Contax G lenses converted to M

[macmx]

Has anyone tried some of the converted G lenses on M cameras?
I am particularly interested in how you focus manually and how the non-click aperture works out?

Any help is much appreciated. Thanks.

Mc

 

[bwcolor]

I have been researching this topic with regards to the Ikon ZM.

This morning, Dirk of Japan Exposures replied to a question that I posed regarding the functionality of the lenses. Here is his response:

"All the lenses will work very well on any M mount camera (with the exception of Epson R-D1 which needs some tuning)."

So, no personal experience on this end, but Dirk should have a pretty good fix on things since he is the middle man for these transactions.

 

[BTMarcais]

Raid did a test of the 28mm and 45mm conversions a few months back, do a search on the forum and you should be able to find them.
-Brian

 

[raid]

The lenses focused well on M bodies.

 

[jmkelly]

Not sure I understand the problem people have with clickless apertures. Guess one would never shoot with an old Sonnar? Shame - they are wonderful lenses.

 

[raid]

I shoot with so many lenses that I cannot afford such luxuries. I just deal with lenses with clicks,without clicks, aperture rings turning clockwise, turning counter clockwise ... etc.

 

[macmx]

I don't think I'd find clickless aperture a problem, but the clicks help when counting stops without taking your eye away from the viewfinder.

 

[ferider]

Check Ken Rockwell's site. He has some comments on the handling. For example, the aperture will move when you focus, if I understand.

The ZM lenses are good substitutes, I believe. For everything but the 90/2.8 (and the rare dual G lens).

For the 90/2.8, the M-Hexanon is a very good copy.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[splitimageview]

Because the Zeiss lenses are superb. But I'd rather just buy them cheap and use them on a G1. 😉

 

[splitimageview]

Lens choice is individual, for sure. In my book, there are none better. I love their look.

 

[raid]

A reminder that Amedeo will adapt your Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 SLR (QBM mount) lens to M for $75. The lens can be bought for $125, making the Zeiss M lens for only $200. It is also very well built on top of being excellent optically.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I've lusted after one of the converted 45mm Planars for ages, but the R-D1 tuning thing keeps bothering me. I must say, I don't understand it. The R-D1 has the same registration distance as my other M cameras, and focuses perfectly with all my other M lenses. So what's the problem with these conversions? if they work on, say, a Bessa, why not on an R-D1?

 

[raid]

Dear Fred,

Hard to argue. If it were silly-cheap, I could understand, but paying lotsa wonga for a conversion seems perverse to me.

Tashi delek,

R.

Hello Roger,
I used the money on two "new" lenses and kept my Zeiss G lenses for my G1 camera.

 

[jmkelly]

I've lusted after one of the converted 45mm Planars for ages, but the R-D1 tuning thing keeps bothering me. I must say, I don't understand it. The R-D1 has the same registration distance as my other M cameras, and focuses perfectly with all my other M lenses. So what's the problem with these conversions? if they work on, say, a Bessa, why not on an R-D1?

I don't know what it is about the R-D1 but I had a Canon 50/0.95 M-mount that worked perfectly on all my film cameras, but had serious close-focus and incorrect metering on my R-D1. Never tried it on my Bessa 3A. Finally sold it because it was just too big to put up with its peculiarities on my only dRF.

 

[Amedeo Muscelli]

The pitch of the helical of a 50mm lens is 3mm from infinite to 1 meter, but the 45mm lens is 10% shorter and the pitch is 2.7mm instead of 3mm. The rear edge than push the rangefinder cam must have a positive helical of 0.3mm (2.7+0.3=3mm) for to compensate the travel.

If you adjust the adapted lens for Leica M, where the rangefinder cam is just under the L seal, all the others cameras must have the cam in the same position. May be the Epson have that cam out of this position.

I've lusted after one of the converted 45mm Planars for ages, but the R-D1 tuning thing keeps bothering me. I must say, I don't understand it. The R-D1 has the same registration distance as my other M cameras, and focuses perfectly with all my other M lenses. So what's the problem with these conversions? if they work on, say, a Bessa, why not on an R-D1?