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.
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...
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.
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!
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?
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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,
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, 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!
> 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.
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!)
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.