If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter
After a repeated failed bid on MF digital back, finally I got my
compromised 35mm DSLR. But then I realized why 35mm FF is not always a good idea, if wide angle lens is important. Every medium priced under 50mm has serious cornor light fall-off. Some have serious color shift too. This includes Canon non-L, Contax-Yashica 35mm, and Rollei 35mm, including prime and some zooms. From what I read from dpreview's forum (canon/Kodak SLR), the canon L could be better, but not satisfactory. The only thing I found acceptible is Hasselblad's 50mm, but again, it is f4 only. I don't mind to carry the bulky and heavy stuff, because this is my down graded Med Format. The problem is, I really want a 35mm lens. Hasselblad only goes to 40mm. The 38mm won't work on 35mm DSLR. I can find Contax-645 35mm lens. The general comments are it's really really good. So I really wish there is an adapter for Contax 645-to EOS. Anyone knows if it exists? I know Contax N would be difficult (or even impossible) to adapter to EOS, but Contax 645 should be OK. Or, which 645 format 35mm lens is good too (Mamiya, Pentex, Fujiblad?), and can be easily adapted to EOS? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter
Einst Stein wrote: After a repeated failed bid on MF digital back, finally I got my compromised 35mm DSLR. But then I realized why 35mm FF is not always a good idea, if wide angle lens is important. Every medium priced under 50mm has serious cornor light fall-off. Some have serious color shift too. This includes Canon non-L, Contax-Yashica 35mm, and Rollei 35mm, including prime and some zooms. From what I read from dpreview's forum (canon/Kodak SLR), the canon L could be better, but not satisfactory. Do what other Canon buyers do, buy an Olympus OM, Leica or Zeiss WA. They perform far better than what Canon has to offer. And they don't generally have 5 stops of fall off in the corners either. Go here and read some of the threads. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter
I have read too much hearsays. Most are not countable. I need real
experiences from real people. I have Carl Zeiss MM 50mm/1.4, 28mm/2.8, and Rollei 35mm/2.8. They have have serious fall-off and some color shift. They are better than Canon's non-L (don;t know about canon L), but still in the water. The only thing I have that is acceptable for my personal is the Hasselblad 50mm. I am looking for 35mm. Rich wrote: Einst Stein wrote: After a repeated failed bid on MF digital back, finally I got my compromised 35mm DSLR. But then I realized why 35mm FF is not always a good idea, if wide angle lens is important. Every medium priced under 50mm has serious cornor light fall-off. Some have serious color shift too. This includes Canon non-L, Contax-Yashica 35mm, and Rollei 35mm, including prime and some zooms. From what I read from dpreview's forum (canon/Kodak SLR), the canon L could be better, but not satisfactory. Do what other Canon buyers do, buy an Olympus OM, Leica or Zeiss WA. They perform far better than what Canon has to offer. And they don't generally have 5 stops of fall off in the corners either. Go here and read some of the threads. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter
"Einst Stein" wrote: FWIW, I've never heard of a lens normal or wider that didn't have some amount of falloff wide open. Wide angles will have falloff at any aperture, due to geometric considerations that cannot be worked around by throwing money at them. It's the physics of light. All the digital vs. film tests I've seen show the phenomenon to be the same on film and (FF) digital. The good news is that unlike film, digital has a lot of latitude in the shadows, so you can apply quite a bit of correction if it bothers you. Or you can just stop down. These two are both with the Canon 17-40 on the 5D, no vignetting correction has been applied, and don't have falloff problems. Any Canon prime will do just as well. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/59225146/large http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/69033566/large I can find Contax-645 35mm lens. The general comments are it's really really good. So I really wish there is an adapter for Contax 645-to EOS. Anyone knows if it exists? I know Contax N would be difficult (or even impossible) to adapter to EOS, but Contax 645 should be OK. Or, which 645 format 35mm lens is good too (Mamiya, Pentex, Fujiblad?), and can be easily adapted to EOS? http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_psa.htm The Zork PSA adapter is available for Contax, Mamiya, and Pentax 645 lenses (and maybe others). It's expensive, but works. Here's the Mamiya 35/3.5 at near full shift at f/11 or f/16. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/57362779/original David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter
Einst Stein wrote:
But then I realized why 35mm FF is not always a good idea, if wide angle lens is important. Every medium priced under 50mm has serious cornor light fall-off. Stop down a couple of stops and you should be OK ... here's an example with the 24-105 f/4 L IS, which has awful MTF graphs wide open but cleans up quickly by f/8 ... http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/te...m_vignette.jpg Everytime I get a new lens I pop it on the 1Ds and shoot wide open, then stopped down 1, 2 and 3 stops and quickly see the min aperture required for little or no vignetting ... same with the 1.3x sensor on the 1D M II ... this 24-105 is the worst lens I've tried but I would never shoot at 24 mm and wide aperture so it's not a big deal in real life. If you use Photoshop for RAW conversions you can also use the anti-vignette feature to clean up this kind of thing quickly. Bill |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter
David J. Littleboy wrote: "Einst Stein" wrote: FWIW, I've never heard of a lens normal or wider that didn't have some amount of falloff wide open. Wide angles will have falloff at any aperture, due to geometric considerations that cannot be worked around by throwing money at them. It's the physics of light. All the digital vs. film tests I've seen show the phenomenon to be the same on film and (FF) digital. It's time to do your own test. You don't need any special set up, just shoot a white wall with straight raw file. You can do a photoshop twist to cover up, but that's not the same thing. The good news is that unlike film, digital has a lot of latitude in the shadows, so you can apply quite a bit of correction if it bothers you. Or you can just stop down. These two are both with the Canon 17-40 on the 5D, no vignetting correction has been applied, and don't have falloff problems. Any Canon prime will do just as well. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/59225146/large http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/69033566/large I can find Contax-645 35mm lens. The general comments are it's really really good. So I really wish there is an adapter for Contax 645-to EOS. Anyone knows if it exists? I know Contax N would be difficult (or even impossible) to adapter to EOS, but Contax 645 should be OK. Or, which 645 format 35mm lens is good too (Mamiya, Pentex, Fujiblad?), and can be easily adapted to EOS? http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_psa.htm The Zork PSA adapter is available for Contax, Mamiya, and Pentax 645 lenses (and maybe others). It's expensive, but works. Here's the Mamiya 35/3.5 at near full shift at f/11 or f/16. Stop quoting things you don't have real knowledge. Zork can't convert Contax 645 or Contax N to EOS. You are wasting your own time and might be wasting someone else's money. A lot of people are trusting the words you put here, So, be reasponsible by all means. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/57362779/original David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter
Einst Stein wrote: I have read too much hearsays. Most are not countable. I need real experiences from real people. I have Carl Zeiss MM 50mm/1.4, 28mm/2.8, and Rollei 35mm/2.8. They have have serious fall-off and some color shift. They are better than Canon's non-L (don;t know about canon L), but still in the water. The only thing I have that is acceptable for my personal is the Hasselblad 50mm. I am looking for 35mm. And you think the users on those forums engage in hearsay? Why don't you take a LOOK at the equipment they use? http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter
"Einst Stein" wrote in message s.com... I have read too much hearsays. Most are not countable. I need real experiences from real people. I have Carl Zeiss MM 50mm/1.4, 28mm/2.8, and Rollei 35mm/2.8. They have have serious fall-off and some color shift. They are better than Canon's non-L (don;t know about canon L), but still in the water. This summary for a Canon (non-L) EF 50mm f/1.4 in the most extreme corner: http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/LightFalloff.png shows fall-off is approx. 0.4 stops fall-off at f/4.0 and smaller apertures at the worst, and there is additional mechanical vignetting at wider apertures in the order of 2 stops in total around f/1.8, and 2.5 stops at its widest setting. That is only for a full frame 24x36mm sensor, 'cropped' designs show hardly any vignetting, as can be concluded from the following distribution patterns: http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/Vignetting_50mm.png .. I don't know how often you shoot at say f/2.8 or wider, but it is mostly a minor issue at smaller apertures, and it can be corrected in postprocessing if it is visible at all. -- Bart |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter
In article , David J. Littleboy
writes "Einst Stein" wrote: FWIW, I've never heard of a lens normal or wider that didn't have some amount of falloff wide open. Wide angles will have falloff at any aperture, due to geometric considerations that cannot be worked around by throwing money at them. It's the physics of light. All the digital vs. film tests I've seen show the phenomenon to be the same on film and (FF) digital. The good news is that unlike film, digital has a lot of latitude in the shadows, so you can apply quite a bit of correction if it bothers you. Or you can just stop down. These two are both with the Canon 17-40 on the 5D, no vignetting correction has been applied, and don't have falloff problems. Any Canon prime will do just as well. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/59225146/large http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/69033566/large A well-put factual counterbalance to the piffle put out by Rich. I can find Contax-645 35mm lens. The general comments are it's really really good. So I really wish there is an adapter for Contax 645-to EOS. Anyone knows if it exists? I know Contax N would be difficult (or even impossible) to adapter to EOS, but Contax 645 should be OK. Or, which 645 format 35mm lens is good too (Mamiya, Pentex, Fujiblad?), and can be easily adapted to EOS? http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_psa.htm The Zork PSA adapter is available for Contax, Mamiya, and Pentax 645 lenses (and maybe others). It's expensive, but works. Here's the Mamiya 35/3.5 at near full shift at f/11 or f/16. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/57362779/original Impressive image, David. Interesting products. The Zork website is silent on prices; the LL review suggest $499 for the 645-35mm adapter in the US; anyone know if this is the same in Europe? The Contax G adaptions would have interested me very much a few years ago, but with a mostly digital work pattern now, I'm not too sure. David -- David Littlewood |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Wide Angle Lens For FF and Contax645/EOS Lens Adapter
David J. Littleboy wrote:
http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_psa.htm The Zork PSA adapter is available for Contax, Mamiya, and Pentax 645 lenses (and maybe others). It's expensive, but works. Here's the Mamiya 35/3.5 at near full shift at f/11 or f/16. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan Einst Stein wrote: Stop quoting things you don't have real knowledge. Zork can't convert Contax 645 or Contax N to EOS. You are wasting your own time and might be wasting someone else's money. A lot of people are trusting the words you put here, So, be reasponsible by all means. Einst, It is true that Zoerk cannot convert Contax 645 or Contax N to EOS. The difficulty here is that while all such lenses have an aperture ring, the actual aperture is "fly-by-wire" and controlled electronically. In order for a conversion to be useful, we need to figure out how to control the aperture, or else you can only shoot wide open. However, I have already figured that out for you! Currently you can modify the 17-35, 24-85, 70-300, 100/2.8 Makro and 85/1.4 in Contax N mount to Canon EF mount. They will still retain autofocus and auto aperture after conversion. Review http://en.conurus.com/ for details. I am still working on Contax 645. conurus |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|