I have a Contax G2 with the G28, G45 and G90 lenses.Years ago I bought an inexpensive Fotodiox adapter and tried them out on my Sony a6000.. The results were ok, but the G28 had a lot of chromatic aberration and the corners were completely blurry. I understand that is common for RF lenses on digital.
My question is, have things improved in 2023? I”m thinking of buying either the a6700 or the a7cII. I’d prefer to not have the crop factor, so I’m leaning towards the a7cII if the corners are sharp with minimal chromatic aberration. I’m not willing to modify the lenses as I still would like to be able to shoot with my Contax G2. I’m not wed to Sony, so if there are better alternatives, I’m open to Canon or others.
Thanks for any advice on the state of Contax G lenses on digital in 2023.
As far as I know, there are no real improvements on full-frame 35mm sensor mirrorless bodies that can accommodate the Contax G21 and G28 lenses. I tried G21/G28 on A7rIII/Z7 and I was not happy with the IQ at all. I am sure you know that G45 and G90 work okay on most of full-frame sensors. I do have a 'converted' G35 in Leica M mount which works perfectly on all Leica M digital camera.
I have a full draw of Contax G-to-X adapters but I must say that I've given up and started to shot film with my G1/G2 bodies two years ago.
The Contax G has a 29.00mm Flange Focal Distance so the choice of mirrorless cameras for unmodified G lenses is much less than, say, for Nikkor F, but more than a few. There are adapters for Canon M, Fuji X, M4/3, Nikon 1 and Z, Sony E, and probably some others. One caveat is rf wide angle lenses beyond around 40mm risks ray angle color casts and diffraction losses at the sides and corners of the FF sensor that get worse as the focal length decreases. Except, as ocean2059 said, on a rangefinder with the correct sensor microlenses for wide angle rf lenses. For adapted wide angle lenses, retrofocus designs work best.
So there is a good selection of cameras to choose from for the normal and tele focal lengths, so your 45 and 90 will work a treat. I would think you might get decent performance on the APS-C sensors with some wider lenses too, although with a 1.5 or 1.6 view angle crop.
AndereObjektiv wrote:
I would think you might get decent performance on the APS-C sensors with some wider lenses too, although with a 1.5 or 1.6 view angle crop.
The 28mm Biogon is supposed to be fantastic on APS-C (equivalent to roughly 40mm in fullframe terms), so if I wanted to shoot it on digital that's the route I'd go. For full-frame you can add a reversed front-end Plano-Convex (PCX) filter, which improves things dramatically as described in Sebboh's review below:
Focusing is possible with the right adapter, but I don't think the adapters available today are any better than the old ones.
Note that Sebboh was planning to write a follow-on article explaining why he thinks a Sony APS-C camera with this lens is better than an RX-1, but he never got around to it. Apart from the great IQ, that would be a very portable and even pocketable combination, which is what attracts me to it. Although the new Voigtlander 28/2.8 Color-Skopar might be a contender and even smaller.
Carl Gruber wrote:
Thanks for any advice on the state of Contax G lenses on digital in 2023.
The limitations of the laws of physics remain the same. Though a lens whose mount was modified by Skyllaney or MS Optics will be better but will likely present similar limitations on the wider FL's (wider than 50mm) when adapted to digital sensors, just as occurred with Leica and Zeiss M-mount optics originally designed for film.
j.liam wrote:
The limitations of the laws of physics remain the same. Though a lens whose mount was modified by Skyllaney or MS Optics will be better but will likely present similar limitations on the wider FL's (wider than 50mm) when adapted to digital sensors, just as occurred with Leica and Zeiss M-mount optics originally designed for film.
This is only half true.
On digital cameras with thin sensor stack (Leica M, cameras modded by Kolari) they don't perform worse than on film.
Except for the 16mm 8.0 Hologon, that is a longer story and those that care and want to read it can find it here.
If I would be living in the US I would have my A7RII modded. If the performance is comparable to M cameras, it would be my way to get rangefider sized lenses into action
BastianK wrote:
This is only half true.
On digital cameras with thin sensor stack (Leica M, cameras modded by Kolari) they don't perform worse than on film.
Except for the 16mm 8.0 Hologon, that is a longer story and those that care and want to read it can find it here.
Your point is well taken but Leica M aside--still incompatible with certain wide Zeiss ZM's with the 21 C coming to mind and other acute ray angle wide optics, a costly exception to the rule.
j.liam wrote:
Your point is well taken but Leica M aside--still incompatible with certain wide Zeiss ZM's and other acute ray angle wide optics, a costly exception to the rule.
Please tell me which "certain ZM lenses" are "incompatible" with digital cameras with a thin filterstack.
I have used more than 230 lenses of which a good portion are M-mount lenses and I call BS until then.
BastianK wrote:
Please tell me which "certain ZM lenses" are "incompatible" with digital cameras with a thin filterstack.
I have used more than 230 lenses of which a good portion are M-mount lenses and I call BS until then.
Zeiss ZM 21 C and 2,8/15. Have you ever tried either of them on an M-digital? I did. No bueno. (hold your proclamations of Stier Scheiße )
j.liam wrote:
M9. Show me otherwise and I'll defer to your assessment.
Have a look at my Hologon review that I posted already.
Or have a look at my VM 15mm 4.5 II review.
All these lenses are awful on M9/M240 because their sensors are awful.
On M10 vignetting is significantly reduced but you get asymmetrical color cast (that can be fixed in post, how to do that I also described).
Use a Sony Gen2+ camera or a Leica M11 (that also uses a Sony sensor) and that color cast is almost gone.
The thick filter stack of the Sony cameras will ruin the corner sharpness,
to also fix that you can modify the camera with a thinner filter stack.
As said, have a look at the Hologon review, the information with a bunch of comparisons is all there.
And the Hologon is the absolute worst lens in that regard, the ZMs have mild issues at worst by comparison.
Not on an M9/M240 though, here they are all awful.
BastianK wrote:
Have a look at my Hologon review that I posted already.
Or have a look at my VM 15mm 4.5 II review.
All these lenses are awful on M9/M240 because their sensors are awful.
On M10 vignetting is significantly reduced but you get asymmetrical color cast (that can be fixed in post, how to do that I also described).
Use a Sony Gen2+ camera or a Leica M11 (that also uses a Sony sensor) and that color cast is almost gone.
The thick filter stack of the Sony cameras will ruin the corner sharpness,
to also fix that you can modify the camera with a thinner filter stack.
As said, have a look at the Hologon review, the information with a bunch of comparisons is all there.
And the Hologon is the absolute worst lens in that regard, the ZMs have mild issues at worst by comparison.
Not on an M9/M240 though, here they are all awful. ...Show more →
Ok. So I guess you concur that my observation wasn't "BS" after all...
I wish I still owned the 21C to test out on my M10. I loved that lens on film, regret parting with it, though it helped fund a 21 SEM.
BastianK wrote:
This is only half true.
On digital cameras with thin sensor stack (Leica M, cameras modded by Kolari) they don't perform worse than on film.
Except for the 16mm 8.0 Hologon, that is a longer story and those that care and want to read it can find it here.
I'm convinced that the Hologon is slightly better on my NKIR modded A7rII than what I see from your Kolari camera, but its probably close. The vignetting is, well, just bad period.
I can't help but love the lens, though. It's really fun to shoot. I've added some gaffer tape around the holder for the center filter to prevent reflections from bouncing off the inside of it into the lens.
MAubrey wrote:
I've added some gaffer tape around the holder for the center filter to prevent reflections from bouncing off the inside of it into the lens.
I tried that, too, but wasn't really convinced of the "improvements".
Carl Gruber wrote:
I have a Contax G2 with the G28, G45 and G90 lenses.Years ago I bought an inexpensive Fotodiox adapter and tried them out on my Sony a6000.. The results were ok, but the G28 had a lot of chromatic aberration and the corners were completely blurry. I understand that is common for RF lenses on digital.
My question is, have things improved in 2023? I”m thinking of buying either the a6700 or the a7cII. I’d prefer to not have the crop factor, so I’m leaning towards the a7cII if the corners are sharp with minimal chromatic aberration. I’m not willing to modify the lenses as I still would like to be able to shoot with my Contax G2. I’m not wed to Sony, so if there are better alternatives, I’m open to Canon or others.
Thanks for any advice on the state of Contax G lenses on digital in 2023....Show more →
Hi Carl- appears you are still looking to adapt your CG lenses since 2020!
As mentioned before, I am still happy using the CG lenses with an unmodified Z6.
Has become my favourite go to compact system and doesn’t disappoint! I use the CG 16, 21, 28, 45 & 90 with the auto TZG(Techart) or manual Urth adapters. Techart CG & Nikon adapter is way improved from the Sony days.
On the wide angles( hologon excluded), a PCX filter works .
All in all, has been a satisfactory exercise!
Feel free to pm for specific details if that would help- cheers!
Thank you for all your input on this. Indeed I have been looking for a number of years for the “perfect” digital G2 body. I’m already invested in the Sony E lens (a6000) and Canon EF lens (5DmkII) systems, so adding yet another (Nikon Z6) wouldn’t be optimal. Is there something about the Nikon Z6 that makes it better with the Contax G lens system than the Sony or a Canon system?
)