Hi! i just realized about this world of converting the mount of the lenses,

I have some i'd like to convert since im tired of canon.
And i knew that sony Alpha had a special mirror mechanism that doesnt protrude too much during lifting.

but on leitax i've seen that this lens still require shaving for alpha cameras (while not for nikon D3)

anyone here tried the conversion already?

It does require shaving on the D3.

The only cameras it doesn't require shaving on are the Leica R series bodies.. And crop-frame DSLR's.

If you have one, it's worth doing the mod. I use it quite extensively on the 5D-II.

I was under the impression from the Leitax site that the Version 2 Leica 19mm would work on the Sony a mount without modification -- I'd better go back and check.

The reason I mention this, I have a V2 19mm, that was originally modded for a Canon 5D by another photographer, my 5D mirror would still touch the Leica lens shroud, wearing the paint off the leading edge. I added the Leitax mount and use the lens on a A900 currently.

RDG

DISCLAIMER:
what follows is a very dull and boring post. Read only at your own risk..

.It is an interesting subject that of the register distances of the different camera mounts and their respective mirrors. One would think that cameras with shorter reg. distances like Canon EOS (44mm) must have mirrors less protruding than those of the Leica-R (47mm. reg. distance) and isn't so.
Out of curiosity, I checked those distances on my SLR's.
I have a Leica-R4 (with 47mm. reg. distance it must be longer of all current 24x36 mm. )
I own also an Alpa 11el -the opposite of the Leica-R.: with 37,8mm. it sports the shortest registry of all 24x36mm SLR cameras ever. Finally, I checked my trusty Canpn EOS·3. (44mm. reg.dist.)
The mirror of the Leica R -when raised in top position- sits 11.7 mm. beyond the mount flange - giving a distance of 35.3 mm. from the focal plane.
The mirror of the Alpa 11El sits only at 3.5mm. from the flange mount. ( that is 34,3 mm. from the focal plane )
Finally the mirror of my EOS-3 sits 7.5mm. beyond the lens flange mount. - 36.5mm, from the focal plane.
Those figures explain why some Leica-R lenses, while working perfectly on Leica cameras, don't clear Canon's mirrors, because these protrude 1.2mm. more than Leica's (on Canon 5D series must be a bit more)
On the other side, Alpa cameras will accept all Leica-R lenses without exceptions. Pity they don't make DSLRs with an Alpa mount.

Version 1 might work. I have one and it has no mirror issues on the 5D or 5D MKII.

Sorry for the confusion, noted just now you are looking for info on the Alpha camera. I might mention for those with Canon's that there is apparently quite a bit of size difference between 5D mirror boxes, that is where my camera wouldn't work, while someone else's 5D might. And is the 5DII a different beast as well?

Good luck,

RDG

I dont know.. i think i have also other lenses that are "difficult" to convert , like 85 1.4, a pentax 15 3.5 and a leica bellows.

But im so tired of canon, i would really like to switch to sony..

The Leica 80/1.4? No clearance issues on full frame canon with that one - so I assume no issues with Sony. 85/1.4 Pentax-A* might be a different issue.

RDG, Variation is less on the 5D-II's I've seen and from feedback I've gotten from others I've sold alt lenses to.
I checked the Leitax site and it should work on the A900 without modification, sorry about the error.

No mention of the 35 Summilux-R, if any lens would cause mirror issues it's that one, I ground a good deal off my mirror to get that one working @ infinity.

thanks for the infos

actually my lens set consists of

Pentax SMC 15/3.5 (k mount)
leica 19/2.8 (2nd, pre rom) and leica bellows
CY 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 , 28-85/3.3-4 and i was considering to buy a mirotar, maybe
then i have a canon 70-200 that should be sold in the eventuality

would you advice me to go for sony, or stay in canon and shave the mirror (or get it shaved)?

Paoletto,

I'd went with Sony, but still have the 5D, and may well need to round out a "tele-only Canon kit" for wildlife, given the cost of longer Sony lenses, now and in the future as well.

The Sony is a very good camera body, I'm interested in Landscape, currently have a Minolta 20mm, the Leica 19 with Leitax mount, a Distagon 28 2.8 Leitax converted, the Minolta 35mm f2.0, then a jump to the Minolta 200mm 2.8 with 1.4x TC. Already have a Leica 100 apo macro, currently not modified with the Leitax mount, going to get serious about selling the Leica 19, the L100apo, a L180/3.4, and a L280 apo and L1.4x and round out the landscape kit, either with a 60 Leica macro or a Minolta 100mm f2.0 if I can find one. Yes, the L100 apo is perhaps one of the very best, but its manual focus "throw" is extremely slow, using a Minolta 100 2.0 or their 2.8 macro would be faster.

I like the features offered on the Sony, and its sensor's color response somewhat better than the Canon 5D -- but currently believe that with good post processing, colors captured by the sensor are somewhat less important. The Sony 800-class full frame body at the prices currently might be hard to beat as well, although the 900's viewfinder is excellent.

Looking at your current kit, yes, a shaved mirror 5D or 5DII -- and your current lenses -- from the Pentax 15, 19, 28, 50, 85, 28-85, and the Canon 70-200 would round out a substantial kit -- the Leitax mounts, if you go to Sony, with the proper chips will add significantly to your cost, plus the Sony body.

In my own work, I'm trying to get practical, AF is a near must, not with wides, or a medium macro, but everything else, thus the Minolta AF lenses are "good enough", and downright intriguing in their own color response, sharpness and utility.

RDG

rdgzone8 wrote:

The Sony is a very good camera body, I'm interested in Landscape, currently have a Minolta 20mm, the Leica 19 with Leitax mount, a Distagon 28 2.8 Leitax converted, the Minolta 35mm f2.0, then a jump to the Minolta 200mm 2.8 with 1.4x TC. Already have a Leica 100 apo macro, currently not modified with the Leitax mount, going to get serious about selling the Leica 19, the L100apo, a L180/3.4, and a L280 apo and L1.4x and round out the landscape kit, either with a 60 Leica macro or a Minolta 100mm f2.0 if I can find one. Yes, the L100 apo is perhaps one of the very best, but its manual focus "throw" is extremely slow, using a Minolta 100 2.0 or their 2.8 macro would be faster.



Quite a kit you have there! How did you find the converted Leica 19 in comparison to the Minolta 20?

I had the Minolta 100 F2 and, somewhat foolishly, sold it. It is an amazing lens which I now miss. Superb contrast, color and resolution. Mine was sharp even wide open on the a900. The only fault I noticed was occasional green lateral chromatic aberration in bright, out of focus backgrounds.

For landscape I think the Leica 19 is superb unless you have a damaged lens.
No annoying gullwing distortion (though it has a tiny amount of barrel) and around f/8 it's superb into the corners with easily corrected CA (-19 on red/cyan slider in lightroom, or automatically removed by Capture One).

I would be very surprised if the Minolta 20 came anywhere near it. My particular copy hasn't been modified (mirror shaved instead) and I have made a non-damaging fully reversible mod to allow 77mm filters without vignetting

Here is a shot from a 5D-II followed by a 100% crop:

^Thanks thrice for posting those. I too would be surprised if the Minolta could compete with the Leica. It did sound as though RDG was going to keep the Minolta and sell the Leica which is why I was curious about his experience. The Minolta 20 is fairly well regarded though I have never used it.

Tariq, thrice,

Thank you for your interest, after earlier postings about the Min 20 and L 19, I went back to do a more definitive test -- yes, originally thought to sell the L19, but based on a recent comparison, probably will keep the 19 and the 20 (for "reportage") type work.

Thanks RDG. So, given your stable of lenses, any reason you went with the Leica 19 over the Zeiss 21? I can see the color is really nice with the Leica but the detail does not really seem to live up to the Zeiss 21 at all...but then I guess you have that wacky distortion issue with the Zeiss.

I think that in the center the leica 19 can easily match the zeiss 21 detailwise.
on the borders it loses quite a bit, but the main reasoning was that you can always crop the edges, and get a edge-to-edge sharp picture with a FOV of about 21mm (and less pixel count, yes)

in comparison you gain a color rendition that is great and avoid the distortions

i have a minolta 20/2.8, but for some reason, rational or irrational, it doesn't seem to shine. most notably it's colours seem alittle dull to me. i've been causually searching for an upgrade, but it seems as though everything else is really expensive and/or doesn't accept filters, which kinda bothers me.

thrice, how did u mod the leica to accept filters?

Tariq,

You're right on the D21, I didn't let thinking get in the way of buying.

Sensor size played a role certainly, and the Leica 19 shines brightly on the 5D, for at least a third less than the D21 at the time. If a do-over was possible, I'd recommend getting the mirror shaved on the 5D for alternative lenses. Now, of course, Zeiss is offering primes as well, so its another ball game. And David at Leitax has answers as well.

JimU, yes, the min 20 (and the similar colors of other legacy Minolta lenses) is softer, duller. I've used a color variants plug in from early on, I'm sure there are similar color packages out there, as well as the sliders in raw conversion, and while not matching Leica's colors or micro contrast, it benefits the Minolta lenses. The Min lenses need a contrast boost as well.

All of this for me goes back to difficulty manually focusing, AF is getting more important by the minute.


RDG

JimU wrote:thrice, how did u mod the leica to accept filters?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/730523/1

quite simple really