sparrow6224
Well-known
Tom I trust your knowledge on this: I used to have a Contax IIA but sold it, along with the 5 cm 1:1,5 Sonnar on it. Discovered I still have the Contax 13,5cm 1:4 Sonnar in Contax mount. I'd love to use it on my Nikon S2. I know it's not calibrated or built for that -- my question, can it be adjusted for use on the Nikon, and if so, who can do such work? It's such a beautiful lens.
sparrow6224
Well-known
Short of that what 135 do you recommend for the Nikon?
Highway 61
Revisited
Get the popular Nikkor-Q-C 135/3.5. Every bit as good as the Sonnar 135/4, and dirt cheap off the big auction site if you're patient and don't jump onto items offered at insane prices or full of fungus etc etc.
You should be able to get one for $100.-, postage included.
Very lightweight in the late black version.
And : for nice landscapes shots (telephoto lenses are fine for landscapes IMO) with the lens focused at infinity, the Sonnar will focus just perfect on the Nikon S2.
You should be able to get one for $100.-, postage included.
Very lightweight in the late black version.
And : for nice landscapes shots (telephoto lenses are fine for landscapes IMO) with the lens focused at infinity, the Sonnar will focus just perfect on the Nikon S2.
sparrow6224
Well-known
Ohhh I thought the situation was that it specifically WOULDN'T focus at infinity. That's great to know because that's largely what I would use it for.
sparrow6224
Well-known
PS I have been looking at the Nikkor-Q.C 13.5cm and can see that one would have to wait a bit to get a black one at a good price. But they're out there. One sold alleged to be in good clean condition for $86 at auction some months ago. Anyone interested in the LTM version there's one up there now starting at 99. with hood leather case etc.
Highway 61
Revisited
Well the situation is that it specifically won't focus properly at other distances than infinity if you focus using the S2 rangefinder patch...
In other words : for portraits at close and mid-range focusing distances, it won't work (you will get either backfocus or front focus, even if you shoot at f/8 to f/16).
For infinity shots, even at f/4 or f/5.6, no problem (in this case don't bother with what the rangefinder patch will display : lock the lens focusing ring on infinity and shoot).
sparrow6224
Well-known
Are the distance markers on the lens still accurate?
Highway 61
Revisited
Yes. But they won't match what the rangefinder patch will display.
More clearly : for something located at 15 feet, if you set the focusing distance on 15 feet, the photo will be sharp. But in the viewfinder, the rangefinder patch will tell you're not in focus.
That said, "guessfocusing" with a 135 is so much of a PITA that the only practicable use of this lens on the S2 is what is described above (subjects located at infinity, focusing ring firmly held on its infinity lock, leaving what the rangefinder patch displays aside).
For accurate focusing on subjects located elsewhere than infinity, getting a Nikkor-Q-C 135/3.5 is the only viable solution.
In this case, pay a very careful attention that it does NOT wear a 'C' marking somewhere on its focusing ring...
sparrow6224
Well-known
Yes I know about the C. I bought an 85mm in which no photo showed the C and the seller had no idea and fought with me for days before eBay refunded me the money. Thanks for all the info and help.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I agree with the previous posters. If you are going to use it for landscapes - i.e infinity focus, the Sonnar will be fine. I suspect it can be re-calibrated and :shimmed" to work on the S2 (Brian Sweeney?) - but with Nikkor 135f3.5 being dirt cheap - that would be a better deal if you ever would like to shoot at closer distances. In any case - you will need a finder of some kind for framing. As for black or chrome Nikkor - the chrome ones are cheaper and heavier (build like no other 135!). The black ones are marginally collectible. You need a hood too - Nikkor135's can flare without it.
marcr1230
Well-known
I don't believe this is correct
if you set a Contax standard lens to 15 ft, and the subject is 15 feet away - the shot will NOT be in focus on the film plane of a Nikon body, and if the focus on the film plane - the viewfinder/rangefinder patch will not generally coincide.
think about it this away - the flange to film plane distance is different on Nikon vs Contax - so if the Contax lens is set to 15 ft, and the subject is 15 ft away, and you swap bodies, the image will only be on the film plane for one body.
if you set a Contax standard lens to 15 ft, and the subject is 15 feet away - the shot will NOT be in focus on the film plane of a Nikon body, and if the focus on the film plane - the viewfinder/rangefinder patch will not generally coincide.
think about it this away - the flange to film plane distance is different on Nikon vs Contax - so if the Contax lens is set to 15 ft, and the subject is 15 ft away, and you swap bodies, the image will only be on the film plane for one body.
Yes. But they won't match what the rangefinder patch will display.
More clearly : for something located at 15 feet, if you set the focusing distance on 15 feet, the photo will be sharp. But in the viewfinder, the rangefinder patch will tell you're not in focus.
That said, "guessfocusing" with a 135 is so much of a PITA that the only practicable use of this lens on the S2 is what is described above (subjects located at infinity, focusing ring firmly held on its infinity lock, leaving what the rangefinder patch displays aside).
For accurate focusing on subjects located elsewhere than infinity, getting a Nikkor-Q-C 135/3.5 is the only viable solution.
In this case, pay a very careful attention that it does NOT wear a 'C' marking somewhere on its focusing ring...
Highway 61
Revisited
AFAIK the only thing which makes a Contax lens not focus properly on a Nikon body is that the in-body focusing helical rotates more or less on each system to travel from close-up to infinity, and that this difference fools the rangefinder.
You're right : the flange to film plane distances are different on each system (from a 0.31mm margin), but according to trustable specialists this is definitely not what causes the incompatibility between the two systems.
The trick is to either lock the lens at infinity, and shoot subjects located at infinity, or to use the distance markings on the lens, and, in this case, guessfocus and NOT use the rangefinder, which will display something wrong in the viewfinder.
This, with other lenses than the 50mm. The 50mm uses the body helical focusing markings so you cannot guessfocus with it, because you then use the other system's helical travelling thresholds, which is not the case with the 35, 85 and 135 lenses.
Of course I might be wrong. Tom ?
Corran
Well-known
I have an extra hood for the 13.5cm f/3.5 Nikkor (43mm thread) as well as a Varifocal finder I will be selling, if you find a lens and need these accessories.
wes loder
Photographer/Historian
flange distance
flange distance
There should be no difference in the flange distance between the S series Nikons and the Contax. The one "expert" who reported a difference was comparing a Contax I with a Nikon SP!—25 years of changes. And the variation might be even within the industrial tolerances of those times. I have mounted several reflex housings for the Contax on Nikon rangefinder cameras with excellent and consistent results. Infinity focus should be fine. Closer, and you are on your own. As Tom suggests, get the Nikkor. They are fine lenses. WES
flange distance
There should be no difference in the flange distance between the S series Nikons and the Contax. The one "expert" who reported a difference was comparing a Contax I with a Nikon SP!—25 years of changes. And the variation might be even within the industrial tolerances of those times. I have mounted several reflex housings for the Contax on Nikon rangefinder cameras with excellent and consistent results. Infinity focus should be fine. Closer, and you are on your own. As Tom suggests, get the Nikkor. They are fine lenses. WES
sparrow6224
Well-known
I have no objection to getting the Nikkor; I object only to seeing the Contax sitting here with no way to use it. And if you think the Nikkors are going cheap, the Contax is selling for like $46. This was, in its time, if Erwin Puts is to be believed, a groundbreaking kind of lens, really extraordinary.
So that is why I asked, and I thank you all for the good information, and the detailed info on the S v. C mount issue: I too thought it was the distance to the film plane that differed. Anyway --- we shall carry on with a modicum of joy.
So that is why I asked, and I thank you all for the good information, and the detailed info on the S v. C mount issue: I too thought it was the distance to the film plane that differed. Anyway --- we shall carry on with a modicum of joy.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Vince, that's the spirit. Keep using the Contax lens - stop it down a bit to cover up any discrepancies in the focus instead. Better a lens in the hand etc.