I Got My 100mm f2.8 Back Today. It Took A Little While Longer Because Bo-Ming Addressed John Luke's Issues And Did A Major Up-Grade....
I Am Happy To Say It Is Great. Just A Test Run And Ya'll Will Have To Bear With My Subjects, I Live In Texas After All, lol... But I Am "Very" Happy.
Straight From The Camera....
Full Framed Sized For The Web (72dpi) And Center Cropped Sized For The Web (72dpi) At f2.8 And f8
Full @ f2.8
Center @ f2.8 (You Can Count The Strands In The Braided Wire)
Full @ f8
Center A f8
I Got Interested In The Contax Converted Lenses Because Of The 100mm f2.8 & The 17-35mm f2.8
They Have Lived Up To Every Expectation And More....
Thanks Bo-Ming.....
It Has Been Talked About Alot Around Here.... Sorry You Missed It.
Here Is A Link That Answers Most Questions....
And If You Use The Search Function Here It Will Bring Up Several More...
(It Is Disabled Right Now - FM Search - But Try Later)
Wow, nice shots. He's teasing me with this conversion on another board. Now seeing these shots, it's really, really tempting. Gotta figure a way to budget for it.
I have converted a Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Distagon T*, one of the sharpest wide angle lenses ever made, to SA mount: http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/p34210034.html
I also have also converted another of Zeiss's sharpest lenses, the 50mm f1.7 Planar T*, (its even sharper than the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar T*) to PK mount.
However while doing this I discovered that no two Carl Zeiss lenses have the same lensmount design...They are all slightly different from one another so a "standard, one fits all" conversion is simply not possible.
The Distagon was very simple to convert but the Planar was EXTREMELY difficult!...So converting Zeiss lenses is not something to take lightly.
I Own Both Lenses You Are Talking About. And Use Them With Adapters.. Fine Lenses
The Work Done By Bo-Ming Is Superb... And In My Opinion, Worth Every Penny Paid...
I Own 6 Of The Nine "N" Lenses... The 17-35 f2.8 & The 100mm f2.8 Are Stellar.
If My Next Convert (24-85mm) Lives Up To All I Have Seen, It Will Be Also...
Hpoefully The 70-200mm & The 50mm Will Soon Follow....
Alf Beharie wrote:
I also have also converted another of Zeiss's sharpest lenses, the 50mm f1.7 Planar T*, (its even sharper than the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar T*)
Hmm. Zeiss does not think that is the case, and the MTF's don't show that. I hate to disagree but, for the $50 more that it would cost for the 50 f1.4 instead of the f1.7, the better build quality, the closer focus, and the half stop of additional speed, make it well for the additional cost. The 2 lenses are comparable in terms of sharpness -- they are essentially the same design -as one is just smaller version (and accordingly slower) of the other. Overall the f1.4 is the sharper lens, but there might be an area where the 1.7 might be a touch better. I've had both, compared them, and kept the f1.4. (But of course, this is the wrong thread to discuss this. We should keep the discussion to the 100mm f2.8 N Makro-Sonnar conversion, which orginally had a Contax N lens mount and not the earlier Contax RTS/Yashica manual focus lens mount your lenses had).
They look over-sharpened to me...Here's a Cow I shot with my Tokina 17mm f3.5mm TL with zero sharpening: http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/p40476549.html
(you can see it full size by clicking on the pic)
The Only Sharpening Done Was A Final 100 - .5. - 1 USM
That Was The Point To This Post... The Lens Is Sharp ....
As To Weather It's Over Sharp, No Halos, And I Guess It's A Matter of Taste
Alf Beharie wrote:
I also have also converted another of Zeiss's sharpest lenses, the 50mm f1.7 Planar T*, (its even sharper than the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar T*)
Lotusm50 wrote:
Hmm. Zeiss does not think that is the case, and the MTF's don't show that.
Alf Beharie wrote:
But the MTF's DO show that...The 50/1.7 has an MTF of 4.6, the 50/1.4 has an MTF of 4.5.
The only other Carl Zeiss lens with an MTF of 4.6 is the 85mm f1.4.
The sharpest Carl Zeiss lens of all is the 45mm f2 G Planar which has an MTF of 4.7...And the only lens I am aware of that is sharper than that is the Canon 200mm f1.8 which has an MTF of 4.8...Bearing in mind that the maximum is 5.0, thats pretty impressive.
You can find these and many more lens MTF's here: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/lenses
Lotusm50 wrote:
I hate to disagree but, for the $50 more that it would cost for the 50 f1.4 instead of the f1.7, the better build quality,
Alf Beharie wrote:
There is no difference in the build quality...Apart from the rear mounting design differences, they are virtually identical in construction.
Lotusm50 wrote:
the closer focus,
Alf Beharie wrote:
I take it you mean shallower DOF?
Lotusm50 wrote:
and the half stop of additional speed, make it well for the additional cost.
Alf Beharie wrote:
Pay more more money for only half a stop brighter and less sharpness?...No thanks!
Lotusm50 wrote:
The 2 lenses are comparable in terms of sharpness -- they are essentially the same design -as one is just smaller version (and accordingly slower) of the other. Overall the f1.4 is the sharper lens, but there might be an area where the 1.7 might be a touch better.
Alf Beharie wrote:
The average MTF scores tell a different story, they show the 50/1.7 to be sharper overall but I suppose it comes down to how much faith you put in MTF results.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Hmm. Zeiss does not think that is the case, and the MTF's don't show that.
Alf Beharie wrote:
But the MTF's DO show that...The 50/1.7 has an MTF of 4.6, the 50/1.4 has an MTF of 4.5.
The only other Carl Zeiss lens with an MTF of 4.6 is the 85mm f1.4.
The sharpest Carl Zeiss lens of all is the 45mm f2 G Planar which has an MTF of 4.7...And the only lens I am aware of that is sharper than that is the Canon 200mm f1.8 which has an MTF of 4.8...Bearing in mind that the maximum is 5.0, thats pretty impressive.
You can find these and many more lens MTF's here: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/lenses
What is this source? Never seen it before. Anyway it appears to be just re-published photodo.com test. Not very authoratative. Further, as it has been discussed regarding photodo for some time, it is not clear what one number actually shows (and the averages are not done consistently across lenses). Further, are you going to tell me you are going to see the difference, with your eyes, in an image between a "4.6" rated lens and a "4.7" rated lens?? Good luck. I also have the Zeiss 45mm f2 G Planar and it is indeed a fine lens (it would be nice if it were faster) Anyway, to be clear here are Zeiss' MTF' charts for the 2 lenses at f5.6, showing the f1.4 to be clearly superior, but as I suggested, very similar. http://boncratious.info/Zeiss1-4_1.7MTF.jpg
Lotusm50 wrote:
I hate to disagree but, for the $50 more that it would cost for the 50 f1.4 instead of the f1.7, the better build quality,
Alf Beharie wrote:
There is no difference in the build quality...Apart from the rear mounting design differences, they are virtually identical in construction.
That is not true. The f1.4 is all metal. The f1.7 contains a high percentage of plastic. It was made cheaper in all ways so it could be sold at a cheaper price to entry level buyers.
Lotusm50 wrote:
the closer focus,
Alf Beharie wrote:
I take it you mean shallower DOF?
No. The lens focuses closer. The f1.4 focuses to .45 meter, while the f1.7 lens only focuses to .6 meter.
Lotusm50 wrote:
and the half stop of additional speed, make it well for the additional cost.
Alf Beharie wrote:
Pay more more money for only half a stop brighter and less sharpness?...No thanks!
As I said, it has significantly better, stronger construction, it is a half stop faster, focuses closer, and the f1.4 is, in fact, sharper (which is quite consistent with my comparison of the 2 lenses side by side). As with all things, you get what you pay for.
Now. Let's get back to the fine Zeiss 100mm f2.8 Makro-Sonnar (and leave the 50mm Planars to another thread if you want to press common misperceptions about the lenses)
That is not true. The f1.4 is all metal. The f1.7 contains a high percentage of plastic. It was made cheaper in all ways so it could be sold at a cheaper price to entry level buyers.
Alf Beharie wrote:
I dont know what you define as a "high percentage of plastic" but I have the here and I can tell you that the only plastic on it, if you dont count the lenscaps, is the aperture dial and the focus dial, everything else is either metal or glass.
