Convert G lenses to Leica M-mount
- Thread starter Jackslai
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 80
- Views 15K
nightfly
Well-known
How does the 28mm G compare to the standard M-Mount version? Would there be any reason to get one of these converted?
This isn't a comparison of the Contax G 28 to the ZM 28, rather Contax G vs. Leica 28/2.8 ASPH:
"I also compared this new Leica 28mm f/2.8 ASPH to the extraordinary Zeiss-for-Contax-G 28mm f/2.8. I found them equally excellent, and each far better than anything I've ever used on an SLR."
"I also compared this new Leica 28mm f/2.8 ASPH to the extraordinary Zeiss-for-Contax-G 28mm f/2.8. I found them equally excellent, and each far better than anything I've ever used on an SLR."
sepiareverb
genius and moron
They are different designs:
and so will draw differently. I've not seen the G 28 flare as much as the ZM did.
and so will draw differently. I've not seen the G 28 flare as much as the ZM did.
The MTFs for both are on the Zeiss site.
nightfly
Well-known
Was more looking for subjective opinions rather than charts. Any thoughts on how they draw differently? Which do you like better? Getting more into color lately and I've always liked the way Zeiss lenses render color so the idea of getting some sort of Zeiss 28 occurred to me, although I'm fairly pleased with the color rendering of my CV 28 3.5.
I prefer photos to charts, too, sorry I can't be of help. In general the Contax G lenses may be the best of any 35mm lenses for their given focal length and speed. If not the best, they equal the best. 😉
raid
Dad Photographer
I also prefer carefully taken photos to charts. Most people benefit more this way.
uhligfd
Well-known
They are different designs:
and so will draw differently. I've not seen the G 28 flare as much as the ZM did.
Interesting how symmetric, or nearly so the G 28 Biogon is. Here "symmetric" means the front block and the back block of the lens are nearly the same, except in reverse order. That is generally great for lack of distortions ... Retrofocus lenses are generally designed as highly unsymmetric, front to back. That tells you something about the distortion of the light pass through them. Correction, corrected or not ...
raid
Dad Photographer
I will try to nother type of lens comparisons. Ken already took care of the optical chart based testing.
J
JapanExposures
Guest
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Ken Rockwell's negative comments about ergonomics of the converted G lenses echo what struck about these lenses from the first moment I saw them. These just don't look to me like comfortable lenses to use in the hand.
Of course, once you have the photo (if you get the photo), you forget about the ergonomics. And in this case, the rewards of the G lenses are substantial.
Of course, once you have the photo (if you get the photo), you forget about the ergonomics. And in this case, the rewards of the G lenses are substantial.
raid
Dad Photographer
I will try to be objective and fair in my treatment of the two G lenses when I will compare them with other lenses. It seems that the optical side is great, as Ken has pointed out in his report. I don't want to do any lens comparisons like he did.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
The ergonomics of these lenses should feel completely familiar to anyone used to the older Zeiss lenses on Contax bodies, or Nikkors on Nikon RF.
hyun5suk
Member
How do you think about this Lens Comparison among Carl Zeiss G Planar 45/2, Carl Zeiss Planar ZM 50/2, and Konica Hexanon 50/2 ?
In my opinion, I couldn't find any difference between G Planar 45/2 and Planar ZM 50/2 except FOV.
About Hexanon 50/2, It has soft center than ZM and G, especially little buddha statue.
What about your opinion?
F.Rokkor
Newbie
My LTM converted G-Biogon 21/2,8 has arrived, straight from JapanExposures :rock:
More pics here : http://flor27.free.fr/Carl_Zeiss_G-Biogon_21_2.8_LM_conversion/
More pics here : http://flor27.free.fr/Carl_Zeiss_G-Biogon_21_2.8_LM_conversion/
raid
Dad Photographer
The lens looks awesome. Congrats.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I had a G45 converted to LTM and now M with an adapter last year in Tokyo. It was always my favorite 50ish so had to do it. The conversion came out nice but it is a bit fiddly. No click stops for the aperture. The barrel does rotate at the front. I use that front ring to focus with rather than the tiny little tab that was installed. I actually really like how light the focus action is with this lens. You can quickly find focus......very little resistance. I'll post a pic of the lens and maybe a sample in the AM. Total cost including buying an Ex+ condition lens from KEH about $600. I hope someone comes up with an easy solution for these G-series lenses. They will all be brilliant little orphans one day otherwise as the G-1 and G2 bodies go to pot.
raid
Dad Photographer
If the lens cost you $100, did the conversion in Japan cost you only $500?
I thought that it was $700.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
They are different designs:
and so will draw differently. I've not seen the G 28 flare as much as the ZM did.
Wow--I'm really surprised. i assumed they were the same. I really loved the photos I took with the G 28 Biogon, and I love the ZM 28 as well.
I thought I was digging identical twin sisters, but I guess they were fraternal. In any event, they are both hot.
Similar threads
