MF Adapted Lens Image Samples - Post Your Best!

[Dorman]

Originally Posted by perryge

There's an SMC Tak 55 1.8 on sale here in Toronto for CAD$25, and you should be able to find a 24 2.8 for about $100, I got my 28 3.5 for $70. The Rokkor isn't worth it unless you get the 58 1.2 (there's one here for $500) but I got a Rokkor 50 1.7 for $12, which I sold to a local forum member to dismantle.

Good to know - I hadn't considered looking at what's available around Toronto and the like. My first inclination is to just go for the EF 50mm f/1.4 and then save up for and find something in the 24mm range...

[Perry Ge]

Yeah I ended up with the 50L and a MF 28mm prime, but if you want to try out some MF glass, if you can find an OM->EOS adapter (I only have one and need it), I could ship you my Zuiko 50 1.8 (VERY nice lens) for you to try, and then if you like it you can have it for pretty cheap. PM me if you're interested.

[Dorman]

Originally Posted by perryge

Yeah I ended up with the 50L and a MF 28mm prime, but if you want to try out some MF glass, if you can find an OM->EOS adapter (I only have one and need it), I could ship you my Zuiko 50 1.8 (VERY nice lens) for you to try, and then if you like it you can have it for pretty cheap. PM me if you're interested.

Thanks dude, I'll give it some thought. I think AF on the 50mm might be the way to go since there are some decent AF 50's available at a reasonable cost (of course I'd love to 50L, someday!). The 24 is the challenge since there aren't many GOOD reasonably priced alternatives w/ AF.

[Perry Ge]

Originally Posted by Dorman

Thanks dude, I'll give it some thought. I think AF on the 50mm might be the way to go since there are some decent AF 50's available at a reasonable cost (of course I'd love to 50L, someday!). The 24 is the challenge since there aren't many GOOD reasonably priced alternatives w/ AF.

Yeah and even the Canon wide angles aren't as good from corner to corner as some of these MF lenses. Anyway we should move the discussion to the "General MF lens thread" (see a few pages back) before we get kicked out again.

[Electric Shepherd]

I picked up a bargain Zeiss Jena Sonnar f3.5/135 last week on eBay so I've had a quick play with it over the last couple of days.

Loving the bokeh on it so far but lots to learn about using MF lenses on my 450D using a focus confirm M42 adaptor.





Both shot at f3.5. I'll try to figure out some 100% crops later.

[rdenney]

I went to a (lousy) camera show, and to my surprise found a couple of goodies.

Okay, one was a goodie and the other one was, well, interesting.

I'll start with the interesting one, a

Schneider Kreuznach Curtagon 28mm f/4, M42 mount

I figure this was probably a high-end 28 back in the 50's, when Schneider made these for the Retina Reflex. This one is an M42 lens, but with a stop-down arrangement that is unlike any M42 lens I've seen. I don't know what camera it was originally intended for--most of the M42 cameras of that era used the push-pin stop-down control. But it does have a very convenient Auto-Manual slide control, which will switch it from full-aperture viewing and focusing to stopped down for metering and exposing, and for use on a Canon the funky auto diaphragm isn't an issue.

The lens proved to be a problem on the 5D. When focused further away than 15 feet, the mirror would get hung up on the back of the lens. There is a ring that screws into the lens back that I thought was a retainer, so I removed it to file it down. Ooops! It held in five tiny ball bearings on which the auto diaphragm actuation ring runs. That caused the actuation ring to fall slack, which caused the aperture blades to fall out of their tracks. Three hours later (GRRRR!), the lens was back in one piece and everything was fine (and now it's all cleaned and lubed, too). I'm amazed by the number of tiny screws those post-war Germans were willing to tolerate. But the disassembly let me know that I could file away the interference with no risk of damage, and in the end I took off about a millimeter from the upper edge of the rear barrel. It now works fine on the 5D.

Was it worth the effort? Possibly not. This image was made at f/11, which was not enough to ensure adequate depth of field. I used an AF-chipped adapter (the same one I use for my Jena Sonnar) and focused on the pine needles on the ground in the center of the image. The color is pretty good, and there is not even a hint of chromatic aberration in this lens, which is quite remarkable for a 50-year-old wide-angle design. The lens is coated but not extremely contrasty, though that is also useful for taming some of those ultra-contrasty scenes. It is very sharp in the middle of the frame (as shown in the 100% detail), but it loses it in the corners, even stopped down to f/11 (though the bush in the foreground of this picture is out of focus, and there are sharper details behind the bush). There's a pronounced field curvature. If you focus on 10 feet, the corners will be focused on infinity (and not 10 feet). This isn't that uncommon for the day, but in my experience the curvature goes the other way (focusing closer than the focus plane). The sharpness of the center is characteristic of early retrofocus wides, including the Flektogon and even the early Distagons.

I paid $75, which is too much. Might be a reasonable buy at $25, unless you are trying to complete a Schneider lens collection for a 50's Praktica. Will I use it? Maybe, when I want an old-world look. I'll have to experiment some more to see if there is a special character that I've so far missed. My first impression, though, is that it's no match for a Pentax lens from a dozen years later.

Rick "who probably should have passed" Denney

[rdenney]

And now for the good find in my camera show adventure.

Based on this thread, I decided I needed a legendary Nikkor 105/2.5. I was impressed with the Nikon Series E 75-150, which was a budget lens for the Nikon EM (though it has also apparently attained mythic status), and I know that the Noink boys know how to make a lens with pretty rendering.

As it turns out, sitting right next to the Schneider was a very battered

Nikkor 105mm f/2.5, AI mount

By "battered", I mean that the wartime photog that used it once mistakenly threw it at the enemy, thinking it was a hand grenade. Or something like that. It's heavily brassed, the rubber has been worn down to hard nubs, the glass has a couple of marks on the coating on the front element, and the lens was full of dust and haze. I paid for it what I should have paid for the Schneider.

One problem was that the mount lock-pin slot was so worn that my Nikon-EF adapter wouldn't grab it reliably. I made a new sharp edge with a Dremel tool and a tiny burr grinder. I then found the little set screw that held on the front guard ring, and removing that, was able to remove the front lens cell. (You can also remove the label ring to get to it, but the filter threads on this beast need a bit of straightening before attempting that. That let me clean the interior surfaces of the lens, which gave me very clean and clear optics but for the bit of damage on the front element.

About that damage: It's rather amazing how much damage it takes to make a visible effect on an image, so I never let a slight coating flaw or a tiny scratch deter me, especially since it forces the price down into the play-money range.

And I like battered lenses, because that means they were used. A well-used lens that was part of a professional line often means a professional used it and loved it.

This AI lens does not have the integral slide-out lens shade, which is a convenient feature of the later AI-S version. I'm thinking this lens dates from about 1977--the serial number is very early in the series after the introduction of AI-mount lenses. This one would look just dandy on an F2 Photomic.

And it makes dandy images. The bokeh is outstanding, based on my early look, and the lens is sharp corner to corner even wide open. In this image, the lens was stopped down to f/11. Color is wonderful and contrast excellent. This one will definitely ride in my bag at least for a while. I'm grateful for the peek into this lens in this thread, which is the only reason I would have paid even chump change for a battered example.

Rick "noting similarities of design with vintage Sonnars" Denney

[Perry Ge]

I totally agree about the well used lenses Rick. But what do you mean design similarities with old Sonnars? The big appeal of the later Nikon 105 2.5 lenses is that they moved away from a Sonnar design to a Gauss-type 5 elements in 4 groups design, but I'm probably misunderstanding you since you know way more than I do .

Regardless, I have the same lens, and it's one of the best. It's excellent. Mine is in mint condition though .

[rdenney]

Originally Posted by perryge

I totally agree about the well used lenses Rick. But what do you mean design similarities with old Sonnars? The big appeal of the later Nikon 105 2.5 lenses is that they moved away from a Sonnar design to a Gauss-type 5 elements in 4 groups design, but I'm probably misunderstanding you since you know way more than I do .

Regardless, I have the same lens, and it's one of the best. It's excellent. Mine is in mint condition though .

I don't know about the Sonnar design in terms of which elements are negative and positive, etc. But what I did see in the optical plan was the use of very thick elements in front of the optical center. The bokeh is much more Sonnar-like than Planar-like to my eye, and that's a good thing.

But looking at the optical plan, the Nikkor looks a whole lot more like a Sonnar than a Planar (which is a symmetrical lens with 6 elements in 4 groups.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...o/105mmf25.pdf

http://www.commiecameras.com/ddr/p6/...es/s180con.gif

The upper link is a 62K PDF that shows the Nikkor in AI trim (same glass as the AIS, and probably the same as the Nikkor-P that preceded it). The lower link is from Nathan Dayton's Commiecamers site, and shows the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/2.8. The forward negative element in the Nikkor is the main difference that I see.

Rick "not willing to go any further than that" Denney

[kitacanon]

Here are a couple of my standard test shots:
RAW files converted by DPP to Adobe PhShop-6
After opening you can left click to enlarge...

The 85/2 @ F4...full frame @ 175dpi, USM @ 100/.3/0
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3463/85ff175pu13.jpg

The 50/1.4 @ F4 full frame @ 175dpi USM @ 200/.2/0
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5...0ff175pu22.jpg

here's the same shot taken with the Canon 50/F1.8 Compact Macro @ F4...
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9...0ff175pu33.jpg

...it's focused a bit farther back than the Nikkor so the grass isn't as sharp but also note the warmer tones, especially in the large bush in the middle...of course tones can be adjusted, but I thought it noteworthy that Nikkor is cooler than the canon, something noted even in the images taken with Nikon DLSRs...must be something in the glass...

Hope they give you some idea...

[Permagrin]

Picked up the nikon 180 ais ed today. It was half raining most of the day so I just took some quick landscapes with it. It's huge for a mf lens...72mm filter size (all my other mf lenses have 52mm filters).

LINK

I'll do some test shots to show the bokeh/sharpness etc when the weather gets better, but from preliminary shots, it seems pretty sharp.

[Perry Ge]

Looks nice Permie. Any crop of the GBH?

[Permagrin]

Originally Posted by perryge

Looks nice Permie. Any crop of the GBH?

I'll pull it off of my gallery (I'm on the wrong computer atm) and crop it. He moved his head when I was shooting so it's slightly soft.

[Permagrin]

okay Perry, here's a crop...it could be better

[Perry Ge]

^ That's really impressive all things considered.