surfotog wrote:
Wayne,
Having recently purchased an A900 body at a bargain price, I asked SK Grimes abouta Nikon F to Sony Alpha mount conversion for my ZF 100/2 macro Planar. This would be a new project for them, and they quoted me an estimate of $250-$400. An adapter won't work as the diameter of the F mount is too wide. This is also the case with Leica R lenses. The flange to focal plane distance will work, but the diameter of the mount necesitates a mount conversion.
Scott
Hi Scott,
Have you had any experience with Leica R on Sony Alpha? My friend has an adapted Leica 50/1.4 for Canon 5D that I've used for an hour and liked it very much. I have converted a Minolta 58/1.2 for Sony a900. I am hoping to find an affordable Leica 50/1.4 to try the same conversion as the Minolta 58/1.2 but was interested to see if anyone else has tried first.
Jim
I am also starting to feel the same about the Sony system. But I have some nice Leica, Contax and Zuiko glass for which I wish there were adapters to the Sony/Alpha A mount. I know that the flange distance is similar to the Canon (44mm vs 44.6) so technically I believe it can be done, but can’t find anywhere.
I posted yesterday on the conversion of a CYZ 35-70 f3.4 to Sony using an m42 focus confirm adapter. In short it's a tight but doable conversion pending final infinity testing when my sony camera gets here. The CY lenses have two steps on the flange that had to be accounted for in the conversion by milling two steps inside the adapter. There is just barely enough meat in the adapter to do the milling. The flange on the adapter is already the .9mm thick difference between the mounts and in order to retain the current aperture setting device the easiest way to mount the adapter is to epoxy it to the surface of the existing flange. The .9mm flange is just too thin to countersink.
Jim,
No experience yet with Leica R on the A900, in fact I don't have ANY lenses yet! I bought the body when I did because I found a deal that was too good to pass up. For mounting R lenses on Alpha bodies there seems to be at least two options, one being SK Grimes, the other being David Llado at Leitax. While he doesn't have a conversion kit (yet), he said he could do a custom job for about 200 Euros. If you have the machining skills it can be done. I'd like to find an "affordable" 80/1.4 summilux for my first taste of leica glass.
Edward,
I posted this review link ealier in this thread back on 25th.
I thought it was a good review which showed that the 16-35 needs to be stopped down to f8 to be sharp across the frame. It looks like to me that the 14-24G should be still better.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Edward,
I posted this review link ealier in this thread back on 25th.
I thought it was a good review which showed that the 16-35 needs to be stopped down to f8 to be sharp across the frame. It looks like to me that the 14-24G should be still better.
Oops, my bad I should pay attention next time. I am not sure how it would be possible to compare both unless you have any tests of the Nikon done on the D3X. Also I have never seen any other tester mentioning the extreme corners. I find his approach with 4 areas, Center, Middle, Border and Corners very commendable.
If you look at the resolution results for the 14-24 G
there is excellent sharp resolution across the frame including the corners by f4 at focal lengths in it range 14-24mm and also starts out very good at f2.8.
Compare that to the ZA 16-35 which starts out pretty bad in the corners for all the focal lengths in its range and the corners don't equal the other parts of the frame till around f8 for most focal lengths.
The ZA 16-35 lens has nice colors and contrast and is a pretty good lens but IMHO that the 14-24 G is better across the frame and much better at wider apertures.
Maybe Mark can weigh in here with what he thinks of the ZA 16-35 review results and crop shots.
I have no doubt the 14-24 is an exceptional lens, and it is probably better than the 16-35 ZA, heck it is almost as good as the Zeiss 21 Distagon. But as you noticed in the linked test, he used a 12 MP Nikon D3. I'm sure the 14-24 will perform very well on a D3X but I doubt the results will be as outstanding as on the D3.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I have no doubt the 14-24 is an exceptional lens, and it is probably better than the 16-35 ZA, heck it is almost as good as the Zeiss 21 Distagon. But as you noticed in the linked test, he used a 12 MP Nikon D3. I'm sure the 14-24 will perform very well on a D3X but I doubt the results will be as outstanding as on the D3.
I should pay attention next time. I am not sure how it would be possible to compare both unless you have any tests of the Nikon done on the D3X. Also I have never seen any other tester mentioning the extreme corners. I find his approach with 4 areas, Center, Middle, Border and Corners very commendable.