Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 23, 2004, 12:45 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default Zeiss lenses on a Canon?

I'd like to know how this fellow managed to put Contax Zeiss lenses on a Canon 300D. (He hasn't answered my email so far...)

http://contaximages.com/document.php?id=3318

Any ideas?
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 23, 2004, 7:07 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Probably some sort of adapter. I think he's obsessing over Zeiss quality a bit.

I'd just get some L glass and call it a day.
Polaris20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2004, 8:18 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I would probably call B&H photo and ask if they sell an adapter. There are several adapters for canon's lens mount, but I don't know if there is one for exactly what you are looking for.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2004, 1:02 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
I would probably call B&H photo and ask if they sell an adapter.
Great idea. I see there that they sell an FD lens -> EOS camera adapter, that I can try to use to get my old "L" glass on my 300D.

I've also found a source for a Contax Zeiss lens -> EOS camera adapter.

http://www.bobshell.com/adapter.html

Such devices generally involve compromises in functionality and sometimes performance (e.g. FD->EOS), but for people who can manage manual operation, and those who have a large investment in lens (such as the person who I first referenced) they can be invaluable.

Thanks.
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2004, 11:26 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610
Default

You seems to undertand very well the compromise when using non dedicated lenses with the lens mount adapter. In addition to the losing several functionalities and features, all of the auto shooting modes and may be only one method of metering will probably function such as the old fashion center-weight. Chances are you may have to get yourself a handheld flash meter to guarantee the proper exposure. But if all of those things don't bother you, the wonderful old fashion lenses collection you have will always pay off with the great results and you have complete control of the exposure in manual shooting mode, and still...that is the joy of photography...

Cheers
tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2004, 11:03 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

Here's a link to an interesting comparison of a particular Zeiss wide-angle lens (21mm) vs the Canon 17-40L and a couple of Sigmas - 15-30 and 12-24.


http://www.16-9.net/ultrawides/


The Zeiss's performance is outstanding. IMO, the Canon 17-40L and Sigma 15-30 are comparable, and the Sigma 12-24 comes in last. (The Sigma 15-30 can cost as much or nearly as much as the Canon 17-40 L, and it also arguably puts in a lesser performance in some areas, so this is not a big failure of the Canon 17-40L in this view.) The author also concentrates mainly on sharpness, not on constrast or other factors. The author's conclusions are different from mine above -- please see the links for them.

The author also writes in http://www.16-9.net/1740.html :

Quote:
I know what you're thinking - "no fair to compare a wide zoom with a wide prime" - but here's the kicker: in a similar test, my Canon 17-40mm f4 L convincingly and consistently outperformed Canon's own 20mm, 24mm and 28mm f2.8 primes at f8 and f11 - which in turn perform at least as well as their L-series equivalents at these apertures.


The Zeiss 21 is more than double the price of the 17-40L using Adorama as a reference. However, Canon also has the 16-35 L which is roughly double the price of the 17-40L, though still less than the Zeiss, which also compares in performance with the 17-40L.

The Canon's 17-40L's weaknesses were mostly in the corners. Overlooking this particular area, I still think that this lens gives good performance and value.

This post is not simply a "Canon vs. Zeiss lens" argument -- Zeiss has many more less expensive lenses which may not perform as well, and this is a very expensive lens, and there are significant disadvatages in using a non-native lens, as previously noted in this thread. It is however another indication that using such a strange combination can be advantageous.

Also note that the author of the comparison used a 1Ds, which is full-frame. Performance on lesser digital cameras will be different, and the differences may not be as severe.

Also note that the "sweet spot" of the Canon wides may be higher than tested here -- F13 was reported for the 20-35 2.8L. This can be well-tolerable in landscape photography. The comments that appear below this report are interesting--some of that might be used to critique the methods of the above comparison.

http://www.photo.net/sigma/sigma20-vs-canon2035


Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:23 PM.