CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2008 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

crazeazn
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

How does this lense compare to the 24-70 2.8L? I've been pining for this range again; given that i sold my 28-70 f/2.8L for being too short and too long. Will i miss the f/2.8? How are the shots wide open? I've signed up on the conurus forums but I haven't really seen a head to head comparo. Most are about the 17-35 vs. everything else. Given that the converted costs around $900 USD (weak dollar), is it even worthwhile to consider it? Hows AF? THANKS!

Apr 07, 2008 at 01:58 PM

jmswickard
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

The auto focus is fine. Just like Canon. The lens functions just like a Canon. I have never owned a Canon 24-70 2.8L so I do not know how they compare. I do know that the Zeiss 24-85 N is fantastic.
I have the 17-35, 24-85, 70-300, 85, and 100 Makro N series lenses which have been converted by Conurus. His work is fantastic.
What other way can you enjoy Zeiss lenses designed for Digital in "full auto" on your Canon?

Jack

Edited on Apr 07, 2008 at 03:09 PM

Apr 07, 2008 at 03:08 PM

Mike Tuomey
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

I can compare it to the 28-70/2.8. You will miss the fixed aperture if you shoot w/flash or strobes. Other than that, I only sold my 24-85N to fund a much needed body

and i'm feeling remorse ...

Great color, AF comparable to USM (not quite as fast or quiet, but close), more compact, better distortion control, no softer than the 28-70 wide open. And Bo-Ming's work is impeccable, no doubt. Great guy, imho.

Apr 07, 2008 at 03:59 PM

Paul Yi
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

This maybe off topic, but can C/Y 35-70/3.4 and Planar T*100/2 be converted by Conurus?

Apr 07, 2008 at 04:41 PM

Mike Tuomey
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

Paul Yi wrote:
This maybe off topic, but can C/Y 35-70/3.4 and Planar T*100/2 be converted by Conurus?

see here: http://en.conurus.com/faq.html

Apr 07, 2008 at 04:44 PM

panya-doc
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

jmswickard wrote:
I have the 17-35, 24-85, 70-300, 85, and 100 Makro N series lenses which have been converted by Conurus. His work is fantastic.
What other way can you enjoy Zeiss lenses designed for Digital in "full auto" on your Canon?

Jack

BTW Jack, how do you like your 85? Mine is a bit soft in corners, on FF camera, compared to the Canon 85L.

Apr 07, 2008 at 04:55 PM

pascal03
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

Conurus converts the Contax N-mount lenses. The older manual focus lenses can be used with an adapter.

To answer the OP:

I have owned the Canon 24-70mm f2.8. It is a very good lens and truly does live up to it's reputation. AF speed is very good and it's hard to mess up a shot with the 24-70L. That said, I sold the Canon lens once I got my converted 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 N mount.

Some differences:
- Smaller/more compact that the canon - even when zooming out, the Zeiss isn't bad when it comes to lenth of the lens. The Zeiss makes for a decent walk about lens.
- The 24-70L has a pretty big hood while the Zeiss has a smaller petal shaped hood
- They both feel just as heavy, but the Canon may be heavier.
- Canon uses 77mm filters - the zeiss uses 82mm filters - C-PL's can get pricey sometimes
- The Canon can focus faster than the 24-85N - but only by a small margin. Both use "USM", but Canon's ring usm will always be just a tad bit faster. If you are going to use it on a 1-series (instead of a Rebel Xti), you may not notice the difference that much
- The Zeiss (converted by Conurus) does offer the option of backfocus/focus adjustment with any Canon D-SLR
- The Canon will have a 1 year warranty on it. With the Zeiss, if you get a bad copy and find out after the conversion, you will have to ship it back to conurus to un-convert it and then ship it to Japan to get it fixed. If you get lucky and find a brand new 24-85N at an authorized dealer, Zeiss offers a 3 year warranty on them. Zeiss does an amazing job of getting their lenses back in spec - something the canon service center doesn't always do on the first try.

If you do buy the Zeiss and have it converted, do it because of what it has to offer - simply amazing image quality - the L tries very hard to meet, but comes just a bit short of delivering.

Distortion at 24mm is very good on the Zeiss

Check out the Alternative image thread in this forum. You should be able to see quite a few images taken with the Zeiss 24-85N.

Apr 07, 2008 at 04:56 PM

marcwilson
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

I used one instead of a canon 24-105mm for about six months.
Preferred the images out of it greatly and really liked the feel of the lens, focussing etc.

But...I've replaced it with 24-105 again purely because of weatherproofing and where I was shooting.
Otherwise it would be the zeiss all the way.

Marc

Apr 07, 2008 at 05:40 PM

John Black
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

IMO the CZ 24-85N is more of a 24-105L IS competitor. The Contax does best when stopped to around F8. Wide open is fine, but nothing to get excited about. The 24-85N does have higher resolving than 24-105L IS, and with the 1Ds3 every bit of added horsepower is needed. It terms of utility, I still think the 24-105L IS offers the most due to IS. Shooting F16 with IS and handheld is quite do-able with good results.

Some pro's for the 24-85N are its size - it's fairly compact and pretty light (1.2 pounds I think). For walk-around duty it's easy to live with. Focus is quite and as good as a Canon lens. Build quality is actually pretty nice. I hate the hood though, it takes some force to get it on.

Bo-ming's craftsmanship is excellent. I've had four converted lenses, and the workmanship has been excellent with all of them. Depending on parts availability the turn-around-time can be frustrating.

Apr 07, 2008 at 06:03 PM

tom in mpls
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

I sold my 24-105L after getting my CZN. Slower focusing with the Zeiss but I much prefer the results. Yes, the stupid hood is a pain to remove and put on. I leave it on all the time, and bought a center pinch lens cap which is much easier to remove when the hood is mounted. The manual focus CZ lenses are better than the N's, but I am addicted to autofocus. Also, you get full EXIF data with the converted N lenses; you won't get that with CZ manual lenses used with adapter.

24mm wide open with 5D:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Edited by tom in mpls on Apr 07, 2008 at 05:14 PM GMT

Edited on Apr 07, 2008 at 11:14 PM

Apr 07, 2008 at 08:17 PM

Francisco Tan
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

Just AAAAAMAZING Tom. There is one available at BS now.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/634035

Apr 07, 2008 at 10:00 PM

tom in mpls
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

Thanks, Frank. It's one of my favorite shots.

And the cost of this lens vs the 24-70 or 24-105 is about a wash.

Apr 07, 2008 at 11:19 PM

crazeazn
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

wow that sold quick

Apr 08, 2008 at 01:04 AM

Conner999
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

Tom - nice shot. Where is that?

Apr 08, 2008 at 12:23 PM

tom in mpls
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

Montana state capitol building in Helena. I laid on my back in the middle of the floor to capture as much as possible as I didn't have any wider lens with me.

Apr 08, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Conner999
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

Cool. I think www.photozone.de has a test of a converted 24-85N IIRC.

Apr 08, 2008 at 01:19 PM

Kuan
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

The CZ N 24-85 is an amazing lens. I regrettably sold mine and now can't afford to get it again!

However, the reason I sold it was because of the lack of weather sealing. Shooting at the beach and river etc, the zoom sucks in dust. No different than any other non-sealed lenses but I felt like I was going to trash the lens. In retrospect, I guess I could have just had it cleaned from time to time.

Try it, not hard to sell if you decide its not for you.

Apr 10, 2008 at 09:23 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

tom in mpls wrote:
The manual focus CZ lenses are better than the N's

That is something I might disagree with. I think it might be better to say that they are "different".

If you look at comparable lenses...
The N's 100mm Makro-Sonnar is every bit as good, if not better, than the c/y 100mm Makro-Planar. They do have slightly different strengths.

The N's 85mm Planar is quite a different lens than the c/y 85mm Planar almost to the point that they should not be compared. The c/y is a better all-purpose lens, with the N is an exquisite portrait lens. The c/y is slightly better at long focus distances, while the N with its floating elements is better up close.

The N's 24-85 Vario-Sonnar is significantly better (and wider) at the wide end than the c/y 28-85 Vario-Sonnar. Some suggest that the c/y 28-85 has slightly better contrast at middle to long focal lengths. I would say that they are very close and that the differences might be subjective. The 24-85 is also a nicer size, shape and weight.

The N 70-300 is quite comparable to the c/y 80-200. The N 70-300 is weak at 300mm, but then the c/y 80-200 doesn't go past 200mm.

Oh yes, and the N's 50mm f1.4 Planar is essentially the same optical design as the c/y 50mm Planar, however, other improvement in coatings and barrel design make the N's 50mm better in terms of resistance to flare, ghosting and internal reflections, etc.

Add in the advantages/conveniences of AF, auto aperture, etc. to the N, and they would certainly seem to be a better overall than the c/y manual focus Zeiss lenses (but certainly more costly to acquire and harder to find).

Edited on Apr 10, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Apr 10, 2008 at 09:50 PM

crazeazn
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

bitchin' hard to find one!

Apr 11, 2008 at 01:17 AM

TeamSK jay
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

crazeazn wrote:
bitchin' hard to find one!

You must mean one that has already been converted? KEH has a bunch of non converted. - oh i thought you were referring to the 24-85 but then i reread.

I sure wish Conurus could get their supply issues and new conversions worked out. I have a 24-85 and 70-200 that are ready for surgery.

Edited on Apr 11, 2008 at 01:25 AM

Apr 11, 2008 at 01:23 AM

jrn813
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #21 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

I Own Six Of The N's..
Three Have Been Converted (17-35, 24-85, 100)
Three Are In The Wings Waiting For Bo-Ming.... (28-80, 50, 70-200)
The Four Zooms Are The Only Zooms I Own... Quality Shines Through.
Other Lens In The Respective Focal Range May Be Equal, But The "Zeiss"
Intangibles Make Most Anything Else Pale.. (Color, Resolution, Contrast)

17-35
This image is copyrighted by the owner

24-85

100

Edited by jrn813 on Apr 10, 2008 at 08:39 PM GMT

Edited on Apr 11, 2008 at 02:39 AM

Apr 11, 2008 at 02:25 AM

pascal03
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

crazeazn wrote:
bitchin' hard to find one!

Are you talking about the converted one's or the N-mount un-converted one's ?

I have one brand new in the box N-mount unconverted copy and two converted copies - all hand picked from 14 lenses I had to choose from at an authorized dealer.

So they are out there (unconverted that is) and for the right price, anyone can find the converted lenses as well.

I have a 50mm f1.4 and 70-200mm I am getting ready to list on ebay. I am also thinking about getting rid of the unconverted 24-85mm.

Chances are I will hold on to the 17-35N, two copies of the converted 24-85's, and the 70-300mm so I can use them on the 1Ds Mk III when I eventually buy one two years down the road. For now, I am not using Canon anymore (maybe 10%) and have switched to the Olympus system for daily use.

Apr 11, 2008 at 02:34 AM

crazeazn
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #23 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

pascal03 wrote:
crazeazn wrote:
bitchin' hard to find one!

Apr 11, 2008 at 05:35 AM

deshojo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #24 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

Lotusm50 wrote:
tom in mpls wrote:
The manual focus CZ lenses are better than the N's

That is something I might disagree with. I think it might be better to say that they are "different".

If you look at comparable lenses...

If I may add my own findings, from direct comparison of some of the N lenses to their C/Y counterparts:

I find the 17-35mm to be a superb lens, and although it can't match the 21mm Distagon for resolution or accutance, the versatility and overall performance make it a very attractive lens that produces gorgeous looking images.

The 100mm N Makro-Sonnar is undoubtedly more convenient than the C/Y Makro-Planar for most uses, and would be the better choice for general photography. It produces a particularly appealing image at medium-long distance.
However, in direct comparison I found the C/Y MP to be noticeably better at resolving fine detail in the macro range. It also suffered less from diffraction at smaller apertures.

I compared the 70-300mm N against the C/Y 100-300mm (and the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS).
In this comparison the C/Y was considerably better at all focal lengths, stopped down and wide open. This is confirmed by the MTF charts.
I had hoped that the AF and auto-aperture would make up for the weaker performance, but I found the AF to be less than perfect, especially at tracking moving subjects (in that respect it was slaughtered by the Canon).

I am still considering the N 24-85mm vs C/Y 28-85mm, as the latter has proved a fine lens for me over the years.
The corner performance of the N is certainly better at wider apertures, and auto-aperture is an obvious advantage (AF not so much for me), but there is something in the overall image that is not quite as appealing as the C/Y - I have yet to put my finger on exactly what that is.

I think most people would find the auto-everything performance of the N range to be enough of an advantage to sway their decision over the C/Y versions. Any technical differences in image quality are pretty small.

BTW, I do have a 17-35mm in its original N mount available for sale, if anyone is looking for one.

Cheers,
Matt

Edited on Apr 11, 2008 at 02:31 PM

Apr 11, 2008 at 02:29 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #25 · CZ 24-85N Conurus converted..

deshojo wrote:
The 100mm N Makro-Sonnar is undoubtedly more convenient than the C/Y Makro-Planar for most uses, and would be the better choice for general photography. It produces a particularly appealing image at medium-long distance.
However, in direct comparison I found the C/Y MP to be noticeably better at resolving fine detail in the macro range. It also suffered less from diffraction at smaller apertures.

Interesting. I have had both lenses, and I don't see much of any difference overall between these 2 lenses in the macro range. Also, Zeiss' MTF's for the 2 lenses don't suggest much of a difference either.

deshojo wrote:
I compared the 70-300mm N against the C/Y 100-300mm (and the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS).
In this comparison the C/Y was considerably better at all focal lengths, stopped down and wide open. This is confirmed by the MTF charts.
I had hoped that the AF and auto-aperture would make up for the weaker performance, but I found the AF to be less than perfect, especially at tracking moving subjects (in that respect it was slaughtered by the Canon).

I would have thought that the 80-200 was a more apt comparison -- especially as I consider then lens to be a 70-200 that gives you 300mm if you need it in a pinch. I do think, if there was one lens that doesn't hold up to a comparison with the c/y lenses, the 70-300 would be it.

I would also say that a comparison between the 17-35 VS zoom and the 21mm fixed-focal length Distagon isn't really a fair comparison. One would expect the fixed focal length lens to be better than the zoom -- and it is. The zoom is inherently a compromise to accommodate several other uses, the fixed focal length isn't saddled with such a compromise.

Edited on Apr 11, 2008 at 04:27 PM

Apr 11, 2008 at 04:26 PM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end