All this talk about Contax G, let me chime in. I've been using mainly the 35, 45 and 90, all of them with very nice results. I've been using four adapters: Tech-Art version I, which doesn't work well. There's an offer to get a version II adapter that I'm going to take as soon as I can, because it hangs the camera all the time and the focusing in not so great. Then I've got an el cheapo adapter, which is not nice at all, a Kiwi adapter, which is not very nice (i'd say it's even worse than the cheap one, because the gears tend to get stuck), and then the Metabones, which is the best one, albeit pricey and difficult to mount and dismount, which means that you need one for each of your lenses. However, and this is for Samuli, I'd think seriously about buying one, because it's much better than the others.
Nicolas_Goulet wrote:
I'm in the market for a 50/55/58 fast manual lens. I want something sharp if possible with a great bokeh.
My budget is around $200 so I know I ain't gonna get top quality glass.
I've spotted the Minolta 55mm f/1.7 and the 58mm f/1.4.
Any others I should consider?
i'd strike the 58/1.4 from that list. it's not so sharp and the bokeh is decidedly funky.
i'd probably choose between the canon nFD 50/1.4, pentax/takumar SMC 50/1.4, and rokkor MC PG 50/1.4. which one depends on your taste, i'd look at pictures from each to decide.
the pentax and canon are sharper and contrastier in the center at large aperture while the rokkor is sharper on the edges. bokeh is subject to taste, but i prefer the rokkor.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Optically I like G45 and G90 very much, [. . .] However I'm sure I wouldn't care much about either of the lens if I would be shooting handheld - or I would need to transfer these lenses to some helicoid lens body. Focusing is quite annoying with the adapter; placement, feel and smoothness of focus ring all suck, and suck badly. However in tripod it's less of a problem.
yeah, focusing on moving subjects was a serious pain prior to my helicoid conversion. now the g45 is probably my lens with the best ergonomics on the a7 though.
That G45 is surely a nice lens, I rediscovered mine recently.
Has anyone ever compared it to the ZM50? A ned adapter would cost me about as much as replacing my G45 with a used ZM50 and I would get nicer bokeh at f/2 and a decent focusing ring. But I am wondering if the ZM will have a similar clarity.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
That G45 is surely a nice lens, I rediscovered mine recently.
Phillip really liked the 2nd photo. (specially after some desaturation in PhotoShop giving more realistic colors...)
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Has anyone ever compared it to the ZM50? A ned adapter would cost me about as much as replacing my G45 with a used ZM50 and I would get nicer bokeh at f/2 and a decent focusing ring. But I am wondering if the ZM will have a similar clarity.
This would be interesting information as Planar T* 2/50 ZM would have real helicoil, and 10 blade aperture.
in more than just one way, Phil!
