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

>Pascal Don't have a picture, but I've owned both 70-300 and 400 and the 400 is much larger and heavier. Way too big and heavy for hand holding.

But it a much better lense than the 70-300 at 300

Dave
 
i will take a shot of it alongside the two other zooms this weekend if i get some time. as david says, it is much larger than the vs70-300, and is much heavier too. it has a good tripod collar, to which a always attach a trusty Manfrotto monopod.
 
The size of the Zeiss lenses can be seen along with the MTF graphs in this site or in Zeiss download centre.
 
Well, I just got back my EOS-converted 70-300 N lens, and I'm amazed. The thing works like a charm in my first limited testing around my not-so-well-lit interior, although that in itself is a good test for the AF function, and it seems to actually work better than I recall it working on my old Contax ND. The exposure system works properly without having to stop down - woo-hoo! And even the zoom setting gets reported in the EXIF data. Color me impressed.

I already acquired and sent a 24-85 N, and I'll have to have a show-down between that and my fave CY 35-70 3.4 when it gets back from conversion.

The last question nagging me is the 17-35. I'm very happy with the Leica 21-35, and wonder how the two compare. Of course there is the extra 17-21 range, and the not subtle f2.8 vs. f4, but it's an expensive gamble, especially when you add the $700 for the conversion. Any observations out there?
 
Here's my EOS and Zeiss Family.

473715.jpg


I use the converted 17-35 on my 1Ds, the converted 24-85 and 5D is a perfect match and the converted 70-300mm and the 1.6 FOV Rebel XTi body are ideal for me.

When needed, these zooms come off and primes are used as needed. But other than large aperture primes or tele primes, I seldom need to use anything else for my photo needs.


The 17-35mm f2.8 blows the Canon 16-35L away. Image quality is simply superb and the Zeiss colors are hard to beat. Tests at a couple of web sites did the usual run down and the Zeiss 17-35mm was only second to the CY 21mm f2.8 (which was expected with the prime).

From what I understand, the 24-85mm is actually a bit better than the CY 35-70. It is much better than the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L except it is not as fast. With the 5D, it is the ultimate walk around lens for me.

The Zeiss 70-300mm was enough for me to get rid of my Canon 70-300mm DO IS and 70-200mm F2.8 L lenses. I do wish it had a tripod mount on it though as it does not balance too well and is quite heavy.

The converted Zeiss lenses actually seem to focus a bit faster on the Canon 1-series bodies than they did on my N1 or NX. To me, it is well worth it as the image quality is hard to beat.

Also, here is a comparison (size) of the Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8 N mount and the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L Mk I. What gets to me is the cost of 95mm UV or Circular Polarizers. I already had a Contax 95mm UV filter. Recent prices on the Contax CP-L (if available) is around $450. B+W's are around $300 - talk about expensive. The hood, if you have one, is a rare find - harder to find than the lens itself.



473716.jpg

473717.jpg
 
Hi all,

Does any one know why the 17-35 and the 24-85 are so large in diameter compared to other lenses of similar specifications?
Thay sure look impressive and perform brilliantly but they give me a sore neck!

Paul
 
OK, call me rash, call me impulsive, call me irresponsible, call me what you will, I'm so impressed by the conversion of the 70-300 N lens that I just ordered the 17-35 and 100 Macro, both new at what I believe are favorable prices.

I've been doing the stop-down shuffle almost as long as I've had my 1Ds MkII, about 2.5 years, that you tend not to notice, or rather force yourself not to notice, much like we tend to ignore some handicap we can't do anything about. But just playing around a bit with the converted 70-300 reminded me of the freedom I could get back while still keeping the image characteristics and quality I love so much
z04_yes.gif
...

Thank you, Bo-Ming!

I guess I'll have a few C/Y lenses for sale in eBay soon ...
 
Did you get them new from Helix ? Where did you find new copies of both lenses. The last one's selling on eBay without the conversion were going for around $1600-$1700. Helix was $300 more.

The 100 macro new was selling for around $599 at one time. Now, it's hard to find one - used or new. The 24-85's, 28-80, 70-300, and 70-200, etc.. are still available quite easily.


I'm guessing Zeiss never bothered to compromise on the size and weight of the lens over picture quality. My guess is that's why their optics are so damn heavy and expensive for that matter.
 
I did get the Macro I got from Helix. Actually Leica tends to be heavier and more expensive, but there's a definite correlation ...
 
That sounds cool...

If there would be more FFL for the N System, I would do this step too immediately.

But at the moment, I still hesitate...

Zeiss told me yeras ago, the reason for the big lenses is the AF motor. Kyocera has choosen a cheaper alternative (ringmotor AFAIK), which makes the lens ouside bigger.

But of course it is also a question whether a system is made for fullframe or not...
 
Back
Top