Carl Zeiss lens for Canon

Started Sep 12, 2012 | Discussions thread
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,962Gear list
Like?
Re: How about Nikon...
In reply to Batzorig, Sep 17, 2012

Batzorig wrote:

Thanks for the advice. When I read your message it reminds me of a saying, "Be aware of the old man with one gun, he knows how to use it."

You're welcome, and thanks for the compliment.

Then here...

  • Used 55mm f3.5 or f2.8 micro-Nikkor ($100-200)

  • The adapter to use it on a Canon 5D II is about $40.

  • Passport about $100

  • Laser level about $40

Although your calculations are very well thought of, I have a problem with this because I had some bad experiences with used lenses (a couple of them). My father bought me a used Canon 24-105 lens from Korea and I had to pay over 200$ to get it repaired.

Granted, buying used lenses can be scary. But there's two things you might want to keep in mind.

  1. There's a huge difference between the general reliability of a mostly plastic, heavily motorized 4:1 zoom and an older metal macro prime. Lenses like the 55mm Nikkor, or the 50mm Pentax, if you don't abuse them, tend to last forever. There's not much that can go wrong with them.

  2. you're not, according to your profile, in Korea. You're in the U.S., and we've ngot places like KEH, arguably the most honest, best stocked used lens dealer in the world.

Also I didn't have a good experience with Canon 2x tele converter. It didn't allow me to use auto focus, and the shots were softer than without the converter.

There's an enormous difference between the adapter I recommended and a 2x tc. A Nikon or Pentax adapter for a Canon DSLR is just a metal ring that locks those lens's mounts to the camera. It doesn't do anything optically to alter the image. A teleconverter is a very different device. It's a complicated system in its own right, magnifying the image produced by the lens you're using it with. In the case of a 2x tc, it doubles every flaw in the lens: twice the softness, twice the chromatic aberration, then it adds some aberrations of its own, because it is an optical system with up to eight lens elements inside it. It cuts light, and alters the angles of the light that make the AF system work. You saw all these things.

Those are things that won't happen with a Nikon or Pentax macro on a Canon adapter. Those lenses will work well.

So I think used lenses and adapters are no good.

If they make you uncomfortable, then go with a new Canon or Tamron macro. They are excellent lenses, and you won't be disappointed. I was just suggesting a lower cost alternative.

You didn't say how big your paintings and sculptures are. A 50mm is a good lens for big pieces, 4-6 feet. Smaller than that, and a 100mm is a good lens to have. That's probably another $250 on the used market. Still beats the snot out of paying $1000 or more for the wrong Zeiss.

The paintings that I shoot can be anywhere from 2 feet to 10 feet in length.

You want to start out with a 50mm or 60mm macro lens, then. With a 100mm, you need to get back 28 feet from a 10 foot painting.

Your advice was very convincing. So I really consider buying a macro lens instead of those mentioned Zeiss lenses. But I will think whether I will go for a Canon brand or some other brand.

Cool. Whatever brand you go with, you're about to enter a world of sharpness and lower distortion that will blow you away. One's first macro lens always does that. You find yourself thinking "why didn't I get one of these years ago?"

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow