2 New Contax G2 Black Kits

Contax G lenses don't have mechanical focusing helicals so they can't work on anything else.

The solution is to take the glass out, and put it into a custom machined lens barrel with helical.

The 50/2 ZM Planar vs the 45/2 Contax G planar. Depends on how much you pay for the 45/2. If one already owns it, that may change the equation.

However if one is of the opinion that the Zeiss-built 45/2 is a better lens than the 50/2 Cosina-built lens, then perhaps the price is not as much of a factor.

The 85/4 Tele Tessar is new; no used ones yet. $877 at popflash.com. You can buy a LN 90/2.8 at KEH for $119; add the conversion cost and it's cheaper.

The 28/2.8 ZM and 35/2 ZM, are $876. It's possible to buy used Contax G 28/2.8 and 35/2 and convert them for less than this.

The 50/2 ZM is $691. This one is closer, but one can still find 45/2 G lenses pretty cheap if you look.
 
fbf said:
exactly what I would like to know. From the message I received, the conversion would take out the contax lens shell.
MF contax G lenses😛 sweet~
Click to expand...

Have a look at this!!!!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/focuslight/360487076/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/focuslight/1214959209/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/focuslight/845579017/

I have been wanting to do this for years but the price has always been the problem but apparently there is one guy here in Hong Kong who can do the same job for less, I am trying to source his contact details.

Cheers
Max
 
Last edited:
I believe Japan Exposures is contemplating selling lenses that have already been converted, ask Dirk for pricing, that would be the best comparison.
 
Do you have the pictures of the converted lens? and pictures taken with it? I am really interested...
 
image0005.jpg


image0001.jpg


image0002.jpg


image0004.jpg



image0003.jpg


image0012.jpg
 
Dawn, they look pretty nice...especially with the custom painted m4...
I didn't find any pictures taken with the converted lens though
 
Any Contax G1 or G2 photo would suffice...my favorite is the 45/2 Planar.

The lenses are actually Leica thread mount.

I've been looking into this for two or three weeks now. I'd rather have Contax G glass than ZM glass. I like to be different tho. 🙂
 
Last edited by a moderator:
weren't the Contax G series cameras/lens manufacturer by Kyocera in Japan (lens formulas licensed from Zeiss) and branded as Contax (rather than Zeiss?)

digitalintrigue said:
Contax G lenses don't have mechanical focusing helicals so they can't work on anything else.

The solution is to take the glass out, and put it into a custom machined lens barrel with helical.

The 50/2 ZM Planar vs the 45/2 Contax G planar. Depends on how much you pay for the 45/2. If one already owns it, that may change the equation.

However if one is of the opinion that the Zeiss-built 45/2 is a better lens than the 50/2 Cosina-built lens, then perhaps the price is not as much of a factor.

The 85/4 Tele Tessar is new; no used ones yet. $877 at popflash.com. You can buy a LN 90/2.8 at KEH for $119; add the conversion cost and it's cheaper.

The 28/2.8 ZM and 35/2 ZM, are $876. It's possible to buy used Contax G 28/2.8 and 35/2 and convert them for less than this.

The 50/2 ZM is $691. This one is closer, but one can still find 45/2 G lenses pretty cheap if you look.
Click to expand...
 
digitalintrigue said:
meven, do you know how much used G lenses go for in Hong Kong? or France for that matter. 🙂
Click to expand...

Used lenses (G, M, LTM, etc...) are more and more expensive in HK, I will have a look this week end but I doubt the prices will be lower than KEH. As for France, I have no idea, it has been a while since I bought any camera equipment there!!!

I will keep you updated but I think you better order from KEH, myself, I will do that after I send you my M2 for a dark hammertone repaint job (just need to finish the roll that's inside)!!!!!!!!!!
 
The first issue is then how good the optics on the G1/G2 lenses are when compared to the optics of the ZM. The second issue is how solid/reliable the converted lenses are as compared to the ZM. The third factor is the uniqueness and showing off issue. The converted G1 lenses are cool. The fourth factor is cost. [in different order of importance, depending on each person here].
 
monochromejrnl said:
weren't the Contax G series cameras/lens manufacturer by Kyocera in Japan (lens formulas licensed from Zeiss) and branded as Contax (rather than Zeiss?)
Click to expand...

The lenses say Carl Zeiss.

I believe they were built by what used to be Tomioka Optical in Japan, which was owned by Yashica, that built the Contax RTS lenses for Zeiss going back to the 70s. Then Kyocera bought Yashica.

My G1 was labeled "Kyocera Japan"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Other than the cachet of having unique, modified mounts, I am totally unpersuaded by these photos. Judging by looks (which are not definitive) I would not like the ergonomics of these lenses, particularly the uneven leap from aperture to focus ring--and it is different on each lens, no less. You guys must have dexterous fingers! The gap between rings also looks like a nice way for dust to enter the lens.
All of the ZM lenses I have in my possession are of incredibly high build quality (even my old planar had none of the oft-reported "wobble"). As good or better than what I've seen from Leica and Konica. And better than the G lenses I've seen. And consistent all across the board.
Go and do your G lens conversions because you love these lenses and/or want the cool factor of modified mounts.
The comparisons with the ZM line, however, seem totally speculative to me.
 
You've never shot with a Contax G lens, have you. 🙂

Most lenses are different from each other, different sizes, different feel, etc.

ZMs are excellent, no doubt.
 
digitalintrigue said:
You've never shot with a Contax G lens, have you. 🙂

Most lenses are different from each other, different sizes, different feel, etc.

ZMs are excellent, no doubt.
Click to expand...

Actually I have used the G system. I love Zeiss lenses, and have a modest Contax SLR system. But I wanted the full MF experience of rangefinders, so the G series bodies didn't speak to me. The ergonomic differences among G lenses are irrelevant in the G system since they all autofocus anyway. But now that conversions are becoming available, it's another cool choice to put manual Zeiss on an LTM/M body. In fact, some people might just want the conversion because of the LTM mount itself (which no ZM lens could match).

It'd be fun to see comparisons of the G lenses and their ZM counterparts. I followed the other thread cited above when it was first posted. The only reference in that thread is to MTF charts, but no actual photos. I hope you do the conversions and have a chance to compare with the ZM lenses and post the results so that the speculation ends and people can really decide based on use. Nothing beats photos for comparison.
 
They are sending some lenses to Japan for conversion then will be selling them in a week or two. Don't have a idea how they will charge it. Hopefully it will be reasonable...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom