p.85 #1 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
buggz2k wrote:
So the NEX adapters for Contax G glass don't go to infinity, nor close focus?
I'm confused...
I was planing to get an NEX7 and cheap adapters, and this is one of the lenses I was looking at.
No, the problem with using the G lenses is that there is no way on the lens itself to manually focus it. Instead, there's a small interface in the lens that turns and is geared to adjust the focus. Since that interface would normally link with the G camera, it has to instead interface with a receptacle on the adapter and you have to turn the adapter to focus. Some adapters work well (enough) and some don't. Some shooters hate the experience so much, they don't use the lenses. But the adapters allow for the lenses full infinity to MFD focus. Derek's allows for closer than MFD focusing (.3M instead of .5) because the travel of the 58's helicoid is longer than that of the 45's.
p.85 #2 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
freaklikeme wrote:
No, the problem with using the G lenses is that there is no way on the lens itself to manually focus it. Instead, there's a small interface in the lens that turns and is geared to adjust the focus. Since that interface would normally link with the G camera, it has to instead interface with a receptacle on the adapter and you have to turn the adapter to focus. Some adapters work well (enough) and some don't. Some shooters hate the experience so much, they don't use the lenses. But the adapters allow for the lenses full infinity to MFD focus. Derek's allows for closer than MFD focusing (.3M instead of .5) because the travel of the 58's helicoid is longer than that of the 45's....Show more →
yup, that's a good summary. i never really had much trouble focusing with the on adapter focus ring, but was still always annoyed by it because it turned the wrong direction (the nikon/pentax direction) and my hand didn't automatically fall to it. this solves both problems and gives me a more precise nicer feeling focus ring.
p.85 #3 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
Great job sebboh! Very neat!
This is very interesting for me. I instantly have some questions...
Did you manufacture that ring yourself, that centers the lens at the front (the flat one with the two holes)?
How would you approach to transfer the aperture values? By measuring the light with a camera meter, or by holding the G45 aperture ring side by side to the Rokkor aperture ring and making the marks?
Thanks for your insight!
I sold my first Frankenzeiss but have already another G45 sitting on my shelf next to a Olymus 50mm Macro donor body again. This Oly glass suffers fungus, therefore no bad conscience
p.85 #4 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
Got an Olympus OM body that doesn't kind of work with a 50/1.8 Zuiko and this...for $10
This is the version made by Komine...well made...very smooth focusing...and accurate
p.85 #5 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
Yes please, I'd like to know more about this, sounds like a great idea to me.
sebboh wrote:
it's not rangefinder coupled, i don't have the equipment for that (or a rangefinder to use/calibrate it on). i just used a cheap m-mount to NEX adapter for the actual mount.
no pictures of the process. it actually turned out to be non-destructive of both lenses (though the rokkor is now missing key parts) except that i put four new holes in the mount base of the rokkor. when i decide for sure to keep it in this form i'll photograph it's construction process.
p.85 #6 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
sebboh wrote:
yup, that's a good summary. i never really had much trouble focusing with the on adapter focus ring, but was still always annoyed by it because it turned the wrong direction (the nikon/pentax direction)
Ah, I spotted a mistake here: this is correctly called "the right direction"
p.85 #8 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
m-a-x wrote:
Great job sebboh! Very neat!
This is very interesting for me. I instantly have some questions...
Did you manufacture that ring yourself, that centers the lens at the front (the flat one with the two holes)?
How would you approach to transfer the aperture values? By measuring the light with a camera meter, or by holding the G45 aperture ring side by side to the Rokkor aperture ring and making the marks?
Thanks for your insight!
actually that ring (which has four not two holes) is what centers the optics on the original g 45. it just happens to fit perfectly within the front optical block of the rokkor (with the optics removed obviously). incidentally, if i remove that front optical block module, the front of the g 45 that contains filter rings and name plate fits in perfectly. unfortunately that piece is to long to get clamped in place by the rokkor name plate, so i will have to trim it down in both the front and the back in order to use it.
both the rokkor and the contax have aperture rings that travel a consistant distance between each stop. i'm going to calculate the angular distance each travels from f/2 to f/16 and try to arrange a lever system that will correctly multiply the angular distance traveled by the appropriate constant. this is actually how the original rokkor aperture control worked, so there are lots of pieces from it i can hopefully reuse.
carstenw wrote:
Ah, I spotted a mistake here: this is correctly called "the right direction"
blasphemy! how could leica, zeiss, and minolta (canon and olympus too) all get this wrong? i think even nikon used to have it right on their rangefinders and just switched on their slrs to make people disinclined to switch away from their system.
p.85 #9 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
sebboh wrote:
blasphemy! how could leica, zeiss, and minolta (canon and olympus too) all get this wrong? i think even nikon used to have it right on their rangefinders and just switched on their slrs to make people disinclined to switch away from their system.
Actually, Nikon retained the focus direction from RF to SLR, but the true source of confusion lies with CZ, who championed "wrong" way focus direction with their Contax RF (prewar and post). Nikon simply adopted the mount and direction after the war. By the rollout of Contarex, CZ had reversed the direction to that of Leica. Poor Nikon was making lenses for Contax RF and Leica LTM in the '50s - that must have been interesting.
p.85 #10 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
rico wrote:
Actually, Nikon retained the focus direction from RF to SLR, but the true source of confusion lies with CZ, who championed "wrong" way focus direction with their Contax RF (prewar and post). Nikon simply adopted the mount and direction after the war. By the rollout of Contarex, CZ had reversed the direction to that of Leica. Poor Nikon was making lenses for Contax RF and Leica LTM in the '50s - that must have been interesting.
ah, i'd only used the nikon ltm rangefinder lenses.
p.85 #11 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
sebboh wrote:
blasphemy! how could leica, zeiss, and minolta (canon and olympus too) all get this wrong? i think even nikon used to have it right on their rangefinders and just switched on their slrs to make people disinclined to switch away from their system.
I offer only one, overwhelmingly persuasive piece of evidence: Canon. Whichever way they use is obviously wrong, so Nikon *must* be right
p.85 #12 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
I have a Fuji m42 lens that focuses "the wrong way".
I don't mind that they go the other way, as long as I don't bring a mixed set out with me, because that just slows things down due to confusion.
p.85 #13 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
LightShow wrote:
I have a Fuji m42 lens that focuses "the wrong way".
I don't mind that they go the other way, as long as I don't bring a mixed set out with me, because that just slows things down due to confusion.
Especially true for shooting action...when focusing has to be automatic...when it's one thing you don't have time to think about
...that's why for years I stuck with lenses that focused in the same direction as my Nikkors
...still, when I came across a 24/2.8 Oly that focuses "in reverse" I "caved" because the optical quality is much better than the 24 Nikkor I had....and because I'll be using it for static stills rather than for action shots
...then I found a very nice 28/2.8 vivitar/komine in an Oly mount (above) that focuses like the Oly...and so I've added another "oddball" to my kit...it's very well made...very smooth focusing...and accurate
p.85 #16 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
aleksanderpolo wrote:
^What is that??!! I must have missed it.
I got a Pentax "hollywood" recently by the way.
it is a contax g 45/2 in the helicoid/body of a rokkor 58/1.4. i posted the initial conversion on previous page, but now it has the proper zeiss nameplate added.
i've heard of the contax "hollywood" 28/2, but what is the pentax "hollywood"?
p.85 #17 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
The K 28/2, resulted in a brief period of collaboration between Zeiss and Pentax before Zeiss went with Contax, also resulted in the K 15, and possibly the SMC/T* coating, see this article by Marco Cavina (in Italian):
p.85 #20 · What is your most recent (alt) lens purchase?
carstenw wrote:
Haha, okay. Well, I would say, don't hang on to it if you have any reason to sell, but I will certainly ask you about it when I get some money again. Oh, in what shape is it?
Bif, I am going to weasel out of this one. I found one locally for the same price you are offering, roughly, but saving me expensive shipping and import duties.
