FUNLEADER Contax G35 F2 to Leica M Conversion review

[jawarden]

Like said before the G35/2 has almost identical diagram to the 7-element 35 Summicron v4. Similar design, similar performance. There is no magic here.

pptmstr's results speak for themselves and are excellent. When I had the G lenses my 35 was obviously the runt of the litter so maybe I just got a bad copy? I was disappointed with the lens and so I checked Zeiss's own MTF charts of the 35 compared to the 45 and they are certainly different performers at least as far as Zeiss is concerned. Both are high quality so perhaps the MTFs are just highlighting what an outstanding lens the 45 is. I left it at that and sold the 35 preferring to stick with the 45.

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/c...contax-g/en/datasheet-zeiss-planar-235-en.pdf

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/c...contax-g/en/datasheet-zeiss-planar-245-en.pdf

 

[pptmstr]

The enjoyment of exploring a lens is priceless.

100 timesyes !

Like said before the G35/2 has almost identical diagram to the 7-element 35 Summicron v4. Similar design, similar performance. There is no magic here.

I found Kyocera/Carl Zeiss’s approach back then to be a bit conservative though. The Xenotar-derived 35/2 lens of the Konica Hexar was intentionally designed to be under corrected for spherical aberration - and when in its standalone forms, the LTM L-Hexanon and UC-Hexanon 35/2, display severe focus shift at mid aperture range - but still got glowing reviews. The reason is since it’s a lens designed for a fixed lens camera, the Hexar body has built-in AF compensation for each of the F stops to eliminate the effect of focus shift. It’s like a precursor to today’s auto “baked in” lens correction in mirrorless systems.

Being a closed AF system, the Contax G was fully justified to go along this route and push for ultimate performance. But they didn’t...

Thanks for that insight, good info. I would love to see a comparison with the Cron, especially v4, I hear it's "the king of bokeh" 🙂

pptmstr's results speak for themselves and are excellent. When I had the G lenses my 35 was obviously the runt of the litter so maybe I just got a bad copy? I was disappointed with the lens and so I checked Zeiss's own MTF charts of the 35 compared to the 45 and they are certainly different performers at least as far as Zeiss is concerned. Both are high quality so perhaps the MTFs are just highlighting what an outstanding lens the 45 is. I left it at that and sold the 35 preferring to stick with the 45.

That was exactly my point: the G45 is so good that the G35 was deemed to not match it (which it probably does not), but the internet at the time actually turned this into G35 not being a good lens, when in fact it was being compared to an insanely good one. Bad lens and not matching the performance of one of the best lenses are 2 very very different things.

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/c...contax-g/en/datasheet-zeiss-planar-235-en.pdf

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/c...contax-g/en/datasheet-zeiss-planar-245-en.pdf

Thanks so much for sharing those PDFs!

 

[jawarden]

That was exactly my point: the G45 is so good that the G35 was deemed to not match it (which it probably does not), but the internet at the time actually turned this into G35 not being a good lens, when in fact it was being compared to an insanely good one. Bad lens and not matching the performance of one of the best lenses are 2 very very different things.

Yep, I agree. I consider the G lenses about as good as it gets in the 35mm format for film. If I didn't already have my bases covered with ZM lenses I'd definitely consider the upcoming G45 conversion.

But the lens I'd really want converted (and the one that makes better financial sense to convert) is the 90mm f2.8 Sonnar. That lens was great but many G users hated it because the G cameras struggled to focus it properly... and so they're cheap on the used market. (under $200!) That Sonnar on a M mount would be fantastic, and the performance even wide open is excellent.

 

[pptmstr]

Yep, I agree. I consider the G lenses about as good as it gets in the 35mm format for film. If I didn't already have my bases covered with ZM lenses I'd definitely consider the upcoming G45 conversion.

But the lens I'd really want converted (and the one that makes better financial sense to convert) is the 90mm f2.8 Sonnar. That lens was great but many G users hated it because the G cameras struggled to focus it properly... and so they're cheap on the used market. (under $200!) That Sonnar on a M mount would be fantastic, and the performance even wide open is excellent.

Totally agreed. And the G90/2.8 might be even easier to convert since it might not actually need to swap bodies .. we'll see.

Here's the kind of details you get with the G90/2.8 wide open (Sony A7R3) 🙂

100%

overview

 

[pptmstr]

I finally had some time to start this blog where I am planning to add more reviews:

https://theowlhollow.wordpress.com/

you can find even more samples of the G35/2 at the end of its review, have a looksy!

 

[cboy]

I finally had some time to start this blog where I am planning to add more reviews:

https://theowlhollow.wordpress.com/

you can find even more samples of the G35/2 at the end of its review, have a looksy!

Nice review. Unfortunately funleader doesnt sell the lens converted but rather just diy kit...As a non mechanically minded person such as myself what is the level of difficulty to put it together....i like your idea of putting the contax ring at the front.