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

[oceanpriest]

You know what?
I actually looked for this thread today and it was again no longer on the 1st page.

I'm certainly envious of your copy of the J9.
Its soft drop off between in to out of focus areas and soft light treatment of the subjects is certainly unique and nice.

I'm quite lucky to get this copy from another CSer who collects soviet lenses.
Now I'm really curious how good Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 is....

Another nice one, OOF highlights seem less controlled like the Cosina 55/1.2

BTW, I'm curious why you chose a NX10 to use this lens.

Because Samsung NX10's sensor is same as Pentax K7's :bsmilie:

Just kidding....

The Voigtlander is in M mount, I can't use it on Pentax DSLR body.

Actually, I did mod my NX10 to accept M mount lens. Without changing the mount, NX10 can only accept LTM lens via adapter.

 

[ranchy]

Bump this thread

Jupiter 9 85mm f2[/CENTER]

Are those shots taken wide open?

 

[oceanpriest]

Are those shots taken wide open?

mostly wide open. but can't really rmbr... sometimes i stop down abit when I use fill in flash to keep shutter speed lower than 1/200

 

[pinholecam]

I'm quite lucky to get this copy from another CSer who collects soviet lenses.
Now I'm really curious how good Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 is....



Because Samsung NX10's sensor is same as Pentax K7's :bsmilie:

Just kidding...?

The Voigtlander is in M mount, I can't use it on Pentax DSLR body.

Actually, I did mod my NX10 to accept M mount lens. Without changing the mount, NX10 can only accept LTM lens via adapter.

Interesting....
most ppl would use a Nex, but the NX series certainly has better handling imo.

 

[ranchy]

mostly wide open. but can't really rmbr... sometimes i stop down abit when I use fill in flash to keep shutter speed lower than 1/200

Ah.. OK. Thanks for the info....

 

[Shizuma]

I'm quite lucky to get this copy from another CSer who collects soviet lenses.
Now I'm really curious how good Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 is....

Is it a Soviet Sonnar clone, if I read correctly?

 

[ManWearPants]

The guys over at Sony forum seems only interested in RF lenses. So I shall bring my DSLR photos to bump up this thread.

OM 21/3.5 on Sony A7:

The setup

Will try posting daytime outdoor shots once the weather gets better. I think 24MP is probably the max this lens can resolve.

 

[ManWearPants]

OM 50/3.5 macro on A7:

The setup

extended to 1:2

 

[ricohflex]

the glow effect is due to Spherical Aberration

Maybe not. I do not think Leica optical designers would purposely allow SA in their top range lenses for "effect".

Lenses that use SA for soft effect are something else.

e.g. Rodenstock Imagon

 

[ricohflex]

mostly wide open. but can't really rmbr... sometimes i stop down abit when I use fill in flash to keep shutter speed lower than 1/200

You have proved with evidence that relatively cheap lenses such as the Jupiter 9 can produce high quality photos.

I have always doubted the US$4,000 (Cosina made under Zeiss license) OTUS over-the-top boastful statements "extremely rare glass, which is even more valuable than gold".

 

[pinholecam]

The guys over at Sony forum seems only interested in RF lenses. So I shall bring my DSLR photos to bump up this thread.

Will try posting daytime outdoor shots once the weather gets better. I think 24MP is probably the max this lens can resolve.

Cool!

Frankly, I think its rather 'forced' to use some of the RF lenses (esp. the UWA and wides) on A7/r with the color casts or sub-optimal edge performance.
Thats $2K for camera plus quite a bit for nice rf lenses, but then have to accept sub-par performance which does not do the lenses/camera justice.
Good enough for streets/people/candids/some portraits or for local stuff, but imo 'dicey' for situations like a tour where one needs to have dependable quality o/p for a more diverse genre of photos (eg. landscapes; details of items/places/etc

Personally, I think a mix and match of SLR and RF lenses will be the way to go.

I'm surprised that you say that the resolution of the OM21/3.5 may be maxed out.
Do you mean that its the case even when stopped down to f8-f11?
Interesting....

 

[Zeisser]

I have always doubted the US$4,000 Zeiss OTUS over-the-top boastful statements "extremely rare glass, which is even more valuable than gold".

I tend to agree too overpriced for it's own good.

 

[Anthony Lee]

Cool!

Frankly, I think its rather 'forced' to use some of the RF lenses (esp. the UWA and wides) on A7/r with the color casts or sub-optimal edge performance.
Thats $2K for camera plus quite a bit for nice rf lenses, but then have to accept sub-par performance which does not do the lenses/camera justice.
Good enough for streets/people/candids/some portraits or for local stuff, but imo 'dicey' for situations like a tour where one needs to have dependable quality o/p for a more diverse genre of photos (eg. landscapes; details of items/places/etc

Personally, I think a mix and match of SLR and RF lenses will be the way to go.

I'm surprised that you say that the resolution of the OM21/3.5 may be maxed out.
Do you mean that its the case even when stopped down to f8-f11?
Interesting....

RF adapters from M to Sony E is at least half the thickness of SLR lens adapters, plus most M and Ltm lenses are much smaller. Also, most RF manual focus lenses have half stop clicks and some even 1/3 stop, so there are advantages if one can afford the more expensive Leica or Zeiss. CV has a nice range and some pretty good lenses.

 

[pinholecam]

RF adapters from M to Sony E is at least half the thickness of SLR lens adapters, plus most M and Ltm lenses are much smaller. Also, most RF manual focus lenses have half stop clicks and some even 1/3 stop, so there are advantages if one can afford the more expensive Leica or Zeiss. CV has a nice range and some pretty good lenses.

I am aware of these.
But as I said, there seems to me a 'forced' usage/acceptance of the o/p from UWA and WA for many of these lenses.


I know many are euphoric over it, being the cheapest thing to use RF lenses on digital FF other than plonking down the cash for a 2nd hand M9.
IMO, I feel that if I were to spend the time and money to go on a trip to say Iceland (or any other off country place), I'd not want the not too good corner performance and lament later or doubt myself when viewing on big screen or print.
Or doing the PP work to fix corner issues (there is already A LOT of PP work to be done for the images w/o such added issues)

Answer is simple to me w/o being euphoric over it.
Just mix and match the right lenses.
Not force oneself to accept lenses just because they are RF or smaller (worse just because they are expensive or branded )

A slr 20mm is not too big and can do quite a bit on FF. (on aps-c, for the eq fov will already need a 13mm)
Yes, RF 12mm, 15mm are far smaller, but as I said, so far, for the samples I've seen, too much compromises to IQ.

A bigger slr 20mm (can't remember if the Voigtlander 21 or 24mm have issues) , Rf 50mm; and perhaps a smallish slr 85/1.8 (or RF 85/2) is nice too and still rather small to fit in a small bag.
Just need to be effective and right sized.
Rather than tiny (but still need a bag) and questionable o/p

 

[ManWearPants]

Cool!

Frankly, I think its rather 'forced' to use some of the RF lenses (esp. the UWA and wides) on A7/r with the color casts or sub-optimal edge performance.
Thats $2K for camera plus quite a bit for nice rf lenses, but then have to accept sub-par performance which does not do the lenses/camera justice.
Good enough for streets/people/candids/some portraits or for local stuff, but imo 'dicey' for situations like a tour where one needs to have dependable quality o/p for a more diverse genre of photos (eg. landscapes; details of items/places/etc

Personally, I think a mix and match of SLR and RF lenses will be the way to go.

I'm surprised that you say that the resolution of the OM21/3.5 may be maxed out.
Do you mean that its the case even when stopped down to f8-f11?
Interesting....

Nope. I am not buying into RF lenses as I do not own any before and unlikely to move onto Leica bodies in future. So I will still be adapting DSLR prime lenses and probably buying a couple of FE zooms. There is no need to make wholesale changes to my lenses line up. And for the same reason, I did not go after the resolution monster A7R as I know some of my lenses may not be able to perform up to.

Yes. I believe the OM21/3.5 when adapted on the A7 can just handle 24MP. Maybe the rear distance to sensor is too far. Maybe I am not on tripod. I am not sure. But good enough for not pixel peeping.

@f8

zoomed in on left

zoomed in on right

 

[Thoth]

Sharing a boring tripod shot of an interesting lens I had just tested, thanks to bro overworked for loaning me this lens.

Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 MC at wide open....

 

[Anthony Lee]

I am aware of these.
But as I said, there seems to me a 'forced' usage/acceptance of the o/p from UWA and WA for many of these lenses.


I know many are euphoric over it, being the cheapest thing to use RF lenses on digital FF other than plonking down the cash for a 2nd hand M9.
IMO, I feel that if I were to spend the time and money to go on a trip to say Iceland (or any other off country place), I'd not want the not too good corner performance and lament later or doubt myself when viewing on big screen or print.
Or doing the PP work to fix corner issues (there is already A LOT of PP work to be done for the images w/o such added issues)

Answer is simple to me w/o being euphoric over it.
Just mix and match the right lenses.
Not force oneself to accept lenses just because they are RF or smaller (worse just because they are expensive or branded )

A slr 20mm is not too big and can do quite a bit on FF. (on aps-c, for the eq fov will already need a 13mm)
Yes, RF 12mm, 15mm are far smaller, but as I said, so far, for the samples I've seen, too much compromises to IQ.

A bigger slr 20mm (can't remember if the Voigtlander 21 or 24mm have issues) , Rf 50mm; and perhaps a smallish slr 85/1.8 (or RF 85/2) is nice too and still rather small to fit in a small bag.
Just need to be effective and right sized.
Rather than tiny (but still need a bag) and questionable o/p

The current crowd around this craze is different from you, MWP and me. Most started with mirrorless and have very little experience with SLR legacies. Given a choice, an RF lens will definitely match a mirrorless better in size, looks, status and maybe IQ, so why not. I am sure Sony is on the right path.

 

[ManWearPants]

On hindsight, I may have been over critical on the first impression of the lens on A7. I may also need to work out the best pp workflow.

OM21/3.5 @ f3.5

 

[ManWearPants]

The current crowd around this craze is different from you, MWP and me. Most started with mirrorless and have very little experience with SLR legacies. Given a choice, an RF lens will definitely match a mirrorless better in size, looks, status and maybe IQ, so why not. I am sure Sony is on the right path.

My neck, shoulders and back are enjoying the A7 better. Sony is definitely on the right path.

Yes RF lenses look very good in every department. The A7/R provides even more flexibility than the 5D2 so there are choices galore.

 

[ManWearPants]

Sharing a boring tripod shot of an interesting lens I had just tested, thanks to bro overworked for loaning me this lens.

Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 MC at wide open....

I have had the MD version for a while. From memory, the light fall-off when used on Canon 5D2 is more pronounced wide opened. It is a difficult lens to nail focus right especially using centered focus and shift and stopped down metering. That is why I sold it off. I wished I still have it since it would have been easier to use with focus peaking.