joseph_wang3

To me, making a new holder is difficult. It involves lots of work like finding the right

materials, making lots of cutting on very hard steel-like material and cutting for the code.

Cutting for the code at the top of the holder is technically very difficult. The right material

is difficult to find, the plastic is soft but magnetic.

Modification of the original holder is much easier. It involved only enlarging the original

outlet by cutting soft plastic and steel like material. I used diamond burr hand drill. I

suppose

if you have a diamond cutter you might be able to do it as well. In the end it does work

that

the scanner is able to scan the full size 36.5X24.5 negatives.

This information could be useful for those who likes scanning with Imacon.

If you look at the size of the Flextight holder,35X24 is written on it. If you measure it, it is actually

35X23.5.

If you measure the size of the negatives, they vary. For my Contax RX, it measures 36X24. For my Leica

MP, it measures 36.5X24.

If I scan the negatives from my MP in my Imacon, there is a compulsory crop of at least 1.5mm X 0.5mm.

For a wide angle lens about 90 degree, 1.5mm reduction in negatives means 3-4 degrees reduction in the

angle of view.

What I did was to make the size of the holder bigger. I cut the black magnetic sheet with a simple cutter.

The flexible metal sheet is made of steel like material, in the end I used a 30000 rpm hand drill with

diamond burr to enlarge it.

In the end, the prints from my Zeiss M 25 2.8 looks like coming from ZM 21. Before the cutting, it used to

look like coming from ZM 28. Simple job worth doing.

Do others find the same problem ?

Try Imacon.

I have Imacon 646, it truely converts film to digital. They are better than Epson, Nikon,

Minolta and it can scan all sizes of negative, including one as big as A4.

Normandy- preDMR era I am wondering if you are posting this shot because you think it is

not good enough.

It is not good enough because of the scanner. If you have a good scanner, it will be better

than your shots with DMR.

I mean such as one from Imacon. I have one Imacon 646, the file it produce is much

preferred by me than those from the digital cameras. They just look more real to me.

I understand that servicing the C645 will be a problem.

120mm is a very nice focal length, it is like 75mm in 35mm format. As I am basically a

Contax fan, I will definitely get C645 and Contax 120. Perhaps I will get Hassy body as well,

in order to get over the adapter problem.

Thank Gary for the constructive answer. I will go for Contax 645 specially for this difference.

There are at least two more reasons to go for Contax instead of Hassy. All the Hassy lenses

could be used in Contax via an adapter but not the other way round.

I like the 2 second mirror lock in Contax. Does Hassy have mirror lock ?

As you all know, Zeiss make lenses for these camera companies. Hasselblad 120mm f4

Makro-Planar CFE and Contax 120mm f4 Apo-Makro-Planar are manual focus lenses for

SLRs. In paper, these lenses are different in optics.

Has anyone used both lenses and know about their difference ?

I am an extensive user of the Zeiss T* lenses in 35mm format photography. In general, T*

lenses have less contrast than the Leica counterpart.

I went to the second hand shop. The shopkeeper is offering me a Hassy 500 camera with two

lenses, one T* and one non-T*. He said the one non-T* has more contrast.

Does the change of non-T* to T* reduces the contrast of the lenses ?

On the other hand, T* could give you more vivid colours.

Here is a message for S. Linke. I am not sure where you get the number. To me, ZM 25mm

Biogon is breathtakingly sharp even at the corners.

The rectangular hood of Zeiss is for both 21 and 25, the round hood is for 25 or 28.

I don't think there is much difference in the performance of Leica and Zeiss bodies it is a

matter of personal taste to choose one of them. To me, I do like the appearance of the

leica bodies. I like the fact that M3 and MP are purely mechanical.

The nearer focusing ability of the Biogons are certainly merits. Although the close range

cannot be covered by the rangefinders, you could easily estimate the short distance by

using measuring tapes or by hand. For example the distance from the tip of my little

finger to the tip of my thumb is 22cm, twice of that is 44cm. Two and a half distance of

that is 55cm, well within the range of the Biogons. Near distance photography could give

you very interesting perspectives.

I am not sure what the problem is. I have also put the same photo on this site with no

problem.

http://www.contaxinfo.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-auth.cgi?file=/14022/399738.html

Zeiss Distagons are as impressive as their Biogons, in particular, most of them are able to

focus in much shorter distance than the rangefinder.

Here is an example of Contax Zeiss Distagon 28mm f2.0. It can focus down to 24cm. In this

short distance you can get subjects with very interesting perspectives.

I went to the camera shop today and found that the first lot of this lens are all sold, I ended

up with the money in my pocket rather than the lens.

Does anyone have the first experience of using this lens ?

This is the second time I am seeing this.

''Yes, but Zeiss own data indicates, that all of their 2.8 28 mm are better lenses''

written by Lotus M50

''Zeiss had good reasons, to stop production of the "Hollywood" Distagon 28mm 2.0.

The more modest 2.8 version, has better performance at lower cost.''

written by Richard S

It is very wrong to compare the two MTF graphs because one is at 2.8 and the other

at f2. The key is to compare them at the same f no.

You could compare the two lens at f5.6, to me the MTF of Zeiss 28 2 is better than

Zeiss 28 2.8. The key to understand this is that 28 2 have lines nearer the top. You

can see it has a strong kick when u=17, it has a much better performance than

28 2.8 at the margins.

By looking at the MTF charts, it is clear that Leica M28 2.0 is better than Zeiss 28 2.0.

However, Zeiss 28 2 can focus down to 0.24m, it opens the range with very

interesting perspective which is not covered by any rangefinders.

Although Richard S. suggested that Zeiss 28 2.8 is better than Zeiss 28 2.0, I would

definitely NOT agree with this.

From the MTF graph, it is not appropriate to compare one lens 2.8 with another lens

2.0. Of course 2.8 wins, it wins not because it is a better lens, but because it is 2.8.

I have both Zeiss 28 2.8 and 28 2.0, both are very good but 28 2.0 is better in

practical terms. At 5.6, 28 2.0 has a better MTF chart than 28 2.8.

Although I have never use the Zuiko 28 2.0, I am a bit worried about its performance.

The two lines, both saggital and tangential, are in great distance from each other. It

suggested that this lens has bad astigmatism. It means the images have both sharp

and blurr components in the focused area, the bokeh will not be good as it also has

both sharp and blurr edges.

If you look at the photo, the left is the new 50 1.4, the right being the new Macro

lens.

From this crop, the infinity of 50 1.4 is different from the other lens.

Imagine that you rotate the 50 1.4 so that the infinity reach the central line. You

could see that f16 is at about 5m. f16 of the macro lens is at 4m.

In conclusion, the new macro lens is most likely to be 60mm f2

.

I am checking the f22 position at infinity of different lenses from Zeiss and Leica

CY 35 2.8 at 1.3

CY 35 1.4 no f22 marking

Leica 35 2.8 between 1.5 and 2 in middle

Zeiss Ikon 35 2 between 1.5 and 2 in middle

CY 28 2.8 between 1 and 0.6

CY 28 2 between 1 and 0.6

CY 25 2.8 between 1 and 0.6

new distagon between 1 and 1.5

I have to draw the conclusion that the new lens is most likely to be ZF 35mm f2

http://www.hayatacamera.co.jp/services/miyazaki.html#01

Do you mean this one. I did the conversion from him. I spent a great deal of money

and effort.

In the end, is it worthwhile ? Yes, if you have a special passion to these G lenses and I

certainly have. The converted lens G45 has a better focusing accuracy on an M

camera than the G2. You could also use the G lenses in a quiet way.

The conversion actually convert them to Leica screw mount and you attach the lens to

M with an adapter. The important thing is the lens is coupled to the rangefinder.

It would be great to use these lenses to Leica screw mount camera. I am thinking

about converting G28 and G21. Once done , I will have a good set of lenses for Leica

III, cool, isn't it ? it is definitely authentic.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EEmy&tag=

Biogon, according to Zeiss at their site, means you can use it to see everything. It is a

term only used for wide-angles.

ZM 15 2.8 is a distagon. It is impossible to place the lens inside the camera and to

achieve a brightness of 2.8, so they have to design the lens outside the camera. This

is why it is called a Distagon.

C-Y 21 2.8 Distagon is a special lens, it can focus down to 0.22m. Special kind of

glasses were used and it has aspheric elements. Despite it being further away from

the film, it's abiility to resolve is very comparable to the Biogon 21 of both G and ZM

series. The Biogons can only focus down to 0.5m.

I am not sure why, all the 21s of Zeiss are impressive. None of other manufacturers

can compete.

For the photo I just posted, you can see that the f22 position is at about 1.3m similar

to other 35mm lenses

No, it is definitely not a 28mm f2.

I am checking the position of f22 in the DOF scale of different lenses from Zeiss and

Leica. The lens is set at infinity.

CY 35 2.8 at 1.3 m

CY 35 1.4 no f22 marking

Leica 35 2.8 between 1.5 and 2 in middle, most likely 1.7 m

Zeiss Ikon 35 2 between 1.5 and 2 in middle, most likely 1.7 m

CY 28 2.8 between 1 and 0.6 most likely 0.8

CY 28 2 between 1 and 0.6 most likely 0.9

CY 25 2.8 between 1 and 0.6

New Distagon between 1 and 1.5

I have to draw the conclusion that the new lens is most likely to be 35mm f2. 35 2 is

resonable because the first wide angle of a series should be 35 and not 28.

Although some of the C-Y lenses could be cheaper than the new ZF lenses, I am

considering to buy the new ones.

The two new ZF lenses are 85 1.4 and 50 1.4.

I have been using the C-Y 85 1.4 and 50 1.7. They are cheaper but their performance

are not good. Many people would find they like to use the 85 1.4 at f4 but not below.

This lens do not perform well below f4. Both of these C-Y lenses do not have nice

bokeh.

I hope the new ZF lenses have better performance at low f nos and bokeh.

Can I ask a question ? Is there an adaptor available which connects Nikon F mount

lens to Canon EOS mount ? I wish to connect the new ZF lenses to Canon body, both

film and digital.

Thanks Sean for the answer. I have a Contax S2 and I am sure it is the same for

Yashica FX3 and properly Nikon FM3a. For these 3 cameras, When you press the

shutter with the dial of the timer, the mirror lifts up but the shutter remains closed

until the timer stops timing when the shutter opens. So there is a time lag between

mirror hitting the roof and shutter opening.

I find this function to be extremely useful. I use it in nearly all my shots. It improves

the sharpness of the results in general.