Would this be a good fit? Zeiss on SL…

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Long time ago, when I still photographed on film, Zeiss where my favorite lenses. When i went digital, I bought into Nikon, but always thought my images missed something. At first, I thought it was due to digital, but then, one day a bought a classic CZ85, and I was blown away. Only negative was manual focussing with a dslr: slow and not for events.

Recently I bought the 135mm sonnar, and with the sigma mc21 adapter it works very well.

Now I have an offer to buy one set of 7 lenses: 18, 21, 28, 35, 50, 85 and 100. All classic line, for the price of a second hand SL apo lens. I am very tempted with this. Would sell my 35apo, but buy still a 24-70/90/105 next to this.

Question: do those lenses perform well on the SL with adapter? I know the 135 does, but somehow, I am not sure if an adapter would be a weak point.

Thanks.

[chrismuc]

The Zeiss CY 18f3.5 is good but with some sharpness fall off towards the image corners. The CY 21f2.8 was the best wide angle lens in that focal length at its time with great image sharpness all over the frame, some lateral CA which is easy to correct in post and some mustache distortion which is less easy to correct. IMO it is at least as good as its successor ZE version. All 2.8 lenses (28f2.8, 35f2.8, 85f2.8, 135f2.8) are relatively small and light weight and generally very good, even on todays high resolution sensors. The CY 35f1.4 has a good reputation for its bokeh. Central sharpness is good at open aperture and very good if closed down a bit. Corners are a bit less sharp than the CY 35f2.8. The CY 50f1.4 is an absolute classic. The same lens deisgn was used in the ZE version as well as in the AF version for the Contax N. Some aberrations, but top notch all over the frame when closed down to f5.6 or f8. Same the CY 85f1.4. The CY 100f2 is great, sharp from open aperture, less LoCA than the later ZE 100f2 Macro. The CY 135f2 is a bit soft at f2 with quite some aberrations, the ZE/Milvus 135f2 Apo is on another level. The old design CY 180f2.8 is very astonishingly good. Pretty sharp with low aberrations corner to corner. 

They all work very well on any digital 135 camera, mirrorless or SLR. I use my 21f2.8, 35f1.4, 50f1.4, 100f2, 180f2.8, 28-85f3.3-4 on my Canon 1DX, Panasonic S1R and some (100f2, 180f2.8) even on my GFX 100. And sometimes with film on my Contax RTS III 😋.
 

In other words: I absolutely can recommend them! 

[douglas ball]

I recommend them as well.  I first used the Novaflex adapter on my Classic and Milvus lenses on a S1-R body. This worked very well. I then bought a Sigma 21 and I prefer it now for the simple reason that when focusing at infinity, it more closely matches the infinity stop on the lens.  Slight is marks the difference between the two adapters. I have a good collection of the original C/Y lenses, which are remarkably light by todays standard but match pretty well, with some exceptions,  the quality of the ZE's and even the Milvus. I enjoy all of them, and since I prefer manual focusing for most of my work I wind up using them much more than my SL 35 APO, SL 50 1.4, SL 75 APO, and the three SL zooms, all of which have focus by wire which I dislike. I recently dug out an old C/Y 100 F2 Planar lens, (not the macro), and was stunned by the quality. I normally use the ZE;s and the Milvus over the C/Y Contax lenses since I get the full exif information from the lens. If I want to go out and carry light then I still use the C/Y. If I only need one or two lenses, then I will take the Milvus, or a ZE Classic. Occasionally I go back through my extensive catalogue of images,  and am amazed by how many of the pictures taken with these lenses jump out at me as having that certain special look about them that I really enjoy.