hauxon wrote:
I just bought an Olympus 50mm f/1.2 Zuiko. The lens is in great condition and got the original shade with it. First impression is positive. Will take time to compare it against my current Leica 50/2 Summicron-R and possibly some other 50mm lenses.

Some lensporn. Images lit up with my compuer screen and a reflector

just proof of concept right now but it looks like the contax g 28/2.8 is actually going to be really easy to stick in the rokkor 55/1.7 body:











i still need to make the spacers for the mount and to move the optical block further up in the helicoid as well deciding whether i want to use the 52mm or 46mm filter thread. the aperture control adaptation is super easy with this combo though.

Nice job Derek. Will this be your new p/t job?

I have recently spent a good part of my redundancy money - contax 50/1.4 (I hope it is better wide open than Z*!), ZM 35/2 Biogon (something I have wanted for the last few years!) and finally Distagon 35/4. A bad relapse in my Zeissitis .
Btw I did a bit of search on Contarex lenses today and to my disappointment their MTF are not that great compared to later Zeiss lenses, even the C/Y ones that were produced only a short time after Contarex (with very few exceptions). The leap from Contarex to C/Y lenses appears to be significant. Much more than from C/Y and G to the modern Z*.

Gary Clennan wrote:
Nice job Derek. Will this be your new p/t job?

i'm not totally adverse to it if enough people are interested, but it would also depends on availability of donor helicoids.

Sebboh, an interesting project! Not that I would take such risks!

Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Sebboh, an interesting project! Not that I would take such risks!

ha! no risks had to be taken - both lenses are extremely easy to disassemble (I only removed 4 screws from the zeiss) and the conversion will be fully reversible for both lenses. the only casualties will be some scrap aluminum and a c-mount to NEX adapter (or maybe m39 to m-mount).

I sold all of my Zeiss lenses a couple years ago, and going back through some old images I realize how much I miss the look that the lenses produced. I ended up buying a ZF.2 50MP

I just received from England a nice little Petzval, about 2 inches long and inch & half in diameter. It even has a Waterhouse slot! I think it's 1870s vintage. I'm sending it off to SK Grimes to have an F mount adapter made so I can use it on my Nikon DSLRs. I think I'll also have an f16 stop made for it.


Kent in SD

Sh!t Derek, I think I'm in love.
The G's are starting to call my name louder... Thanks

Seriously, it looks great, Can't wait to see the finished project.
Will you be attempting the 45 & 90?

LightShow wrote:
Sh!t Derek, I think I'm in love.
The G's are starting to call my name louder... Thanks

Seriously, it looks great, Can't wait to see the finished project.
Will you be attempting the 45 & 90?

thanks! here is the 45: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/982966/87#10921931

i'm kinda annoyed by how large the diameter is on the 58/1.4 shell that my 45mm is in though, so i might switch it to a 55/1.7 as well (especially now that i've seen how nicely the aperture controls match up).

So, you would have two identical-looking lenses in the bag. That'll go well

Oh yeah, thanks for the reminder, I much prefer the focus ring on the 2nd gen MC's, so I was thinking more along this style for my previous comment, which you kindly answered already.
i'm kinda annoyed by how large the diameter is on the 58/1.4 shell that my 45mm is in though, so i might switch it to a 55/1.7 as well

I wonder if the 55/3.5 macro would work for the 90...

I got yesterday a cheap Mitutoyo APO microscopy lens with a ding (that is sold currently new for >2000 Euro), a Novoflex 35mm/3.5 macro lens and a Isco Westagon 50mm/1.9 (focus nearly stuck).
The Novoflex macro has a brilliant near focus mechanics: It has a helicoid and additional one can extend it with a kind of snapping mechanics. All this in a small build barrel.
This is one of the lenses with good UV and IR capabilities, while not made for this.

OpticalFlow wrote:...
PC Distagon 35 2,8
Distagon 35 2,8
Planar 50 1,7
Planar 50 1,4 (on the Contax 167MT)


Ah, this is the Contax set you bought - very nice! The PC-Distagon is very interessting!

mann_p wrote:..
Not so alternative, but I managed to convert a Rokinon 35mm in 4/3 mount to Canon mount. Nobody wanted to buy the d@mn thing
...

Congratulations! Up to know I didnīt find cheap Samyang lenses (85,35,24) for some testing purpose - searched every mount, cause I thought It could not be very hard to convert to EF.

OpticalFlow wrote
Congratulations! Up to know I didnīt find cheap Samyang lenses (85,35,24) for some testing purpose - searched every mount, cause I thought It could not be very hard to convert to EF.

Thanks! It actually wasn't difficult, but if I didn't have a cordless drill I wouldn't have pulled it off. The other tool that was essential was just sand paper. No scientific calculations when it came to flange distance though- it was all trial and error

ZoneV wrote:
OpticalFlow wrote:...
PC Distagon 35 2,8
Distagon 35 2,8
Planar 50 1,7
Planar 50 1,4 (on the Contax 167MT)


Ah, this is the Contax set you bought - very nice! The PC-Distagon is very interessting!


Part of the set. There were also a few third-party lenses, tele- and macro converters etc. that are not shown in this picture. Yes, the PC-Distagon is certainly interesting and it is the lens that made this set a good deal. You may have seen my first impressions of this lens on the German-language forum. It certainly is interesting and high quality, but I'm in two minds whether I can justify keeping such an expensive lens as I don't usually shoot a lot of architecture and it is a big hunk of glass to carry around (esp. compared to the "regular" 35mm 2.8 Distagon). I will use it some more over the coming months and maybe I'll warm up to it. Otherwise I'll probably list it for sale or will try and trade for a C/Y 35 1.4 which would probably find more use in my bag.

LightShow wrote:
Oh yeah, thanks for the reminder, I much prefer the focus ring on the 2nd gen MC's, so I was thinking more along this style for my previous comment, which you kindly answered already.
i'm kinda annoyed by how large the diameter is on the 58/1.4 shell that my 45mm is in though, so i might switch it to a 55/1.7 as well

I wonder if the 55/3.5 macro would work for the 90...

it might, i like the 55/1.7 though because it's narrower than all the 55mm filter thread rokkors. i'm not terribly excited yet about having the 90g either to be honest.

carstenw wrote:
So, you would have two identical-looking lenses in the bag. That'll go well

the 45mm will have a longer spacer between the mount so they'd be easy to tell apart. i like the idea of two identical handling lenses though.

Hi,

Another 300mm for my optical spectrometer

Edd

i'm kinda annoyed by how large the diameter is on the 58/1.4 shell that my 45mm is in though, so i might switch it to a 55/1.7 as well

LightShow wrote:
I wonder if the 55/3.5 macro would work for the 90...

sebboh wrote:
it might, i like the 55/1.7 though because it's narrower than all the 55mm filter thread rokkors. i'm not terribly excited yet about having the 90g either to be honest.
I was thinking it might be great for close focusing whith the macro helicoid, I don't know if IQ will hold up at those distances.

the 45mm will have a longer spacer between the mount so they'd be easy to tell apart. i like the idea of two identical handling lenses though.

I'm seriously thinking of doing this.

LightShow wrote:
i'm kinda annoyed by how large the diameter is on the 58/1.4 shell that my 45mm is in though, so i might switch it to a 55/1.7 as well

LightShow wrote:
I wonder if the 55/3.5 macro would work for the 90...

sebboh wrote:
it might, i like the 55/1.7 though because it's narrower than all the 55mm filter thread rokkors. i'm not terribly excited yet about having the 90g either to be honest.
I was thinking it might be great for close focusing whith the macro helicoid, I don't know if IQ will hold up at those distances.

the 45mm will have a longer spacer between the mount so they'd be easy to tell apart. i like the idea of two identical handling lenses though.

I'm seriously thinking of doing this.

I haven't made it to the machine shop to make the spacers yet, but I can post pictures of the lens disassembly if you'd like?