foto-z wrote:
Of course, by f8 the horizon is in focus, so it is only the combination of wide-open and infinity focus that doesn't work. I can't focus past 10 metres.
I'd love to get to the bottom of this. Is the adapter too thick or thin, if infinity focus isn't possible?
I have two Zeiss adapters that are exactly 1.5mm thick. These are the thickest adapters I have used. They both can achieve infinity with all of my CZ lenses. On the other hand, I once had some 1.4mm adapter that can not achieve infinity focus. Looks like machining precision is the key.
Cinstance wrote:
I have two Zeiss adapters that are exactly 1.5mm thick. These are the thickest adapters I have used. They both can achieve infinity with all of my CZ lenses. On the other hand, I once had some 1.4mm adapter that can not achieve infinity focus. Looks like machining precision is the key.
Hi Cinstance, thanks for the great work. What kind of adapter have you used (cameraquest, dslrexchange...)?
My guess is that it's time to make something like a "compatibility list" to try to put the word "end" to this story. IMHO From what I've understood, the lenses below work for sure w/ the Canon 5D.
Carl Zeiss for Contax/Yashica - adapter: Cameraquest
WILL WORK
- F-Distagon 2.8/16 (fisheye) link
- Distagon 4/18 AE version (NOT MM version) link
- Distagon 2.8/21 link
- Distagon 2.8/25 MM link
- Distagon 1.4/35 link
- PC-Distagon 2.8/35 link
- Planar 2/100 link
- Vario-Sonnar 3.3-4.0/28-85 link
- Vario-Sonnar 3.4/35-70 link
- Makro-Planar 2.8/100 link (thick adapter only)
MAY WORK WITH MOD
- Distagon 3.5/15 (must be tested - the Leica version WORKS w/ MOD) link
NOT TESTED YET - most popular CZ lenses (wide, normal, macro, tele)
WIDE ANGLES
- Distagon 2.8/28 link
- Distagon 2/28 link
- Distagon 2.8/35 link
STANDARD
- Planar 1.4/50 link
- Planar 1.7/50 link
MACRO
- Makro-Planar 2.8/60 (1:1 version) link
- Makro-Planar 2.8/60C (1:2 version) link
TELE
- Planar 1.4/85 link
- Planar 2.8/85 link
- Planar 2.8/135 link
- Tele-Tessar 4/300 link
The list above is NOT complete. I've considered only the most used CZ lenses on Canon systems (Cameraquest adapter). Feel free to expand the list, this is only a personal humble effort to try to help people like me involved in CZ lenses.
This list cannot be considered an absolute point of reference but only an indicative guide, because, as noted by other FMers here (Cinstance and MarkSaperstein), adapter's machining precision could vary from piece to piece and a lens that work or not is a matter of very little tolerances (0.3-0.5 millimeters).
Ciao,
Emanuele
Edited by Emanuele_C on Oct 11, 2005 at 02:53 PM GMT
Edited by Emanuele_C on Oct 11, 2005 at 03:02 PM GMT
Edited by Emanuele_C on Oct 11, 2005 at 03:05 PM GMT
Edited by Emanuele_C on Oct 11, 2005 at 03:10 PM GMT
Edited by Emanuele_C on Oct 11, 2005 at 03:17 PM GMT
Edited by Emanuele_C on Oct 11, 2005 at 03:19 PM GMT
Edited by Emanuele_C on Oct 11, 2005 at 03:25 PM GMT
Edited by Emanuele_C on Oct 11, 2005 at 03:36 PM GMT
I'm willing to bet it is merely sloppy manufacturing on Canons part. Some clear on some peoples bodies, some do not. The mirror assembly may even be jobbed out to another vendor, and perhaps the ones at the outer limits of acceptable tolerance may be the ones causing problems. Even with precision manufacturing, there are tolerance imperfections. Maybe Canon is satisfied to the nearest 0.5mm.
Perhaps a return to the 1Ds is in order. Lots of them for cheap out there.
MarkSaperstein wrote:
With all due respect, I feel that compiling a master list is a fool's mission. There is too much variability from individual lens to lens, adapter to adapter, and even camera to camera. There are some generalizations that can be made, but they are just generalizations.
--Mark
Hi Mark
I agree w/ you but in my humble opinion a "continuously updated" list is better than nothing and surely better than digging over forum's past topics. However, the more people will try CZ lenses on their 5D the more the list will be reliable. IMHO
Wow! You've certainly spent a lot of time on this. Your list deserves a spot on the top of a thread. Maybe you should start a new thread. For now, I will take the liberty of pasting your list to my original post. As Mark Saperstein says, these are just generalizations, but I think they do help in determining what may or may not be possible to use on a 5D.
jjlphoto wrote:
I'm willing to bet it is merely sloppy manufacturing on Canons part. Some clear on some peoples bodies, some do not. The mirror assembly may even be jobbed out to another vendor, and perhaps the ones at the outer limits of acceptable tolerance may be the ones causing problems. Even with precision manufacturing, there are tolerance imperfections. Maybe Canon is satisfied to the nearest 0.5mm.
Perhaps a return to the 1Ds is in order. Lots of them for cheap out there.
Hmm... I bet you're right, John. I wonder if that's the real reason all the EF lenses have "soft" inifinity. Even if there is variability in the flange-to-back distance, the AF system can deal with it if you can go past infinity.
Wow! You've certainly spent a lot of time on this. Your list deserves a spot on the top of a thread. Maybe you should start a new thread. For now, I will take the liberty of pasting your list to my original post. As Mark Saperstein says, these are just generalizations, but I think they do help in determining what may or may not be possible to use on a 5D.
With the popularity of the Leica and CZ lenses (especially the wides) on 1DS and 1DsII, do you think Canon intentionally made changes to the 5D design to discourage (prohibit??) their use? Just a thought.
Dave
I don't know, Dave. If I were Canon, I would just make the best, affordable full-frame sensor camera possible and let the photographer choose what glasses to put on it. If it's Canon glass, fine, if not, that would be fine, too. I don't think Canon intentionally made the mirror clearance narrower. They probably only think about the EF lenses when they design cameras and not whether or not 3rd party lenses will fit.
Is it possible that the tight tolerence between the sensor plane and lens mount is now accomplished with the sensor position adjustment rather than machine tolerance at the mount? This would easily explain the difference between two similar bodies. The mirror position relative to the mount would be affected due to a larger tolerence at the mount.
JFB318 wrote:
Is it possible that the tight tolerence between the sensor plane and lens mount is now accomplished with the sensor position adjustment rather than machine tolerance at the mount? This would easily explain the difference between two similar bodies. The mirror position relative to the mount would be affected due to a larger tolerence at the mount.
I would have thought that it would be easier to make the mount to specs than to adjust the sensor position. Adjusting the sensor position would probably be fraught with misalignment of the plane.
gurtch wrote:
With the popularity of the Leica and CZ lenses (especially the wides) on 1DS and 1DsII, do you think Canon intentionally made changes to the 5D design to discourage (prohibit??) their use? Just a thought.
Dave
I second PSquared.
My guess is that Canon didn't it intentionally and if you look at the compatibility list (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/293080), u'll see that the best CZ wides work with the 5D. The 3.5/15 is the only one that must be tested yet but its Leica counterpart WORKS good with a mod. Speaking about Leica is a different thing because their lenses design is different and the back protrudes deeply into the mount.
What kind of adapter have you used (cameraquest, dslrexchange...)?
From what I've understood, the lenses below work for sure w/ the Canon 5D.