Converting Contax G to M Mount

[pushto1600]

Hello y'all, second time posting on this forum so forgive me if it seems like I don't know what I'm doing. I'm very interested in converting Contax G lenses to my M4-P, what is the best way to do so? Have someone do it for me? DIY? Thanks in advance for your responses.

 

[raid]

I have seen on ebay cheap adapters for minimal work to be done.
I chose DAG instead. It costs about $500.

 

[pushto1600]

I have seen on ebay cheap adapters for minimal work to be done.
I chose DAG instead. It costs about $500.

you can convert through DAG?

 

[B-9]

Raid, can you post a photo of a lens DAG converted?

Curious what Don uses.

 

[raid]

My Zeiss Hologon 16/8 was converted by Don to M mount. It is perfect.

 

[raid]

 

[raid]

you can convert through DAG?

When he accepts to do such work.

 

[splitimageview]

I don’t know as DAG does conversions for the 21-90mm G lenses.

Hawk Peng (Hawks Factory on eBay) had the best conversions a few years ago, I used to be his US agent, but he took forever to complete them. I don’t know if he still does them or not.

There was a guy on the west coast who did a similar conversion but not to the same finish standards, no focus scale for example.

 

[raid]

My lens has from the start no RF focusing.

 

[mcfingon]

That makes a very easy-to-carry almost flat-fronted camera Raid. It's a lovely-looking M3 you've got the lens on too. Congratulations!
John Mc

 

[filmtwit]

Raid how's on your M9 or M240?

I had a 21mm ziess g that was converted to M mount, for film it was great, but for digital, it wasn't soo good is why I ask.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I don’t want to be the weirdo on this, but what the heck. In the event that the OP has not fully thought this through, and he probably has, but just in case.........it seems counterproductive to me to so this for a whole host of reasons.
You can get one perfectly nice Contax G1 body, almost two for the $500 DAG apparently charges to convert one lens. Which allows you entry into the entire stable of lenses and not just one. And for less money. And still leaves you with the option of even more of that excellent G glass, not just one lens.

I could understand this if we were talking about converting one favorite lens for use on a digital M, but if you are just going to use it on a film body, there are cheap Contax bodies available that take better advantage of the lens than an M4P will ever be able to. The G1 gives you autofocus. Metered. Auto exposure. And the autofocus works regardless of what some say. That’s an issue with them, not the camera. The G1 will allow you to focus down to 0.3meters. Plus, there are advantages to carrying two bodies instead of one. Two speeds of film. Color and b&w. I know, one body is smaller to carry than two, so there’s that.
Anyway maybe you have already considered all that and still decided to fo the adapter route, and that’s fine. Just a thought.
I adapt all kinds of lenses to all kinds of cameras, but not going to adapt G lenses to my M. That just seems like a case of one step forward, two steps back to me, as one who uses both cameras and both types of lenses. But, whatever works best for you is best for you.

 

[pushto1600]

I don’t want to be the weirdo on this, but what the heck. In the event that the OP has not fully thought this through, and he probably has, but just in case.........it seems counterproductive to me to so this for a whole host of reasons.
You can get one perfectly nice Contax G1 body, almost two for the $500 DAG apparently charges to convert one lens. Which allows you entry into the entire stable of lenses and not just one. And for less money. And still leaves you with the option of even more of that excellent G glass, not just one lens.

I could understand this if we were talking about converting one favorite lens for use on a digital M, but if you are just going to use it on a film body, there are cheap Contax bodies available that take better advantage of the lens than an M4P will ever be able to. The G1 gives you autofocus. Metered. Auto exposure. And the autofocus works regardless of what some say. That’s an issue with them, not the camera. The G1 will allow you to focus down to 0.3meters. Plus, there are advantages to carrying two bodies instead of one. Two speeds of film. Color and b&w. I know, one body is smaller to carry than two, so there’s that.
Anyway maybe you have already considered all that and still decided to fo the adapter route, and that’s fine. Just a thought.
I adapt all kinds of lenses to all kinds of cameras, but not going to adapt G lenses to my M. That just seems like a case of one step forward, two steps back to me, as one who uses both cameras and both types of lenses. But, whatever works best for you is best for you.

i did think of this actually! but i like to keep my gear simple.

 

[splitimageview]

The close focus on the G lenses on G bodies is actually 0.5m but that's still significantly better than the usual 0.7m of Leica M.

The G1 is my favorite of the two, as it's lighter/smaller. They are quite cheap, not long ago perfect ones were was low as $100, but that's gone up to about $200 nowadays.

The key to shooting G bodies is to practice positioning the camera within the cone of the viewfinder exit pupil, the G2 being slightly improved over the G1 in this regard. If the eye is the slightest bit off-center from the cone of the exit pupil, the viewfinder goes dark.

Then, learn what the camera wants in terms of autofocus. Many people never figure this out and get frustrated, but the AF system is actually quite good if you know what it is looking for.

 

[raid]

Raid how's on your M9 or M240?

I had a 21mm ziess g that was converted to M mount, for film it was great, but for digital, it wasn't soo good is why I ask.

Such extreme wide angle lenses were designed for use with film cameras and not for digital cameras. My 16/8 shows purple smearing at the edges and it is less sharp there too. It does better with the M8 which has cropping and which has a different cover for the sensor. I am currently using the 16mm lens on my M3, but I also enjoy using it with the M9 for special effects and with the M8 for a 21mm vies with little smearing.


With M9:

 

[raid]

I don’t want to be the weirdo on this, but what the heck. In the event that the OP has not fully thought this through, and he probably has, but just in case.........it seems counterproductive to me to so this for a whole host of reasons.
You can get one perfectly nice Contax G1 body, almost two for the $500 DAG apparently charges to convert one lens. Which allows you entry into the entire stable of lenses and not just one. And for less money. And still leaves you with the option of even more of that excellent G glass, not just one lens.

I could understand this if we were talking about converting one favorite lens for use on a digital M, but if you are just going to use it on a film body, there are cheap Contax bodies available that take better advantage of the lens than an M4P will ever be able to. The G1 gives you autofocus. Metered. Auto exposure. And the autofocus works regardless of what some say. That’s an issue with them, not the camera. The G1 will allow you to focus down to 0.3meters. Plus, there are advantages to carrying two bodies instead of one. Two speeds of film. Color and b&w. I know, one body is smaller to carry than two, so there’s that.
Anyway maybe you have already considered all that and still decided to fo the adapter route, and that’s fine. Just a thought.
I adapt all kinds of lenses to all kinds of cameras, but not going to adapt G lenses to my M. That just seems like a case of one step forward, two steps back to me, as one who uses both cameras and both types of lenses. But, whatever works best for you is best for you.

It is about the possibility to use your Leica M camera with such lenses. This is all. I also have a Zeiss G 45/2 in M mount that someone converted (with RF coupling). I also have same lens in G mount. It is that good of a lens.

 

[raid]

That makes a very easy-to-carry almost flat-fronted camera Raid. It's a lovely-looking M3 you've got the lens on too. Congratulations!
John Mc

Thank you, John. I bought this M3 in like-new condition many years ago from a gentleman who bought two M3 cameras in Germany while stationed there. My M3 was his back-up camera that he took out of its box once a year to exercise the shutter without film, he told me. It came with the Leica receipt!

 

[raid]

I still have two G1 cameras, and I agree with what you have said here. There is nothing seriously flawed with the G1.
I have the Zeiss 28, 45, and 90 lenses in G mount.

The close focus on the G lenses on G bodies is actually 0.5m but that's still significantly better than the usual 0.7m of Leica M.

The G1 is my favorite of the two, as it's lighter/smaller. They are quite cheap, not long ago perfect ones were was low as $100, but that's gone up to about $200 nowadays.

The key to shooting G bodies is to practice positioning the camera within the cone of the viewfinder exit pupil, the G2 being slightly improved over the G1 in this regard. If the eye is the slightest bit off-center from the cone of the exit pupil, the viewfinder goes dark.

Then, learn what the camera wants in terms of autofocus. Many people never figure this out and get frustrated, but the AF system is actually quite good if you know what it is looking for.