conurus

[mwtphoto]

I have an unconverted 70-300 and in anticipation of the mount problem being cleared I have been thinking of getting it converted. My question to all who have converted this lens was it worth it, do you still use the lens or have you gone to some other lens for this focal length. thank you for your time and attention.

regards
Mark

[Andi]

Indeed Canon offers some outstanding tele zoom lenses, some people may prefer them for some reason.
However the Contax N system has a dead end. To convert the N lenses to EOS will be the one and only solution to use this Zeiss glass in the futur with a modern DSLR. And now that we know that Zeiss is not going to offer their new ZF ZS lenses with an EOS mount, its also the only solution to use fully compatible Zeiss lenses on a Canon

Probably not the answer you expected

[mwtphoto]

do you or have you used a converted 70-300 Andi. I agree with your post re this may be the only way to get Zeiss with AF on a canon DLSR. I am a big Zeiss fan and still use my original C/Y lenses on my Canon. Does the 70-300 live up to expectations and deliver the Zeiss "look"?

[asphet]

I've the 24-85mm/70-300mm & the 100 f 2.5 makro & they are zeiss look (very 3D)in quality with my canon 1ds3 & very close details to the medium format digital back at 21 mega pix.
cheers
eric

[dannylin]

How is the quality/performance of the N 70-300 if compared with Canon's either 70-200 IS F4 or 70-200 IS F2.8?EF 70-200

[gatorine]

Now that the Canon EF 70-300L is available for around $1000 used I think this is the better purchase. Higher density imaging sensors benefit even more than previous sensors from image stabilization.