Thank you everybody for your kind words! LightShow wrote:
An expensive road to go down if you have an oops...
What does that mean?
Good luck if you do something similar, and tell us! ;-)
freaklikeme wrote:
Nicely done, Alex. Was the 50 a junker?
It had some slight coating issued on the rear surface. Considering the low price tag, I'd say that makes it almost a junker. Nevertheless, and since it was a very crude dismantling, I felt some pain.
Lotusm50 wrote:
It's only appropriate that the Oly should die so the Zeiss can live. ;-)
Yes, the 50/1.8 would be an option but if one goes through the effort, a macro helicoid is a tempting bonus.
I don't know which macro is shortest. I think the OM Zuiko 50/3.5 is quite short, for full frame, and available.
m-a-x wrote:
Yes, the 50/1.8 would be an option but if one goes through the effort, a macro helicoid is a tempting bonus.
I don't know which macro is shortest. I think the OM Zuiko 50/3.5 is quite short, for full frame, and available.
i'd be little concerned that the 50/3.5 might be too long for the 28/2.8. it might provide a built in hood but reduce some of the lenses compactness.
Sebboh, I think you're right, it is likely too long.
It would be very difficult to place it recessed inside the OM macro, due to the aperture coupling being in the way.
And not recessed would most likely be too much in front.
According to Ken Rockwells tabular overview, the 28mm Biogon is 8mm shorter than the 45mm Planar.
On top of that the Biogon is by default further back (from the filter thread, or the front rim), compared to the Planar.
I guess all of that together means the elements would be too far away from the sensor and not achieve infinity...
Maybe the OM 50/1.8 would really be the optimum shell for the 28mm Biogon. It is 8mm shorter than this OM macro, and also slightly recessed.
EDIT: I assume the focus throw would be long enough, the OM 50/1.8 being a normal lens and the G 28/2.8 being a wide angle.
m-a-x wrote:
EDIT: I assume the focus throw would be long enough, the OM 50/1.8 being a normal lens and the G 28/2.8 being a wide angle.
the OM 50/1.8 has approximately 8mm of focus throw, which is a little more than the contax g 45 has, so i assume it would be more than fine for the 28mm, but i don't have one in front of me to verify.
I wonder if theres a factory in China somewhere that could make new shells for the Contax G line, helicoid and all. They make cheap Kipon clone G-Nex adapter that retail for 30-40, but I think there would be a market for a conversion kit thats cheaper than at Japanexposures, that gives you proper manual control and distance markings. At least that way no lenses would have to be sacrificed at the altar of Zeiss.
m-a-x wrote:
It had some slight coating issued on the rear surface. Considering the low price tag, I'd say that makes it almost a junker. Nevertheless, and since it was a very crude dismantling, I felt some pain.
Also true
I was just wondering if you were able to recoup anything by selling off the Oly innards, but it sounds like they didn't survive intact.
And I'm with you, despite my love for some Oly glass. I'm now tempted to try it myself. The 45 would certainly be worth the loss of a 50/3.5.
sebboh wrote:
i'd be little concerned that the 50/3.5 might be too long for the 28/2.8. it might provide a built in hood but reduce some of the lenses compactness.
What about the Rokkor-X 45/2? The focus action wouldn't be a nice as a macro, but it looks like it would be about the right size.
sebboh wrote:
the OM 50/1.8 has approximately 8mm of focus throw, which is a little more than the contax g 45 has, so i assume it would be more than fine for the 28mm, but i don't have one in front of me to verify.
Thanks for this information! Let's try it one day!
dnhkng wrote:
Wow, impressive work!
I wonder if theres a factory in China somewhere that could make new shells for the Contax G line, helicoid and all. ....
First of all: thank you!
As for the conversion kit: there is supposedly something like that. Google for NEX+Hawks+Leica and you find information in another forum, even a picture of a nice-looking prototype. However, the information flow got stuck and who knows how this continues...
freaklikeme wrote:
I was just wondering if you were able to recoup anything by selling off the Oly innards, but it sounds like they didn't survive intact.
And I'm with you, despite my love for some Oly glass. I'm now tempted to try it myself. The 45 would certainly be worth the loss of a 50/3.5.
The innards of the oly did not survive well. I sold some parts of the Contax G: I got 1 EUR at ebay (Wooohooo!).
As for your temptation: Give it a try unless you are happy with kipon or metabones. I'd like to see another version!
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
please me a contax 90g to leica m frankenmonster.
Coupled or uncoupled?
freaklikeme wrote:
What about the Rokkor-X 45/2? The focus action wouldn't be a nice as a macro, but it looks like it would be about the right size.
Could work from the dimensions point of view. Coupling the aperture may be more tricky, though.
For me the Oly 50/1.8 would be nicer, if viable. Imagine the two Frankenlenses next to each other
m-a-x wrote:
Thanks for this information! Let's try it one day!
sounds good! are there any things to be careful of disassembling the contax g lenses? i thought i remembered hearing about some funny springs or something.
m-a-x wrote:
Could work from the dimensions point of view. Coupling the aperture may be more tricky, though.
For me the Oly 50/1.8 would be nicer, if viable. Imagine the two Frankenlenses next to each other
the rokkor 45 is too plasticky, not sure how machinable/modifiable it would be. also, as m-a-x says, the aperture control in back rather in front could be problematic. i don't like it's cheap feeling helicoid much either. i'll have to look and see what the smallest old metal ring rokkor was (55/1.7?) as i love their build and feel, i suspect they'd all be too big for the contax g 28mm though.
sebboh wrote:
are there any things to be careful of disassembling the contax g lenses? i thought i remembered hearing about some funny springs or something.
There is one large spring around the lens, the function of which was not clear to me. It is not dangerous for the elements as long as you don't do fancy things, and it doesn't jump away either. Nothing spectacular. Parts from the Contax G Planar 45/2 (not used) by meizzner, on Flickr
wfrank wrote:
Mighty impressive conversion MAX, standing applause ...
Thanx a lot, I really appreciate your feedback!
sebboh wrote:
sounds good! are there any things to be careful of disassembling the contax g lenses? i thought i remembered hearing about some funny springs or something.
the rokkor 45 is too plasticky, not sure how machinable/modifiable it would be. also, as m-a-x says, the aperture control in back rather in front could be problematic. i don't like it's cheap feeling helicoid much either. i'll have to look and see what the smallest old metal ring rokkor was (55/1.7?) as i love their build and feel, i suspect they'd all be too big for the contax g 28mm though.
Point taken, but it was so cheap I want to repurpose it.
The Oly 40/2 (assuming you could find one with useless optics to make the price make sense) might make a good donor. The aperture linkage might still be an issue, though at least it's in front. Actually, it is the front. Anyway, you'd get a solid compact housing with a surprisingly long throw on the focus.
freaklikeme wrote:
Point taken, but it was so cheap I want to repurpose it.
Brad, you own a A900? Does the Rokkor 45mm attach?
This was my repurpose (EF mount): Minolta MD Rokkor 45/2 by meizzner, on Flickr
Another Rokkor45 I owned had a ding in the filter thread. I removed it completely, that made the lens 2mm shorter and funny looking.
freaklikeme wrote:
The Oly 40/2 (assuming you could find one with useless optics to make the price make sense) might make a good donor. The aperture linkage might still be an issue, though at least it's in front. Actually, it is the front. Anyway, you'd get a solid compact housing with a surprisingly long throw on the focus.
Coud be good. But this one is more scarce, hard to find damaged.
