I use happypagehk adapters on all my Zeiss lenses incl. the 35-70. All of them work fine and adapter thickness is very constant at about 1.4 mm, so I don't think it's an adapter issue that your 35-70 doesn't work with your 5D. And a thicker adapter is no real solution because then you may not reach infinity.
(I would not send back the adapter but buy another Zeiss lens to use it;-)
If you look at the rear of the CZ 35-70 and zoom it back and forth at infinity you will see that the rear element can not be striking the mirror on a 5D. It simply does not protrude past the rear of the lens at any point so that cannot be the issue. There are only really three things it could be. 1) A defective Adapter 2) Somehow, perhaps the lens is not being mounted correctly to the adapter and/or the adapter to the 5D 3) Failure to remove the peice mentioned earlier(which you said you removed.
Well, I sent back both of happypagehk adapters today and ordered a significantly more expensive one instead. My concern with getting another made in China adapter is that they may all be made by the same factory - they certainly look identical when looking at them on ebay. In that case I would just be gambling on getting something that was a little bit thicker.
I know that some people don't buy the thickness variation explanation, but if Canon did not modiy their 5D mirror assembly I can't imagine would else it could be. You really can not install these adapters incorrectly - they either fit like a glove or they don't fit at all. I have a feeling that there is not a large amount of tolerance for the 5D miror clearing CZ lenses in general.
I already own two CZ lenses - both of which have mirror clearance problems - so I think I will try to make these two work before buying more lenses I can not use!
B Landau wrote:
Well, I sent back both of happypagehk adapters today and ordered a significantly more expensive one instead. My concern with getting another made in China adapter is that they may all be made by the same factory - they certainly look identical when looking at them on ebay. In that case I would just be gambling on getting something that was a little bit thicker.
I know that some people don't buy the thickness variation explanation, but if Canon did not modiy their 5D mirror assembly I can't imagine would else it could be. You really can not install these adapters incorrectly - they either fit like a glove or they don't fit at all. I have a feeling that there is not a large amount of tolerance for the 5D miror clearing CZ lenses in general. ...Show more →
which one did you get? did you get the black lilybox adapter?
This may have been covered -- I haven't read all the posts ---- but I found removing the block helps (2 screws). The 50mm on the right has a tab, the 35-70 uses a block. I think this block sticks out enough to 'grab' the mirror at the top of travel (after picture is taken).
Kevin. http://www.6887.com/photo/zeissmount.jpg
I did remove the block you refer to and still the mirror was hitting something. It may very well be that when I get another adapter that removing the block will make a difference, but right now it doesn't.
I am happy to report that the mirror blocking problem has been solved with a different adapter (fotodiox). This adapter is definitely thicker than the happypagehk adapter and does not necessitate removing the block that Tariq and Kevin mentioned. Infinity focus seems to be functioning fine as well.
In doing some comparative shooting between Canon AF lenses and CZ lenses I invariably notice that the CZ shots are overexposed in AV mode. For the 35-70 I have to underexpose by a full stop to match the exposure of the eqivalent focal length Canon lens. Is this common?
Thats odd that the Fotodiox adapter did not require you to remove the block as I have that same adapter and it did not work without removing said block with my 5D/35-70.
As far as exposure, Its not uncommon for the exposrue to be off and furthermore, an exact compensation of say 1 stop accross the board at every F-stop might not work. Keep in mind, you only have cener weighted metering no matter how you set the camera with this adapter, which is another reason some prefer the focus confirmation adapters which offer more metering compatibility.
With a non-AF-confirm adapter most of my Zeiss lenses meter accurately wide open but tend towards one stop overexposure as you shut down one or two stops and beyond. You get used to setting compensation as you set your aperture. My Oly lenses seem to be more reliable. I believe Canon metering relies on lens information to adjust the meter to the various widths and distances of rear elements.
brainiac wrote:
I believe Canon metering relies on lens information to adjust the meter to the various widths and distances of rear elements.
This is true, and the relationship isn't linear, so different aperture settings require different amounts of exposure compensation. The frustrating bit is figuring everything out and then remembering!
The mirror clearance issues with the 35-70/3.4 are obviously body specific. Neither my 1Ds nor my friend's 5D have problems with my 35-70/3.4 and CameraQuest adaptor, and that's with having to remove the the metal "block" attached to the lens. According to my Ec-B split screen and numerous pics at infinity, I am having no infinity issues either. This is so strange because neither of my Distagons 28/2.8 nor 21/2.8 will focus to infinity with the same CameraQuest adaptor. Ridiculous...
The 35-70/3.4 is a wicked lens, by the way. I got it last week and took it out for the first time this past weekend. It's wonderfully sharp even up into the corners, looks great wide open at 3.4, and has the coolest macro feature. If you focus the lens to its shortest focus distance (only at 35mm, and other focal length will not work), and then twist the focus ring a little harder to overcome some resistance, the lens goes into macro mode and the rear group of elements sink even farther inside the lens, allowing focus as close as a couple of (3?) centimetres. At 1:2.5, it's a wicked feature and so much fun. My only complaint (and it's a biggie) is that the focus throw is really long. You can turn the focus ring for days and still not be at the other end.
brainiac wrote:
It seems to occur in all metering modes. The good news is that it doesn't seem to occur with focus-confirm adaptors.
Neither my Nikkor zoom lenses nor my Contax zoom lenses worked very well with AF confirm chips. My 35-70mm would front focus with a chiped adapter.
StevenPA wrote:
My only complaint (and it's a biggie) is that the focus throw is really long. You can turn the focus ring for days and still not be at the other end.
g
On the other hand this allows you to manual focus the lens much better than what you could do with one of the modern AF zoom lenses
Andi, yes, there are compromises and balances with any lens, but for a 35-70 (nice walkaround length especially considering it has that neato macro function), I'd rather have the focus throw a bit shorter, like 2/3 or even half of what it is now. As it is, it's about 2/3 of a full revolution, which means I have to adjust my hand roughly 3 times to go from close focus to infinity. At a constant f/3.4, critical focus is less of an issue than with a larger apertured lens.
I just received my copy from keh - BGN rated for $205 and better than many lenses I've bought from ebay which were said to be near mint. Anyway, keh has my patronage from now on - no reason to go anywhere else as it's cheaper and more reliable than private sellers on ebay with unrealistic expectations of what they can get for things. Anyway, I digress.
To answer a couple of questions I had before I got it which others may also have - the macro function is not like the macro function on heaps of other zoom lenses like the 24-105 L etc. You get much, much closer - as close as 5-7cm, where lenses like the 24-105 only focus at ~25cm. This only happens at 35mm, which is the furthest extension of the push zoom, but the angle of view looks much more like 60mm. So you have something like a 60mm f 3.4 1:~2.5 macro. In other words, it's enough to fill the frame with something a couple of inches in radius, which is about as macro as I think I'll want for the moment.
It is also almost as sharp as my Contax 50 1.4 and probably a bit sharper than my 24-105, which I've always thought was fairly sharp for a zoom. Lovely, lovely colour. I really could see it becoming my walkaround, as I'm coming to take manual focus for granted, but time will tell.
On Contax 50s, I also picked up a 50 1.7 MM because once the postage to Australia's taken into account, you might as well splurge a little. In confirmation of what's generally accepted, the 1.7 is definitely sharper than my 1.4 AE (with ninja aperture blades) wide open and at f2, and even right to 5.6. At f8 the 1.4 takes over marginally. The colour is a little less saturated on the 1.7, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - but I can't really say till I've got something mroe than my yard to shoot. It's much lighter than the 1.4 and plasticky - but that doesn't bother me considering it was ~$70. The focus mechanism is pretty yucky - more like Canon than Zeiss - but I seem to be able to focus it better than just about anything else.
Anyway, just a couple of experiences to add to the mix. But bear in mind that this was all judged on a 30D.
I received a 35-70 that was advertised in like new condition, but the focus was stiff in the 7-12ft range or so, and when focused at 10ft it wouldn't zoom in from 35mm. Anyone have problems like this?
Also, I am not sure that the aperture was opening all the way, I could still see the blades when at 3.4, and I couldn't see it on any of my other lenses when opened all the way. Can someone take a picture through the back of the lens at 3.4 to show what the blades should look like? Also, when I shook the lens I could hear a slight jingling (Aperture blades?). Anyone have this?
Justin, you are the one that bought the 35-70 from Keh, I was watching Keh for one and it showed up for just a couple days about 1-2 weeks ago, I almost bought it. Oh well, I hope you enjoy it.
