The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Contax G to MFT adapter - anyone?
- Thread starter slau
- Start date
Darn, I forgot about that. Yes, that's better. Thank you.
J
jakieff
Guest
Philip
thank's a lot for your advice.
Very nice , the pics you have posted.
Jacques
thank's a lot for your advice.
Very nice , the pics you have posted.
Jacques
W
wellitry
Guest
I've been lurking for a few days. I have a G1 that has seen little use in the last few years, along with 45 & 90 mm lenses. I am considering purchasing a GF1.
I see that B&H has a Novoflex adapter for $211.90, http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/646921-REG/Novoflex_MFT_CONT_Contax_Yashica_to_Micro.html. Obviously much more expensive than others that have been discussed here. There is no description to explain focusing mechanism. Is anyone familiar with it?
I see that B&H has a Novoflex adapter for $211.90, http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/646921-REG/Novoflex_MFT_CONT_Contax_Yashica_to_Micro.html. Obviously much more expensive than others that have been discussed here. There is no description to explain focusing mechanism. Is anyone familiar with it?
P
Punchman
Guest
Wellitry, I do not believe that the Novoflex adapter you linked too is for the Contax G lenses. It will not work - allow focusing - with G lenses. It is for other Contax (non-G) lenses. The only adapters that work with the Contax G lenses are the ones designed specifically for them and discussed throughout this message thread.
Well, I just got my Kipon adapter and have mixed feelings.
1) The two lenses I have are RIDICULOUSLY sharp! The 45/2 and 90/2.8 are just..... there are no words. I honestly believe the 45/2 outresolves the EP-1 sensor. I mean, just ridiculous sharpness. I'll get up a crop sample soon, but looking at 1:1 you could print a 8x10. I'm floored. I think these two lenses would be far too sharp for portraits unless you were willing to do some serious softening (or your subject has perfect skin!)
2) Focusing is a pain in the @$$!!! I can't imagine using the non-geared adapter. Perhaps it's my enormous fingers or perhaps it's because my lenses are a little stiff, but boy oh boy, it's a pain to go from MFD to infinity. I'm getting used to it, but it's very difficult.
3) After a LOT of messing about I am now able to easily get the lenses on and off. I'd never used Contax before and I think the "special" way in which lenses are mounted are what held me up, not the adapter. The adapter is very well machined and has a nice tight fit.
4) Did I mention these things are SHARP?!?! I can't believe they're as cheap as they are. I mean, they're not free, but you can pick BOTH of these up for under $400 if you look around a little.
1) The two lenses I have are RIDICULOUSLY sharp! The 45/2 and 90/2.8 are just..... there are no words. I honestly believe the 45/2 outresolves the EP-1 sensor. I mean, just ridiculous sharpness. I'll get up a crop sample soon, but looking at 1:1 you could print a 8x10. I'm floored. I think these two lenses would be far too sharp for portraits unless you were willing to do some serious softening (or your subject has perfect skin!)
2) Focusing is a pain in the @$$!!! I can't imagine using the non-geared adapter. Perhaps it's my enormous fingers or perhaps it's because my lenses are a little stiff, but boy oh boy, it's a pain to go from MFD to infinity. I'm getting used to it, but it's very difficult.
3) After a LOT of messing about I am now able to easily get the lenses on and off. I'd never used Contax before and I think the "special" way in which lenses are mounted are what held me up, not the adapter. The adapter is very well machined and has a nice tight fit.
4) Did I mention these things are SHARP?!?! I can't believe they're as cheap as they are. I mean, they're not free, but you can pick BOTH of these up for under $400 if you look around a little.
47th_vacuum_space
Member
The 45/2, for my money, is the best normal lens ever. I own a Contax G2 exclusively in order to use it...
Z
zivk
Guest
I did get a chance to do some very limited testing yesterday. It was snowing and the light was very diffuse. What I noticed over several tests uniformly is that although quite good wide open, both Planar45 and Sonnar90 markedly improved one stop down (not just sharpness, contrast too) but that further stopping down didn't really improve anything (except of course the depth of field). Since having a very shallow depth of field is for me one of the primary reasons to use these lenses, my conclusion is that both are at their best at one stop down from fully open (2.8 for Planar & 4.0 for the Sonnar). You get maximum sharpness+contrast+depth of field that way - at least to my eyes. I am now very happy with the results -- I got that 3D feel I like so much with these lenses. The other thing I like is precisely the difficulty of it all (removing the RJ adapter with the little screwdriver for instance, and of course, the focusing) -- this all works to slow you down and make you more deliberate. That's one of the reasons I play with 4x5 Linhof Technika too (not mine, I borrowed it indefinitely from my anthropology department where nobody has been using for at least 15 years). What follows are the pics (nothing special as photos but good enough for preliminary testing). All were taken from approximately the same distance. GF-1 was set at 100ASA and each of the lenses was shot first at full opening with each successive shot one stop down. The last one was done with Panasonic 20mm/1.7 at f2.5 for comparison. All are RAWs developed in SYLKIPIX with no alterations (except downsizing)
Here's a little OVER 100% crop from the 45/2 on the EP-1 at f/2.8 and ISO200. Exported from LR with +5 clarity and +30 sharpening and detail:
This is actually not the sharpest sample, but it's kinda rude to do close up shots of a persons skin without makeup
I should note, this is how large it is when viewed 1:1 on my 1920x1200 screen. The phrase "100% crop" is probably over used and inaccurate. The "actual" full size sample can be found here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...authkey=Gv1sRgCNHOjqnK7be2zwE&feat=directlink
Here's the original picture so you can get the sense of scale:
This is actually not the sharpest sample, but it's kinda rude to do close up shots of a persons skin without makeup
I should note, this is how large it is when viewed 1:1 on my 1920x1200 screen. The phrase "100% crop" is probably over used and inaccurate. The "actual" full size sample can be found here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...authkey=Gv1sRgCNHOjqnK7be2zwE&feat=directlink
Here's the original picture so you can get the sense of scale:
Last edited:
I'm not sure I follow you there really. A 100% crop is a 100% crop, why would it be used in an inaccurate way?
I'm also happy with my Planar 45/2.
I never owned a Contax G camera but I owned this Planar for a loong time now waiting for somebody to make an adapter.
I have been working a lot lately, the weather is grey and so on, but just for the sake of it I can post this high ISO handheld thing taken in bad light at a mall:
Doesn't look like anything special at all but here is a100% crop:
If that can be done handheld at f/2, 1/45 and close distance I think it confirms my initial impression of the lens. A short but boring test series taken at home in better light was of course better.
About unmounting the lens; I think it is the mount causing problems rather than the adapter. I have no problems at all mounting and unmounting the lens (from the Kipon adapter). The first, and only, time i handled a G1 camera I had problem unmounting the lens. That's because the mount is different from all other lens mounts.
The key is to press the release tab and then, by holding the mounting ring on the lens only, swiftly turn the lens (parts of it really) about 15 degrees to the right (assuming looking at the camera and lens from the back. It is very easy to grasp other parts of the lens as well. Then one is only fighting oneself while stressing the mount and the locking tab.
/Jonas
Hi,
I don't have both, and will never have. So, I can only give you my two cents based on indirect comparisons.
From my first, and a bit sloppy, resolution test I can say the Planar 45 has as good resolution in the center as the little Panasonic G20/1.7, maybe a tad better. At f/2 the Planar contrast may be half a notch lower, I have to do a better controlled test to see that (I had to push the Planar images half a stop as I forgot to compensate for my quick non standard setup). At f/2.8 and f/4 the Planar is as good or better than the pancake.
The pancake in turn is a notch sharper than the PL 45 2.8.
The Planar seem to hold all the way to the borders.
The Planar bokeh can be a bit busy at f/2 (this is a Zeiss after all, it is all about micro contrast). At f/2 the PL 45 2.8 doesn't do much at all...
At f/2.8 the Planar bokeh is more neutral. Also this is something I have to look closer at during the week. The PL 45 2.8 shows some bright rings and onions when looking closer at OOF highlights, I guess there is some ASPH lens elements somewhere?
But, these are different animals. A new slow macro lens with AF and AE and OIS vs a completely manual medium fast normal lens from the 90's... Now I have sold my FF stuff but for the money involved I would much rather pick up an EF100/2.8 USM MkII than the PL 45 2.8. Whatever that comment has to do with everything.
I hope somebody having both these lenses notice your request.
regards,
/Jonas
Well, how is a 100% crop measured? Is it 10% of the whole image, 30%? Doesn't the whole idea of a 100% crop seem weird when everybody has a different size monitor? My 1:1 view is going to be different from somebody using a 720p monitor.
I'm being serious with my questions, not condescending.
Hi all, thanks for sharing these photos. Great stuff!
I'm interested in picking up the 45mm and 90mm lenses. I'm more familiar with the Contax Zeiss C/Y mount lenses so forgive my newbie-like question on the Contax G lenses.
Is aperture and focus control hard to do with the geared m4/3 Kipon mount?
Is there a dial instead of a focus ring for these lenses?
Thanks in advance!
Gary
I'm interested in picking up the 45mm and 90mm lenses. I'm more familiar with the Contax Zeiss C/Y mount lenses so forgive my newbie-like question on the Contax G lenses.
Is aperture and focus control hard to do with the geared m4/3 Kipon mount?
Is there a dial instead of a focus ring for these lenses?
Thanks in advance!
Gary
Jonathon Delacour
Subscriber Member
The term "100%" crop is quite unambiguous -- and independent of monitor size or the size (in pixels) of the crop or of the original digital image.
You enlarge the image to 100% (or 1:1 proportion) in Photoshop/Lightroom/whatever and take a crop of the area of interest. It doesn't matter if the cropped image is (for example) 400x300 pixels or 800x600 pixels -- both of these are 100% crops because you did the crop when the magnification was set to show the actual pixels. The 100% refers to the magnification of the image when the crop was made.
Hmmmm. I guess I understand what you're saying, but 1:1 looks different on different monitors, doesn't it? So isn't it a kind of poor universal unit of measurement? Like I said, I'm using a 1920x1200 monitor. So 1:1 magnification on my monitor is something like 1456x1120 for an M43 shot. If I were to use a 1650x1080 monitor, wouldn't the 1:1 magnification be a smaller area of the picture?
Jonathon Delacour
Subscriber Member
The Olympus m4/3 cameras (E-P1/E-P2/E-PL1) deliver a maximum image size of 4032x3024 pixels while the Panasonic m4/3 cameras (G1/GH1/GF1) produce a maximum image size of 4000x3000 pixels.
How can 1:1 magnification on your 1920x1200 monitor be 1456x1120 when the actual image size (either 4032x3024 or 4000x3000) is more than double the width and 2.5 times the height of your display?
scho
Well-known member
Thanks for your analysis Jonas. I have both the 20 1.7 and PL 45 2.8 and I agree with your assessment of relative sharpness of these two lenses. I like the PL 45 for its primary role as a macro lens, but I'm less enthusiastic about using it for portrait and most landscape work (the exception being landscape detail). The Contax G 45 seems to be readily available at reasonable prices so I may pick one up and see for myself how it compares with the PL 45.