Reading mode: Light Dark

Question about Zeiss 18/4 and Canon FD 17/4 on a converted a7.

Go to last post
B

babart

Senior Member
Messages
2,126
Solutions
1
Reaction score
96
Location
ME, US
I'm looking for a used Zeiss 18mm f/4 and I've run across a couple confusing entries in listing this lens.

First, what is an MMJ mount for the Zeiss and what adapter would that mount use?

Second, is there a difference in quality (IQ, distortion) between Zeiss and Cosina versions of this lens.

Third, has anyone used the Canon FD 17/4. I can only find anecdotal reviews for this lens, but it apparently has easy to correct distortion. (I'm using these for architecture.)

Fourth, and perhaps most important, would either of these lenses show the corner problems associated with pancake type wide angles such as the Skopars?

Thanks in advance,
 
In what way is the A7 "converted"? Different sensor stack? IR?

I use the FD 17/4 on a stock A7. No color shift issues, but it does seem to smear the edges sometimes. Colors and contrast from it are very good, though.

BTW, I think MMJ is the Contax/Yashica mount, but I'm not positive.

--
A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD); A3000 converted to IR.
 
Last edited:
I use the 18mm F4 Distagon QBM (Rollei) with my A7 and it is superb.

CA is easily corrected in LR and the image is sharp.

A great lens
 
SQLGuy said:
In what way is the A7 "converted"? Different sensor stack? IR?

I use the FD 17/4 on a stock A7. No color shift issues, but it does seem to smear the edges sometimes. Colors and contrast from it are very good, though.

BTW, I think MMJ is the Contax/Yashica mount, but I'm not positive.
Click to expand...
 
Dennis UK said:
I use the 18mm F4 Distagon QBM (Rollei) with my A7 and it is superb.

CA is easily corrected in LR and the image is sharp.

A great lens
Click to expand...
Thanks! How does the Rollei version differ from the T version. Is the lens aberration spherical in nature (i.e., easily corrected), or does it have a moustache?
 
babart said:
SQLGuy said:
In what way is the A7 "converted"? Different sensor stack? IR?

I use the FD 17/4 on a stock A7. No color shift issues, but it does seem to smear the edges sometimes. Colors and contrast from it are very good, though.

BTW, I think MMJ is the Contax/Yashica mount, but I'm not positive.

--
A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD); A3000 converted to IR.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response. The sensor has the AA filter removed and thinner glass in front. Which should help with edge problems.

I understand the FD 17/4 has very easily corrected distortion. Has this been your experience? I want to use it (or the Zeiss) for architecture and although there are programs to cure moustache distortion, most I've tried don't go far enought.

Thanks again,

--
BAB
Click to expand...
Here are a couple of shots from it (one uprighted and cropped, the other pretty much as-shot). I haven't applied distortion correction to either.



4ac4fcd70bad42278300e38d03faf77a.jpg




d07be09f9632459dba4fc2cc76f2232f.jpg




--
A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD); A3000 converted to IR.
 
SQLGuy said:
Here are a couple of shots from it (one uprighted and cropped, the other pretty much as-shot). I haven't applied distortion correction to either.

4ac4fcd70bad42278300e38d03faf77a.jpg


d07be09f9632459dba4fc2cc76f2232f.jpg


--
A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD); A3000 converted to IR.
Click to expand...
I suspect this lens will do just fine. The distortion is minimal, and certainly has no complicated edge problems. Too, I already have an FD adapter.

That's quite a colorful house. A long porch as well.....a duplex perhaps? Do you live in New England?

Thanks for your help!!



--
BAB
 
babart said:
I'm looking for a used Zeiss 18mm f/4 and I've run across a couple confusing entries in listing this lens.

First, what is an MMJ mount for the Zeiss and what adapter would that mount use?

Second, is there a difference in quality (IQ, distortion) between Zeiss and Cosina versions of this lens.

Third, has anyone used the Canon FD 17/4. I can only find anecdotal reviews for this lens, but it apparently has easy to correct distortion. (I'm using these for architecture.)

Fourth, and perhaps most important, would either of these lenses show the corner problems associated with pancake type wide angles such as the Skopars?

Thanks in advance,
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PBR Streetgang said:
The Zeiss 18mm f4 is in Contax/Yashica Mount. There are typically two versions of each lens: AE and MM. AE is the older version with older technology coatings and ninja star aperture blades. MM is the later version with updated coatings, no ninja star and, sometimes, updated optical formulas. The third letter -- G or J -- indicates the country of origin: Germany or Japan. So, an MMJ is the latest version and it was made in Japan, perhaps by Cosina.

MTF data can be found here: http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf.php. By the way, you will see at that link that the 18/4 has moustache distortion (though not as bad as some) (http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/cy/Distagon4_18mm_e.pdf). It's not considered one of Zeiss's strongest performers.

The Skopars are rangefinder lenses, whereas the Contax and FD lenses are SLR lenses. SLR UWA lenses tend to not have the same corner issues as RF UWAs. However, that doesn't mean the corners will be sharp. The Zeiss MTFs definitely show some corner weakness. If you would like a comparison to place it into context, the Zeiss ZF 21mm 2.8 (http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/zf/distagon_28_21_en.pdf) will show you what very good corners look like on an MTF graph (for an UWA).

If you really want an UWA and want to use it for architecture, the EF 17mm Tilt Shift lens is probably the best bet. Check this out:
https://flic.kr/p/bd6sfg
. Not cheap, but you were looking at Zeiss after all. ;-)
Click to expand...
Thanks much. I bookmarked the Zeiss mtf site.....most useful, and certainly better than many anecdotal references one can find through Google. It's the reason I appreciate photozone.de, but most of the lenses tested there are modern digital types.

It's peculiar I should once again prefer a film prime lens. I just got a little irritated with the lenses I carry and the time it takes to change lenses....and sometimes lenses and adapters. Besides which, post-processing is easier and quicker when lens aberrations and vignetting are auto corrected. So I spent an evening recently looking through photozone's evaluation of 16(17)-(28)35mm digital zooms, and frankly most are a bit fragile at the shortest end of the zoom range. There are two that seem good: the Sony 16-35 and the Canon 16-35. One of those lenses and my 28mm shift lens would be all I needed. Then I noticed the Canon 17/4 and aha, that would scale me down to three lenses.....the 17, a 24-50 zoom, and the 28 shift. Not perfect, but it'll do until I know more about the two zooms. I started looking at the Zeiss because it was in the same range and who doesn't want Zeiss glass. The 17 t/s is mighty interesting, however, especially for interiors.

Thanks again,
 
The Rollei version 18mm 4.0 is the same as the C/Y version, apart from the labels. The HFT coating is identical to the T*.

The distortion is moustache, though very low.

It vignettes quite a bit, but that's easy to correct if desired.

Extreme corners are usable for non-critical subjects at 4.0 and get quite sharp from 5.6.

IMO perhaps the best UW compromise between size/weight, price & IQ.
 
Rol Lei Nut said:
The Rollei version 18mm 4.0 is the same as the C/Y version, apart from the labels. The HFT coating is identical to the T*.

The distortion is moustache, though very low.

It vignettes quite a bit, but that's easy to correct if desired.

Extreme corners are usable for non-critical subjects at 4.0 and get quite sharp from 5.6.

IMO perhaps the best UW compromise between size/weight, price & IQ.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I suspect you are correct about this lens being the best UW compromise. Right now, I've opted for the Canon 17/4 because of the simpler distortion characteristics, but I'll keep your comments in mind for future reference.
 
babart said:
It's peculiar I should once again prefer a film prime lens. I just got a little irritated with the lenses I carry and the time it takes to change lenses....and sometimes lenses and adapters.
Click to expand...
Not the cheapest, nor the technically most refined approach, but I ended up buying EF mounts from Leitax to my Contax C/Y and Rollei QBM lenses and use them with a Metabones on my A7x bodies. You simply replace the stock rear flange with a very well machined stainless EF flange, in a totally reversible modification. Good enough for "normal" shooting and it cuts the amount of mounts in the lens bag.
 
Beaverhelmet said:
babart said:
It's peculiar I should once again prefer a film prime lens. I just got a little irritated with the lenses I carry and the time it takes to change lenses....and sometimes lenses and adapters.
Click to expand...
Not the cheapest, nor the technically most refined approach, but I ended up buying EF mounts from Leitax to my Contax C/Y and Rollei QBM lenses and use them with a Metabones on my A7x bodies. You simply replace the stock rear flange with a very well machined stainless EF flange, in a totally reversible modification. Good enough for "normal" shooting and it cuts the amount of mounts in the lens bag.
Click to expand...
Good idea. Currently my PK to E and FD to E mounts reside on the lens I most use, cutting down on the switching. But I also have adapters to my Fuji. It makes me laugh unless I'm in a hurry.
 
babart said:
First, what is an MMJ mount for the Zeiss and what adapter would that mount use?
Click to expand...
That is Contax collectors terminology, strictly speaking a designation not used by Contax themselves. And it is irrelevant when it comes to mount adapters - both are Contax mount, with differences only in the aperture lever scaling, and mount adapters have no aperture automation of any kind, MM or AE is entirely irrelevant when you buy a Contax lens for use on a A7. MM is the Contax mount code for the later shutter-priority enabled lenses, J means it is made in Japan. Other lenses were made by Zeiss in Germany (code "G" among collectors), and the first two or three Contax SLR generations came with "AE" lenses that weren't shutter priority capable.

Whether J or G is a matter of taste - later lenses have arguably superior (higher contrast) coating and the majority of these is of Japanese make (however, Zeiss used a similar coating on the late lenses they made), but then, many people prefer the "classic" Zeiss coating of earlier lenses, and Zeiss lenses have a reputation for higher precision and better quality control. On the other hand, all AE and most lenses of Zeiss make have a "Ninja Star" aperture which causes odd shaped aperture stars in the f/2.8-5.6 range, while Japan made MM lenses have round or at least less edgy aperture shapes.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. That clears up the terminology, and the origin of same, quite nicely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top