Old/alternate lenses, adapters, and lens mount conversions.

[Anthony Lee]

i ve read about this one before, but figured it'd just be too expensive to get. i use the nikkor 135 f2 alot and its really good, but the nikkor 105 1.8 doesnt feel solid enuf even thought he optics are pretty good.

im getting down to convert a minolta MC(orMD) 85 1.7. decided not to go for konica cos they re more ex and i cant be sure i can convert...

Read and saw images of the Minolta 85f1.7 before at FM. This is a very sought after lens and you will not regret.

 

[gundamseed84]

Just wondering if anyone here tried old manual focus length lenses to do birding? E.g. Old nikon, fujinon, etc 500mm, 600mm lens?

Wondering if I should get one and try out 'manual birding' as I cannot afford the modern version of equal focal length and also try a new perspective of general shooting at 500/600mm.

Bought a 50f1.4 super takumar lens last time from ebay for S$90 but turned out to be a bad copy. Very soft wide open until I decided not to use it anymore.

 

[mmeeoo]

Just wondering if anyone here tried old manual focus length lenses to do birding? E.g. Old nikon, fujinon, etc 500mm, 600mm lens?

Wondering if I should get one and try out 'manual birding' as I cannot afford the modern version of equal focal length and also try a new perspective of general shooting at 500/600mm.

Bought a 50f1.4 super takumar lens last time from ebay for S$90 but turned out to be a bad copy. Very soft wide open until I decided not to use it anymore.

You can sell it to me for $30, im serious.

There 2 problem:
- Did you use f/2, f/2.8 f/4? Was it soft?
- The lock aperture, some mounts - i call fake mount - cannot do that. Plz check again or post some pic of you mount.

 

[ManWearPants]

Just wondering if anyone here tried old manual focus length lenses to do birding? E.g. Old nikon, fujinon, etc 500mm, 600mm lens?

Wondering if I should get one and try out 'manual birding' as I cannot afford the modern version of equal focal length and also try a new perspective of general shooting at 500/600mm.

Bought a 50f1.4 super takumar lens last time from ebay for S$90 but turned out to be a bad copy. Very soft wide open until I decided not to use it anymore.

Like what Anthony suggested in one of the threads above, you can get an OM300/4.5 and use it on a m4/3 to get 600mm IS/OS

 

[b2yao]

is there lens mount conversion service in singapore?

got a C/Y zeiss zoom lens but found it too big for my EVIL, thus considering convert it to maybe M42 so tt can use on nikon/sony dslr.

 

[ManWearPants]

is there lens mount conversion service in singapore?

got a C/Y zeiss zoom lens but found it too big for my EVIL, thus considering convert it to maybe M42 so tt can use on nikon/sony dslr.

think C/Y to Nikon can only be ordered from Leitax.
www.leitax.com

 

[b2yao]

think C/Y to Nikon can only be ordered from Leitax.
www.leitax.com

thanks! there'r actually this kind of services in china also; it's quite common to change c/y mount to m42, then can use on various cameras.

however, i've found my zoom lens on leitax site, and it seems changing mount for it isn't as straight forward as primes, sigh...

 

[ManWearPants]

thanks! there'r actually this kind of services in china also; it's quite common to change c/y mount to m42, then can use on various cameras.

however, i've found my zoom lens on leitax site, and it seems changing mount for it isn't as straight forward as primes, sigh...

Leitax M42 mounts are well made. I have bought a couple from him. However, if he had made the direct to EF mount earlier, I would have bought it instead of the M42. IMO, it is probably better to convert to native mount to reduce the manufacturing tolerance for yet another M42-mount adapter.

If you want to be hands on. you can be like Ben who will grind, file and sand his own mount from a M42-mount adapter.

 

[bkling1]

Leitax M42 mounts are well made. I have bought a couple from him. However, if he had made the direct to EF mount earlier, I would have bought it instead of the M42. IMO, it is probably better to convert to native mount to reduce the manufacturing tolerance for yet another M42-mount adapter.

If you want to be hands on. you can be like Ben who will grind, file and sand his own mount from a M42-mount adapter.

Got at least 5 pcs of leitex EF mount (R-EF). All slightly beyond infinity and need to place tracing paper in between the mount and adapter to increase thickness to get exact infinity. Not sure is my lens or adapter problem.

 

[Zeisser]

Can do a CZ 100 @ f2. The 85/1.4 is slightly soft wide open. I read that the 100/2 is sharp wide open and would like to see how different the OoF of the 100 @ f2 and the 85 @ f2. The 2 focal length are too close to need both.

Did a couple of shots with the Planar 100mm @ F2 would like to share the links :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeisser/5413080782/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeisser/5418271989/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeisser/5453280655/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeisser/5453907010/

Guess I made a wise decision to stick with Zeiss optics for digital transition

 

[Ben Ang]

i chanced upon a pair of minolta F.Rokkor lenses on The Bay and impulse bought them. haha. they have Minolta F. Rokkor - QF on them, followed by 200mm and 195mm for the other one. no serial numbers, no apertures, and no shutters...

i cant find a thing about them online, but im suspecting they are large format barrel lenses. the image circle is large enough to cover an A4 sized paper!! haha. now i just need something to do with them.. my first idea was to use them as a tilt-shift, but at 200mm, thats abit long.. alternatively i could make a set where i shift my dslr within a bellows to 'scan' a really large image before stitching them together. last thing i ve thought of is to buy a RB67 or GS1 6X7 film back and use it as a medium format tilt shift lens...

any ideas? any one know anything about these guys? i ll post pics once i get the chance. o, i managed to find another picture of the same 195mm, but with f/6.5 and a serial number.. strange that mine doesnt have either..

Regards,
Benjamin

 

[Anthony Lee]

Did a couple of shots with the Planar 100mm @ F2 would like to share the links :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeisser/5413080782/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeisser/5418271989/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeisser/5453280655/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeisser/5453907010/

Guess I made a wise decision to stick with Zeiss optics for digital transition

The 5D is one of the best cameras to use these old Zeiss lenses. The 100f2 is truly legendary. Will be glad if we can meet up sometime and test my 85f1.4 against the 100f2, may be very interesting.

Cheers.

 

[Zeisser]

The 5D is one of the best cameras to use these old Zeiss lenses. The 100f2 is truly legendary. Will be glad if we can meet up sometime and test my 85f1.4 against the 100f2, may be very interesting.

Cheers.

Yeah it would be nice to meet sometime to test both lens. Have not tried the 85/1.4
before. My friend sold his but now regret very much.

 

[nsng]

Since you guys are discussing lenses with focal lengths from 80-100mm, here are my opinions on the 90mm Summicron R. This lens started production in 1970. The one I have was manufactured in 1977. But its optical design remained unchanged throughout its production life which ended around 1995.

This lens is somewhat soft wide open with a small amount of vignetting and colour fringing in its corners. This softer and lower contrast draw is perfect for capturing the classic portrait. Stopping down to f5.6 improves its performance and by f8.0 it is sharp and contrasty. The 90mm Apo-Asph R is a better lens. I have the M version and at f2.0 its performance is much better, being sharper with higher contrast. Its Apo design resulted in very clean edge definition with no colour fringing even at 100% pixel peeping!

Many R users adandoned this 90mm and bought the Apo-Asph version. IMHO, if you intend to use apertures f5.6 and beyond, the difference is very small.

Here are 2 snapshots, one at f2.0 and the next at f8.0. Processed with Capture One, no sharpening.

N.S. Ng

 

[Anthony Lee]

Since you guys are discussing lenses with focal lengths from 80-100mm, here are my opinions on the 90mm Summicron R. This lens started production in 1970. The one I have was manufactured in 1977. But its optical design remained unchanged throughout its production life which ended around 1995.

This lens is somewhat soft wide open with a small amount of vignetting and colour fringing in its corners. This softer and lower contrast draw is perfect for capturing the classic portrait. Stopping down to f5.6 improves its performance and by f8.0 it is sharp and contrasty. The 90mm Apo-Asph R is a better lens. I have the M version and at f2.0 its performance is much better, being sharper with higher contrast. Its Apo design resulted in very clean edge definition with no colour fringing even at 100% pixel peeping!

Many R users adandoned this 90mm and bought the Apo-Asph version. IMHO, if you intend to use apertures f5.6 and beyond, the difference is very small.

Here are 2 snapshots, one at f2.0 and the next at f8.0. Processed with Capture One, no sharpening.

N.S. Ng

Mr Ng,

Many thanks for your sharing. Both the Leica R Sumicrons 90f2 are legendary and Leica color is actually my favorite if I can afford them. Your f2 photo has slight vignetting and this should be nice for portraits, so hope you can share some portrait shots with this lens. Thks.

 

[nsng]

Mr Ng,

Many thanks for your sharing. Both the Leica R Sumicrons 90f2 are legendary and Leica color is actually my favorite if I can afford them. Your f2 photo has slight vignetting and this should be nice for portraits, so hope you can share some portrait shots with this lens. Thks.

Hi Anthony,

Both 90mm 'Crons are very good in their own ways. The Apo-Asph version is sharp from f2.0 onwards and has a more clinical look. The pre-Asph version has a softer and warmer rendition at f2.0. If you are shooting portrait, this version is kinder on a person's face, especially if that person is a female. The Apo-Asph version will show wrinkles and lines clearly!

N.S. Ng

 

[Ben Ang]

finally converted a new lens! took me about 3 days, but managed to get a konica Hexanon 100 f/2.8 to focus to infinity on my nikon! sample pictures sometime this week, but for now:

got the matching hood and found a cool multicoated vivitar filter too =) this's the hardest conversion i ve done so far. had to modify about 10 different parts inside the lens.

 

[tikiman]

i recently chance across the CZJ Sonnar 180mm f2.8 MC (P6 mount) and Jupiter 6-2 180mm 2.8 (M42 mount), both housed in the same basement shop. Trouble is, I am only allow to buy one

Guys, can give suggestion which one to choose?

 

[tikiman]

Ryan, aka Giantcanopy is into MF lenses with T/S. Checkout his website in his signatory.

Need some education for these Zenit. What does the trailing numbers mean , eg 44-1,2,3 etc? And the some have the M behind, eg 44M-2. Are these all Carl Zeiss Biotar?

Hi ManWearPants, I was reading through old posting in this thread and realize that I did not rely to this question u asked. So here goes on what I know. CSer out there correct me if I am wrong.

The Helios series are a Russian copy of the CZ Biotar 58mm lens. It was initially named Bio Tar Krasnogorsky (BTK), so if anyone found a BTK, it will be a true gem haha. M stand for M42 mount, there is K for Pentax K mount and there were D and -7 mount. The Helios 44-7 ( not the same as Helios 44M-7) was made specially for Zenit-7 camera, and D was for Zenit-D Machine.

From what I read n translated, in the late 1980s, The MC version of Helios 44M series now @ 4 are transfer to a different factory to be produced in Valdaisky. The different number 5,6 & 7 is to differentiate the different resolution
Helios 44M-4 ~ 41/20 lines/mm
Helios 44M-5 ~ 41/20 lines/mm
Helios 44M-6 ~ 45/25 lines/mm
Helios 44M-7 ~ 50/30 lines/mm

There should be a lot more history about them, but these is all I know.

 

[Ben Ang]

brought the konica 100 2.8 out to play today. a very decent performer. it gets abit dull wide open with certain kinds of lighting, but nice rendition overall.