Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Contax lenses for Nikon
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:53 am    Post subject: Contax lenses for Nikon Reply with quote
Looking at Soullivan's pictures of Jiuzhaigou and wondering how he could adapt his Zeiss/Contax-lenses to a Nikon body, I remembered that Leitax not only offers conversion-bajonets for Leica lenses but also for Zeiss/Contax-lenses.
The procedure seems more complicated than with the Leica lenses, which even I could do in 5-10 minutes, but it may be well worth the effort.

Check here:

http://www.leitax.com/Zeiss-Contax-lens-for-Nikon-cameras.html


Thomas


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think it's not good to deface old masterpiece lenses with a butcher conversion.
Nikon has already excellent manual lenses, that can fill everyone's needs. If someone absolutely feels the need of a Zeiss, there are the new ZF Nikon mount lenses to buy (some begin to appear as used items too), and there's always the possiblity to buy cheaply a used EOS as second body to use with Contax lenses, a solution much more respectful to those old lenses.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I think it's not good to deface old masterpiece lenses with a butcher conversion.


I don't see how a reversible conversion is a "butcher".


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my opinion it's much better for the vintage lenses to have more use (“a new life with modern cameras”, if you will), than to sit around unused. And, as ChrisLilley said above, the conversion is reversible and even the instructions on the Leitax site take care to point out the things needed to make the conversion perfectly reversible (e.g. marking positions of original pieces that, etc).

Personally I always try to make my lens conversions reversible, at least in theory even if in practice it's unlikely that they ever will be reversed, and I've always felt that I'm adding value rather than taking away. I do get the occasional elitist commenting on my conversions (usually without reading that it's reversible and non-destructive) and saying how the lens should be left alone, but mostly the response is supportive.

Last edited by Arkku on Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Even if it is reversible, I don't think that I could do it in a reversible way. Wink

It is tempting to see how these great Zeiss lenses behave in front of the excellent sensor in the Fuji S5, though.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I think it's not good to deface old masterpiece lenses with a butcher conversion.
Nikon has already excellent manual lenses, that can fill everyone's needs. If someone absolutely feels the need of a Zeiss, there are the new ZF Nikon mount lenses to buy (some begin to appear as used items too), and there's always the possiblity to buy cheaply a used EOS as second body to use with Contax lenses, a solution much more respectful to those old lenses.


+1


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
In my opinion it's much better for the vintage lenses to have more use (“a new life with modern cameras”, if you will), than to sit around unused. And, as ChrisLilley said above, the conversion is reversible and even the instructions on the Leitax site take care to point out the things needed to make the conversion perfectly reversible (e.g. marking positions of original pieces that, etc).

Personally I always try to make my lens conversions reversible, at least in theory even if in practice it's unlikely that they ever will be reversed, and I've always felt that I'm adding value rather than taking away. I do get the occasional elitist commenting on my conversions (usually without reading that it's reversible and non-destructive) and saying how the lens should be left alone, but mostly the response is supportive.


It looks like the "elitist" word is in vogue lately. It seems that when someone is not in agreement on something, he must use the word "elitist" at random against the other part, showing a lack of etymology knowledge about what the word really means and when it should be used.

I personally will be more respectful and will not lower myself to such comments on the personal level. I'll keep focused on the subject.

Although I understand that the conversions are supposed to be reversible, i still feel personally at unease with them. I really don't see the point. I don't see the point in doing hardware modifications on a valuable and beautiful lens just to use it on a camera that it wasn't meant for. I don't see the practical point, because a system like Nikon offers plenty of excellent native lenses that don't require what I call "butchering", but may be called "genetical surgery" if preferred.

If I am a photographer, my goal is to take pictures, and for that, I have plenty of very efficient native alternatives.

If I am a collectioner, or collectioning photographer, and I like the lenses of a lens system, and if that lens system is not compatible with my camera, my choice is not to buy 6 lenses of that system, but buy instead 5 lenses and one compatible camera.

As an admirer of the beauty of the old lenses, I suffer whenever I see a beautiful full healthy lens surgered for such -in my opinion- not enough motivated reason.

If a lens is damaged or defective, of course, it's another story.

One may say "lenses are just stuff, are means that are used to an end". That is of course true. Under a functionalist perspective.
But thanks God, I have more of an aesthetical point of view. I see the old lenses like a trace of the story of the optics. Like something that, one day, will become historically meaningful for the history of optics, as today are meaningful the telescopes used by Galileo and Kepler. Why should I deface them, just to use them on a camera where I can have another native lens that will perform very similarly, and sometimes even better?

That's my POV, don't crucify me for this Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In 2005, for my 60th birthday, I bought myself a used Leica R8 and afterwards a 19mm Elmarit, a 90mm Elmarit and the 180mm Apo-Telyt, all these I got for a pretty good price.
After taking I don't know how many slides, adding to the heap of what I have brought back from 4 years in Japan, I decided that I had had it with film, slides, scanning and all that comes with it, and decided to go digital. I finally was able to buy a Nikon D700 (thanks to the generosity of my mother- I'm a language teacher payed by the hour and couldn't afford one) and quite a few lenses (I still had some from my Japanese times) and was happy with the results. The big disdvantage that you don't have any material original, only digital data on a hard-disc, was outweighed for me by the reduction in the sheer mass of material that had to be stowed away in cartons etc.The PP-possibilities are also wonderful.
The prices for Leica-R cameras and lenses declined continuously, and I saw myself giving away my Leica pieces for next to nothing, until David Lladó found a possibility to make Leica-R lenses compatible with Nikon bodies, and now I'm a happy man, using all of my old Leica lenses on the D700 with very good to spectacular results (for me). I don't care if this conversion is reversible or not. I'm a person, who takes pictures and not the curator of a museum for technical exhibits. For me lenses are things that are meant to be used, and that's what I do.I wouldn't saw a 60-year old lense into little pieces and reassemble them in order to use them, but I have no moral or other problems at all unscrewing 6-10 screws, take a bajonet off and screw another one on to the lense.
That's what I hink about it.

Thomas


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
madamasu wrote:
I don't care if this conversion is reversible or not. I'm a person, who takes pictures and not the curator of a museum for technical exhibits. For me lenses are things that are meant to be used, and that's what I do.


This is an understandeable point of view, and I respect it.
However, my view is totally different.

Every human manufacture was done to be used.
But there is manufacture and manufacture. A 3000 years old Greek vase is not like an industrial vase of today. And there are manual lenses that, even if they are serial objects, for their quality and build, and their place in the history of optics, deserve to be preserved.

To make another example, I will not take an 19th century work of wrought iron, and screw over it a Eur 10 flat piece of today's factory iron over it because i would like to use it as a table. Even if the operation is reversable.
My point of view is that I will buy a table, and keep the original piece as it was meant to be.

It's two different philosophies, I understand, and two different ways to look at the things of the world. Personally, it makes me feel nice to know that, when I will leave this earth, my lens collection will pass intact into the hand of a young man who was not born when these manual lenses existed, and who knows only about the AF lenses of today.

With my little collection, I am preserving some items from the past that, in my opinion, deserve, for their quality, to survive their age and become something inheritable for future generations. Just like today there are people who keep old Bugatti cars and preserve them to show to the future generations, what was the quality of the industrial work in the early 20th century.

It really made me sad when I saw on Ebay, a Biotar 75mm, a lens that is the expression of an era, of a design, of a world, defaced just to mount a new Nikkor mount on the base of it.

I feel it as a wrong thing for two reasons: because that beautiful lense deserved to be admired (and used) as it is, and because today's Nikkor tele lenses perform just as well as the Biotar, if not even better because of multicoating. So there is no "need" to deface the Biotar. It's been an unneeded sacrifice - in my personal opinion.

-


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
It looks like the "elitist" word is in vogue lately. It seems that when someone is not in agreement on something, he must use the word "elitist" at random against the other part, showing a lack of etymology knowledge about what the word really means and when it should be used.


I'm sorry if you took the word personally; in that post I was not actually not referring to you, but to certain people that have commented on some of my lens conversions in the past, and with whom I feel entirely justified using the word (e.g. one of them was a film-only elitist who apparently took offense to any vintage lens being used on digital camera because “DSLR users will only use them to take pictures of resolution charts”).

Orio wrote:

I personally will be more respectful and will not lower myself to such comments on the personal level. I'll keep focused on the subject.


I don't personally consider "elitist" to be an insult; I freely admit to being an elitist when it comes to many things, e.g. to programming languages, or related to cameras I might be considered an elitist who does not accept lens adapters with additional optical elements. I don't consider it “proper” use of a lens if some cheap piece of glass or plastic that changes the focal length and register distance is added to the optical path, even if in many instances there will be no important effect to image quality. So, I think it would be fully justified to call this an elitist opinion, and I'd fully agree, and I understandl why others will feel differently (e.g. Nikon users and M42—better to use with extra glass than not at all?).

In fact, this elitist opinion of mine is an important reason why I've modified several lenses; e.g. the Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 could be adapted to my Sony DSLR with extra glass, but I feel that converting the lens is the only proper way to use it on that camera and people should not destroy it's image quality or fast maximum aperture with extra glass. Obviously others may argue that the only proper way would be to use it on the original film bodies…

And of course I do agree that using it on the original film bodies is great, but in my opinion it's better for the lens to be adapted for modern cameras so it may see more use, than to leave it to the increasingly few people who are willing to shoot small format film regularly.


Orio wrote:

Although I understand that the conversions are supposed to be reversible, i still feel personally at unease with them. I really don't see the point. I don't see the point in doing hardware modifications on a valuable and beautiful lens just to use it on a camera that it wasn't meant for.


Although I did not earlier mean you when I said elitist, in response to the wording of “on a camera that it wasn't meant for” (emphasis added) I might say that I see this as an elitist opinion. But as I said above, I don't consider this an insult of any sort; I merely use the word to illustrate that from my perspective that sort of opinion falls into a category of “beliefs” that I don't subscribe to, e.g. some other kind of elitist might claim that using a third-party lens cap on an original Leica is sacrilege.

Orio wrote:

I don't see the practical point, because a system like Nikon offers plenty of excellent native lenses that don't require what I call "butchering", but may be called "genetical surgery" if preferred.


Well, one might say that using any kind of lens adapter is similarly pointless because pretty much every major system has good lenses of its own, e.g. why would one use a Meyer/Pentacon 135mm f/2.8 on a Sony/Minolta AF when there's a Minolta AF 135mm, and even a modern Carl Zeiss ZA 135mm f/1.8, and the unique STF… It comes down to what lenses one wants to use; some people want to use a Carl Zeiss lens because of the name, others want a certain kind of image (contrast, bokeh, etc), and the otherwise available lenses, no matter how good, are not the same. Of course, price may also affect the decision to convert a lens or to use an adapter.

Me, personally, I like to use lots of different lenses with same specifications “on paper” (e.g. 135mm f/2.8). It inspires me to go out and take more pictures to see what kind of characteristics each lens gives to the image, regardless of whether it's technically better or worse than another lens. I'd rather have 15 different 135mm lenses than one, even if that one was superior in every technical test. (Although I might prune my collection from time to time if I find I'm not using a lens; I think lenses should be used, even if it means adapting and/or converting them.)

Also, I enjoy figuring out lenses when I'm converting them, e.g. how to disassemble them, how to adjust infinity focus, how to get the replacement mount installed without cutting up the lens (or with minimal, preferably non-destructive, changes), etc. Sort of like doing a puzzle.

Orio wrote:

If I am a collectioner, or collectioning photographer, and I like the lenses of a lens system, and if that lens system is not compatible with my camera, my choice is not to buy 6 lenses of that system, but buy instead 5 lenses and one compatible camera.


That is very admirable, and more power to you for it! Unfortunately, in my case I need my small format lenses to be compatible with my DSLR for colour photos, because I just don't find 135 colour film to be practical or economical. I do shoot black and white film in that format, but for me that alone is not sufficient to justify a high quality lens like Carl Zeiss.


Orio wrote:

As an admirer of the beauty of the old lenses, I suffer whenever I see a beautiful full healthy lens surgered for such -in my opinion- not enough motivated reason.

If a lens is damaged or defective, of course, it's another story.


Many of the lenses I've converted have been damaged or defective, mostly because I can get them cheaper that way and during conversion I'm going to open them up anyway. I suppose I can see your point that if the lens was damaged it would probably not have been used anyway so there is no “loss” to the “intended” system if that lens has its mount replaced, but in case of reversible modifications I don't see what difference it makes to anyone whether the “new” mount for the lens comes from a replacement mount (modification) or from an adapter (no modification, but still used on a different system)—as long as that person has the lens, it's going to be used on another system, and if they sell it, they can remove the adapter or reverse the modification.


Orio wrote:

I see the old lenses like a trace of the story of the optics.


I very much enjoy old lenses, too, but I don't revere the piece of metal that's used to mount the lens to a camera, and I think that the piece can just as well be replaced with another metal shape if doing so allows the optics to be used on a camera that's practical to use today.


Orio wrote:

…where I can have another native lens that will perform very similarly, and sometimes even better?


This last sentence is a crucial question about the use of vintage manual focus lenses in general, and one that I'm often asked when I say what equipment I'm using in the first place. =)


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ Arkku:
"elitist" is for example when one says "Only the use of expensive/rare/exclusive equipment is "in", the other equipment is not worthy/classy/distinctive enough"

I can not see how it could apply to the current discussion, in any way.
This is why I say it was used unappropriately.

and... yes, I consider the "elitist" remark offending, although not insulting (like it could be "stupid" or other insult word).


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
"elitist" is for example when one says "Only the use of expensive/rare/exclusive equipment is "in", the other equipment is not worthy/classy/distinctive enough"


Well, a dictionary definition of elitist is “a person who believes they belong to an elite”, and in my opinion this “elite” can just as well be “people who think film is better than digital” or “people who think Leica is the only true camera brand” or “people who think that using lenses on the intended camera system is the only way”. In any case, I stated above that I don't use the word in an offensive sense, so please do not take offense at my possibly incorrect use of the English language.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:

Well, a dictionary definition of elitist is “a person who believes they belong to an elite”, and in my opinion this “elite” can just as well be “people who think film is better than digital” or “people who think Leica is the only true camera brand” or “people who think that using lenses on the intended camera system is the only way”.


Hm... élite involves the concept of being the "top class", not just of being different or conservative.
So the "Leica is the only worthy brand" people, can be called elitist. Those like me who think that the surviving old lenses should not be hardware modified (which is not the same thing as your "people who think that using lenses on the intended camera system is the only way” definition), can be called "conservative", if you like, but certainly not elitist.

I accept to be called "conservative " when it comes to saving the old lenses. I surely am conservative under that regards, just as I am conservative when it comes to saving old architecture, old artworks, old cars, and the nature itself from cementification.

I do not accept to be called elitist because I want to protect the old lenses (at least those of good quality), because I think it's not true. I have no elitist position on the subject, I wish to save the 10 dollars Jupiter-37s or the 200 dollars Helios-40 just as much as I wish to save the 4000 dollars Planar 1.2/85 (if I could afford it!)

Arkku wrote:
In any case, I stated above that I don't use the word in an offensive sense, so please do not take offense at my possibly incorrect use of the English language.


No offense taken!
It's just that you are the second person in a few days who defines me (or my ideas) "elitist", and in both cases it is not true, so I begin to be a little annoyed by it. Sorry.

-


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Hm... élite involves the concept of being the "top class", not just of being different or conservative.


I guess this is the part where I disagree, but I do understand your point of view. Certainly a “Leica-elitist” invokes more of a sense of being a member of some rich elite than a “Zenit-elitist”, but in my opinion it suffices that the “elitist” (if we accept that they can be called that) himself believes in the superiority of his way. So, for example, someone who thinks film photography is the only “true” way (as opposed to digital) could, in my opinion, fairly be called an “elitist” even if they used only cheap film cameras. (“Bah, Hasselblad digital back?! I can shoot MF Velvia any day with my $50 flea-market find!”)


Orio wrote:

Those like me who think that the surviving old lenses should not be hardware modified (which is not the same thing as your "people who think that using lenses on the intended camera system is the only way” definition), can be called "conservative", if you like, but certainly not elitist.


Heh, I'd personally take more offense to being called “conservative” than an “elitist”, because the former word invokes in me the idea of a political conservative, while obviously one can be conservative only about certain things, just like I think one can be an elitist without being part of some rich élite (which, I suppose, is the traditional image invoked by that word).

In any case, sorry once again for misinterpreting your view—I based that sentence about the “intended camera system” (and the first time I called you an elitist—the first use of the word was directed elsewhere) on this:

Orio wrote:

I don't see the point in doing hardware modifications on a valuable and beautiful lens just to use it on a camera that it wasn't meant for.


Here I read the emphasis, perhaps incorrectly, on “that it wasn't meant for”, and you did qualify the lens to be protected as “valuable and beautiful”… So, it sounded to me like you were saying “one must buy a Contax camera or stay away from the beautiful Carl Zeiss C/Y glass”.

I think I understand now that your point is more about the conservation of any old item of historical importance, and I do agree that it's a worthy belief, and I'm definitely with you on this about architecture, artwork, etc. However, I personally see the continued use of functional objects like lenses as an important part of “keeping them alive”, and so I think a reversible modification is no worse than putting on an adapter and better than not using the lens. I wouldn't do a non-reversible modification on a rare lens unless it was otherwise broken already, but admittedly I would on something relatively common like a Helios-44M-4.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:

Orio wrote:

I don't see the point in doing hardware modifications on a valuable and beautiful lens just to use it on a camera that it wasn't meant for.


Here I read the emphasis, perhaps incorrectly, on “that it wasn't meant for”, and you did qualify the lens to be protected as “valuable and beautiful”… So, it sounded to me like you were saying “one must buy a Contax camera or stay away from the beautiful Carl Zeiss C/Y glass”.


No. please read that I write "I don't see the point in doing hardware modifications to mount on a camera etc. etc."
Of course using an adapter ring does not alter the lens and it's like mounting a filter or a lens hood.

There is people like me who enjoys the historical values and the history of a lens. See this website:
http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_tecnici_fotografici.htm
It is full of articles about the lenses, that communicate not only the scientific knowledge of the guy, but also the historical interest.
I am like that guy minus the scientific knowledge. Wink

If I could, I would buy one copy of all the old lenses and keep it. unfortunately I am not Bill Gates and living in the real world, I need to make choices and so I choosed the Contax system. This forces me to sell lenses of other systems that I would really like to keep if I could.
All old lenses for me are beautiful and have something special. Before the Contax, I collected the pre-AI Nikkors which are possibly the most aesthetically beautiful lenses of the recent times. It waqs very sad for me to see them go. Luckily, most of them remained within the boundaries of this group. Smile
-
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1