Sonny,
I have a 5D, and I use the Olympus 21mm f3.5 with a cheap eBay adapter with no mirror clearance problems; no problems at all. I have heard that 5D has mirror clearance variations. I would expect that you will not have any mirror problems. Be sure that you get infinity focus with your adapter.
Don
I use the Elefoto adapter (made in Japan) and have no problem with clearance. Infinity focus is OK too (but need more test on this).
AbramG wrote:
sorry for digging up old dirt, but i cant find any answers.
I wanted to get the Zeiss 28 f/2.8 for my 5D, is there any adapter that allows proper clearance? and infinity focus? as far as ive seen in images the rear element doesnt protrude THAT much. or would i bet better off saving for that 1ds and 21mm distagon ?
and - i dont mind spending a little extra if i know the adapter works properly.
I wonder if there is a latest update on Contax lenses on the 5D. I have used the Tele-Tessar 300mm/4 with a elephoto adapater with no problems.
Two questions though: I seem to remember one poster saying that the 16mm fisheye gets stuck sometimes, but sometimes only (!); any final verdict?
Also, I could not find any reference to possible problems (or problems to look out for) when using the Mutar converters (especially the II) on the 5D. Any information will be appreciated.
I recently got on eBay a very clean inexpensive copy of a Carl Zeiss 28 f2.8, and it works fine on my 5D. I have had absolutely no problem using it on both my EOS 1D mark II and my EOS 5D. No mirror catching, no focusing trouble, or anything. I have heard others speak of having problems. But I suspect that the adapter ring is the key to getting it right. As someone said above, you need to use a correct one, as tolerances are very fine. I don’t know who made my one as I got it used. All I can say is that it is painted matt black.
Of course I lose the advantage of electronic communication between camera and lens. And, yes, I have to focus wide open at f 2.8 and then close down to shoot. I get aperture priority and the camera easily handles metering. I do check the histogram, and then compensate exposure accordingly to get it spot on. If I do all that – and it is not complicated with practice – the combination of Zeiss lens and Canon body works excellently.
Optically the Zeiss is far superior to my Canon 17-40 mm f4 zoom. In fact, the Zeiss at its worst (f2.8) beats the Canon at its best (f11). Why such a difference in performance? Well, first, Canon is Canon and Zeiss is Zeiss. Secondly, the Canon 17-40 on the 5D is really 17-40 as there is no crop factor; and 17 mm is very wide angle indeed! By now everybody knows that Canon full-frame sensors have difficulty handling wide angle lenses. Canon tele lenses don’t have the problem; it concerns wide angles only. Nikon wide angles, on the other hand, have less difficulty since Nikon had the good sense years ago to redesign their wide angle lenses to work better with digital sensors. The bigger the Canon sensor the greater the problem becomes. That is why my 17-40 gave slightly better results on my 1D mark II than on my 5D. So, since my Zeiss 28 f2.8 is not as wide as my 17-40 it may thus create less problems for the full-frame sensor. Well, that’s my hypothesis anyway.
The results of my tests (and there were pretty rigorous!) leave me convinced that Canon wide angle lenses don’t hold a candle to Zeiss. [Caveat: Some Zeiss’s, like the 25mm f2.8 are not up to the usual Zeiss standards, so be careful!] True, I am pitching a prime against a zoom. But Canon’s prime lenses will not, by all that I hear, compare any better.
Now I hope to add some more Zeiss glass to my kit, or maybe a Leica or two. No more wide-angle Canon glass for me! But I will keep my dud Canon 17-40 lens….for when I need automation more than quality.
Boo to Canon!!!! How, after decades of designing excellent products – on the cutting edge of photo-optic development – did they fail so badly? Are they incapable of making a good wide angle zoom lens to go with their digital full-frame camera bodies? Maybe they put so much R&D into their bodies they had no time or energy left to improve their lenses. Well….there is Nikon.
I have read some great reviews of the Contax CZ 120mm f4 Apo-Makro Planar Lens from Contax 645 users. I would like to know if there is a way that I can use this lens on a Canon DSLR Body (20D 1Ds MII). I am currently using a Sigma 105 2.8 Macro and would like to upgrade. Your comments and any information about this sort of a setup is really appriciated.
well ive never used that lens on a canon ( the Contax 645 120 macro.)
but i did use it on a Contax 645, and wow, that baby is sharp sharp sharp!! it just continually blew me away with the insane clarity of the images it produced.
mystque wrote:
I have read some great reviews of the Contax CZ 120mm f4 Apo-Makro Planar Lens from Contax 645 users. I would like to know if there is a way that I can use this lens on a Canon DSLR Body (20D 1Ds MII). I am currently using a Sigma 105 2.8 Macro and would like to upgrade. Your comments and any information about this sort of a setup is really appriciated.
Contax 645 lenses can't be used on Canon Cameras. They have no aperture ring, like the Canons!
The Viktor Hasselblad 120mm will work! I used it some time ago and never let me down. Just to be clear, medium lenses have a less high resolution but larger image circle, the quality of this lenses are optimized for mf not for 35mm gear
I'm about to buy a 5d. Will use CZ instead of Canon L glass.
I checked Emanuele's list (Thanks!) but I'm still not sure if the lenses I will go for will fit on the latest 5d's. My wish list CZ 4/18mm. CZ 2.8/28. CZ 28-70. CZ 28-85. I plan to mount them with a Huppert (germany) adapter.
The 5d and cz 35-70 f.3.4 and cz 28 f2.8 came in today.
The zoom works perfectly with the Huppert adapter but the 28 (mm japan, nr 6173831) does not clear the mirror. It's only 0,5 mm or so. At least I think it is.
I don't want to shave the mirror (I really do not dare to do the delicate work). I think it only takes a little bit of dremeling the back of the lens. Could anybody show or tell me which part of the lens needs to be worked on?
Andi, this dutch guy is going to walk around with the german lenses even during the Worldcup!
I am not sure if any one else has tried this to check if a lens will foul the mirror on a camera.
Just lock the mirror up with the function setting.
Attach the lens and fire the shutter.
If the lens fouls the mirror when it returns, you will see and hear the result.
This should be potentially less damaging than letting a mirror hit the lens on the way up.
What diffrence whould it make to the lens if it gets hit on the way up vs. on the way down? It is not the mirror that is at risk. That thing is some sort of plastic, and any area that may get scratched by striking the rear of a lens is out of your viewfinder area anyway.
The mirror rises very rapidly with some force, but falls quite slowly with the assistance of gravity. Potentially less damaging if the mirror gets stuck on the way down. It is a way to test if a lens will fit.
?
