotos are great, but Zeiss wipes the floor with the wide angles and even the standard zoom.
I've now decided to keep my Zeiss 28-85mm as well as the 21mm and 100mm makro.
I don't know if you've used digital at all before, but if not don't be disillusioned by the first look of the photos as they can appear dull and even unsharp. They need post processing in photoshop to improve colour, contrast and sharpness, and THEN you will see the superiority of Zeiss glass on Canon digital!
Cheers,
Matt
You won't be disappointed though.
The Canon telephotos are great, but Zeiss wipes the floor with the wide angles and even the standard zoom.
I've now decided to keep my Zeiss 28-85mm as well as the 21mm and 100mm makro.
I don't know if you've used digital at all before, but if not don't be disillusioned by the first look of the photos as they can appear dull and even unsharp. They need post processing in photoshop to improve colour, contrast and sharpness, and THEN you will see the superiority of Zeiss glass on Canon digital!
Cheers,
Matt
L
ltsdnce
Matt,
The only digital I've used is a sony 717, but not a DSLR. I have 35,50,85, and 28-85 Zeiss glass and am wondering which ones to keep. I had thought about selling the 28-85 and getting Canon zooms (mainly for the AF for shooting moving subjects). Do you have any favorite Canon lenses that compare to Zeiss?
Susan
The only digital I've used is a sony 717, but not a DSLR. I have 35,50,85, and 28-85 Zeiss glass and am wondering which ones to keep. I had thought about selling the 28-85 and getting Canon zooms (mainly for the AF for shooting moving subjects). Do you have any favorite Canon lenses that compare to Zeiss?
Susan
Hi Susan,
If you can afford to, I would suggest keeping all your Zeiss lenses until you have had a chance to try them on the 20D for a couple of weeks.
You may find the convenience of autofocus and auto-diaphragm stop down with canon lenses outweighs the optical superiority but slower use of the zeiss. It probably depends on the kind of photography you mainly prefer.
Slow landscape work is fine with the zeiss, but anything moving - forget it.
I have the Canon 17-40mm f2.8L and it is a reasonable lens, but the corners are soft even at f11, and I find that difficult to accept for quality work. It does score points with the incredibly fast autofocus though, and in situations where slow work on a tripod is not possible, I shall use it instead of zeiss.
The Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM is a superb lens, optically equal (maybe superior) to the zeiss 100-300mm, but far more usable. Again the autofocus speed is staggeringly quick and very accurate. The image stabiliser takes it into another realm, capturing shots that I wouldn't even consider without. 1/30th second at 200mm + 1.4x handheld is achievable!! I would highly recommend it and I shall probably not keep my 100-300mm because of this.
I am awaiting delivery of a 300mm f2.8L IS USM which should arrive on Thursday. Reports I have read rate this as possibly the best lens Canon make, and perhaps the best 300 2.8 ever - a grand claim, but one which seems to be backed up by images I have seen taken with this lens. I'll let you know how I get on with it.
Eventually it will come down to convenience. How much weight do you want to lug around, and how long have you got to set up the shot. There is little point in having a selection of fantastic glass, if it just sits at home because it's too heavy. I feel that the autofocus advantage may win out in the end for all but the wide angle lenses, where Zeiss have such superiority and focus speed is not such an issue.
I understand the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L is a pretty good performer and may well be a good replacement for the 28-85 (please post your findings if you do swap).
Everything in the end is a compromise and I would just reiterate try what you have before selling. You'll probably end up keeping the 35 and the 85(f1.4?) because they're special, and moving to Canon for the rest.
Cheers,
Matt.
If you can afford to, I would suggest keeping all your Zeiss lenses until you have had a chance to try them on the 20D for a couple of weeks.
You may find the convenience of autofocus and auto-diaphragm stop down with canon lenses outweighs the optical superiority but slower use of the zeiss. It probably depends on the kind of photography you mainly prefer.
Slow landscape work is fine with the zeiss, but anything moving - forget it.
I have the Canon 17-40mm f2.8L and it is a reasonable lens, but the corners are soft even at f11, and I find that difficult to accept for quality work. It does score points with the incredibly fast autofocus though, and in situations where slow work on a tripod is not possible, I shall use it instead of zeiss.
The Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM is a superb lens, optically equal (maybe superior) to the zeiss 100-300mm, but far more usable. Again the autofocus speed is staggeringly quick and very accurate. The image stabiliser takes it into another realm, capturing shots that I wouldn't even consider without. 1/30th second at 200mm + 1.4x handheld is achievable!! I would highly recommend it and I shall probably not keep my 100-300mm because of this.
I am awaiting delivery of a 300mm f2.8L IS USM which should arrive on Thursday. Reports I have read rate this as possibly the best lens Canon make, and perhaps the best 300 2.8 ever - a grand claim, but one which seems to be backed up by images I have seen taken with this lens. I'll let you know how I get on with it.
Eventually it will come down to convenience. How much weight do you want to lug around, and how long have you got to set up the shot. There is little point in having a selection of fantastic glass, if it just sits at home because it's too heavy. I feel that the autofocus advantage may win out in the end for all but the wide angle lenses, where Zeiss have such superiority and focus speed is not such an issue.
I understand the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L is a pretty good performer and may well be a good replacement for the 28-85 (please post your findings if you do swap).
Everything in the end is a compromise and I would just reiterate try what you have before selling. You'll probably end up keeping the 35 and the 85(f1.4?) because they're special, and moving to Canon for the rest.
Cheers,
Matt.