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!

N to Eos adapter is it possible

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.
 
>Thanks Pascal

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

Dave
 
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.
 
>Thanks Pascal

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

Dave
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
rofl.gif
) 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
biggrin.gif
...
 
>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
 
David - it's one and the same
happy.gif

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).
 
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.
 
Back
Top