General MF lens discussion

hey guys great thread, lots of good information. I love MF glass too! So many choices it makes my head spin.

Could anyone recommend a longish (>135mm) manual focus macro lens? I like my 60mm macro, but I have been shooting spiders and bugs lately and need a little more distance because I am getting creeped out.

I have also been thinking about getting a 200-300mm manual focus lens If I used it with tubes could kill 2 birds with one stone? I am not that familiar with using tubes, they are on their way from Hong Kong now.

Any advice is appreciated, thanks in advance.

Sigma 150/2.8 is a wonderful macro lens. And, AF as well.

Yes the sigma 150 would be my first choice, but it is out of my price range. Sorry I meant my wife's price range I do not mind manual focusing, I put the ef-s screen in my 50D which helps a bunch.

Any good long macro's in M42 or similar I do not know about?

Most 135's you come across are pretty good. Carl Zeiss Jenna MC 135 3.5 is pretty good. I have a vivitar 135 2.8 which I'm very pleased with. There are quite a few 2.8 or faster that are nice. Look for Super Takumar, CZJ (has a few different ones, Sonnar, etc)

the 200mm/4 Nikkor-Q (2nd generation focusing to 7'...identified by the longer...longer than gen1...scalloped metal focusing ring) and 300mm/4.5 Nikkor-H are very good and at 50-$75 are steals.

I've been looking at the Tair-11a 135/2.8. Can't believe its going for $100 on Ebay.

Yes, many, many great older "portrait" lenses than can do double duty for macro with the help of an ext. tube or two. The older macro lenses tend to have too much CA when used on modern DSLRs.

Thanks for the info. Trolling around ebay, I just picked up a super takumar 135 3.5 in a lot with some junk tripod for $25.00. For that price I could not pass it up. A google search turns up a lot of positive reviews, anyone have experience with this lens? I do not belive it is super multi coated version.

The 135/2.5 is the best of the Pentax 135s. All are built well and take good pix. I'm not a Pentax fan in general. Bokeh is too harsh for me.

gasrocks wrote in post #8743751
The 135/2.5 is the best of the Pentax 135s. All are built well and take good pix. I'm not a Pentax fan in general. Bokeh is too harsh for me.

Yes, for Takumars you either love or hate the bokeh. I love the busyness of the bokeh (which some find distracting) but with a little placement you can achieve smooth bokeh as well.

For $25 that 135 is a great deal.

I used to own a Tair 11a 135mm 2.8 and Jupiter 37a 135mm 3.5. I sold them both.

The tair is nice for portraits with nice color and good bokeh. The Jupiter is supposed to be a Zeiss clone. It was produced in masses so expect higher than average sample variation, even for a russian lens. It is very cheap. Built like a tank.

I tried the Jupiter with extension tubes. I was not overly impressed. The results look sharp at first but once you compare it to a good modern macro lens like the Sigma 50mm 2.8 or the 150, you see it is not really in the same league. YMMV based on the copy you use though.

There are a lot of raving comments in the MF community about the Tamron 100 2.5 macro. If you get a good deal on it on ebay it might be worth a try but last time i checked they tended to be pricey. I was not blown away by the sample images I saw of that lens.

I saw a good review for the 50mm macro nikon, from a source i trust (it is in hebrew:
http://www.kramery.com …icles/detail.as​p?iArt=610 ) so if you get one in good condition and in good price...why not.

I must add though, the Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro is one of the sharpest lenses I ever owned (if not the sharpest) with excellent color, contrast, bokeh, CA resistence - you name it. It is not that expensive (260 new at sigma4less) new and even cheaper used. Considering the superb results I got with it, I don't feel there is an overwhelming case for MF lenses in macro photography. For portraits sure.. but for Macro... the modern lenses are very very good.

Come to think about it... it really depends what are you aiming for with Macro photography. If you want to shoot bugs and count the hairs on the fly's nose.. that is one thing... if you want to go creative with funky optical effects... here is some macro stuff I did with the helios 40 85mm f/1.5 with an extension tube shot wide open:
http://www.pbase.com/k​atzer/helios_40


Erez

hi there,

does anyone know something about the Rodenstock Heligon 1,5/100mm? i just opened a thread at :
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=760628

wanting to know wheather this is a fixed-focus / fixed aperture lens.

i know, i should not make double posts. i stupidly posted it in the lens talk section without being aware of a mf-thread. sory for that guys...

i think my question should be placed here though. forgive me

Anybody come across instructions, diagrams or schematics
for taking apart a Helios 44-2 lens.
Thanks!

Re the EOS1 error problem, had the same with my EOS5.

There is a microswitch just under the rim of the lensmount at the 10'clock position when looking at the mount.

the camera is expecting an EF lens to be fitted, the normal EF lens will move this switch to the open position.

For an non EF lens to work without the 01 error, you need to file about 1.5mm off of one of the adapters flanges so that the switch stays closed.

Hold the adapter so the mounting side is towards you and the red dot is at the top. The flange that need filing back is the one at the 4'clock position, as you look at it. the edge that needs filing is the first one, going in a clockwise direction from the red dot.

I did this with an FD to EOS adapter so I could use my FD lenses on the EOS5

hope this helps

John

Just to make my description easier to understand,I took this picture of my adapter this morning, so you can see for yourself what needs to be done.

This adapter is the FD to EOS one, I took the picture using a screw thread 50mm F2.8 Tessar lens on my 350D.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.