For newbies, it might be better to learn how to make the best out of ONE or TWO lenses before buying other lenses.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Adapted lenses that knocked your socks off!
- Thread starter Belgarchi
- Start date
Travis Butler
Senior Member
I tend to be a very lens-centric shooter - instead of looking at a scene and asking what lens I should use for it, my normal style is to put on a lens and see what I can capture with it, only switching when I run out of angles. So in theory, this kind of thread ought to be right up my alley.
However...
...for this reason, they often aren't. This critique is right on target.
What good is a simple list of lenses? What does it tell the reader? It's worthless.
What's important is what's interesting about a lens. Why do you like it? What 'knocks your socks off'? What does it do that other lenses don't? Why should I seek it out? A list of names doesn't give you any of that.
(Sample pictures illustrating the qualities of a lens are even better - kudos to the people who do!)
I agree that setting criteria up front is important if you're after something specific, or even if you're just wanting 'the best'; what does 'the best' mean? With something like this, where the OP is just asking for lenses that impressed you, setting criteria up front isn't as important - but that makes it even more important to give your criteria in your response, to describe how you're rating a lens and what grabbed you.
I'm of two minds here... it's good to know a rough idea of how much something's going to cost, but the market varies enough that it quickly goes out of date. When I hear about a lens that seems interesting and search for info on it, I'll turn up threads 10-15 years old, and any pricing there is a historical curiosity.
Well... I'd also flip it around, as I said above; in addition to 'is this tool good for this job', another way to look at it is 'what jobs can I do with this tool'? 'This lens is great for landscapes, and mid-range shots of things like cars or fountains, but has poor bokeh' can be just as helpful as 'If you want to shoot landscapes, look at <x> <y> and <z>'.
Wadidiz
Member
I enjoy such threads--as thin as they may be--because they put some lens on the map for me. They also somewhat "endorse" some lenses I own, have owned or wish to own.
I bought my first mirrorless camera (Sony A7) without a lens because I had already started buying vintage lenses and adapters. I have since converted several rangefinder lenses to E-mount.
Interchangeable:
Rodenstock Heligon 50mm/1.9 DKL mount - I discovered "pop" on that lens, and amazing sharpness starting around f2. Also discovered and played with its rainbow effect.
Canon FD 85mm/1.8 SSC or New FD - great portrait lens and for near-stage concert photography/videography. Yeah, the colors can fringe wide open. Fixable in post.
Leitz Wetzlar Summicron-R 50mm/2 v1 - my first Leica product and I saw it in my first shoots, the hype may have gotten to me, but the images seemed 2D++ including deep sharpness and a seemingly wider palette of colors. Version 2 is sharper, lighter, easier to focus and has a great built in hood. But I slightly prefer the rendering of Version 1.
Leitz Wetzlar Macro Elmarit-R 60mm/2.8 - What can I say? Has the ill-defined Leica look, one of Leica's sharpest vintage lenses, made for hi-res copy and macro but very usable all-round.
Helios 44-2 58mm/2 - probably enough written about the swirl machine. Mine looks like it was cleaned with sandpaper but still is surprisingly sharp.
Pentacon auto multi-coating 50mm/1.8 M42 mount - Can the bad reputation for East German sample variation work in my favor? The rendering pops like Zeiss Planar and seems to sharper than it's supposed to be:
Pentacon MC 50mm/1.8 on Sony A7r3
Pentacon MC 50mm/1.8 on Sony A7r3 - highly cropped
Lenses I converted to E-mount:
Aires H Coral 45mm/1.9 - the sharpness and rendering almost did knock my socks off. Too bad Aires went out of business and that their lens supplier moved to making much higher precision optics.
But then I discovered Yashica Yashinon DX rangefinder lenses. I have adapted the following:
Color-Yashinon DX 35mm/1.8 - replete with funky twin-bladed space-ship aperture. From a broken Yashica Electro 35 CC.
Color-Yashinon DX 40mm/17 - my favorite carry-round lens when I need compactness. I've posted photos with that lens here before.
Yashinon DX 45mm/1.4 - my favorite lens when a little heavier is OK. I don't know if my eyesight has gotten worse, but my tests show this to be at least as sharp as my modern, recently-produced E-mount lens. And the out of focus blur is butter smooth (according to my tastes).
Yashinon DX 45mm/1.7 - lighter than the 1.4 but larger than the 40mm. I have it solidly mounted onto a focusing helicoid, so it focuses really close now (around 0.3m). Can show a pic.
Enough for now. Long enough I suppose. Main point: there's some vintage gold waiting to be dug up.
I bought my first mirrorless camera (Sony A7) without a lens because I had already started buying vintage lenses and adapters. I have since converted several rangefinder lenses to E-mount.
Interchangeable:
Rodenstock Heligon 50mm/1.9 DKL mount - I discovered "pop" on that lens, and amazing sharpness starting around f2. Also discovered and played with its rainbow effect.
Canon FD 85mm/1.8 SSC or New FD - great portrait lens and for near-stage concert photography/videography. Yeah, the colors can fringe wide open. Fixable in post.
Leitz Wetzlar Summicron-R 50mm/2 v1 - my first Leica product and I saw it in my first shoots, the hype may have gotten to me, but the images seemed 2D++ including deep sharpness and a seemingly wider palette of colors. Version 2 is sharper, lighter, easier to focus and has a great built in hood. But I slightly prefer the rendering of Version 1.
Leitz Wetzlar Macro Elmarit-R 60mm/2.8 - What can I say? Has the ill-defined Leica look, one of Leica's sharpest vintage lenses, made for hi-res copy and macro but very usable all-round.
Helios 44-2 58mm/2 - probably enough written about the swirl machine. Mine looks like it was cleaned with sandpaper but still is surprisingly sharp.
Pentacon auto multi-coating 50mm/1.8 M42 mount - Can the bad reputation for East German sample variation work in my favor? The rendering pops like Zeiss Planar and seems to sharper than it's supposed to be:
Pentacon MC 50mm/1.8 on Sony A7r3
Pentacon MC 50mm/1.8 on Sony A7r3 - highly cropped
Lenses I converted to E-mount:
Aires H Coral 45mm/1.9 - the sharpness and rendering almost did knock my socks off. Too bad Aires went out of business and that their lens supplier moved to making much higher precision optics.
But then I discovered Yashica Yashinon DX rangefinder lenses. I have adapted the following:
Color-Yashinon DX 35mm/1.8 - replete with funky twin-bladed space-ship aperture. From a broken Yashica Electro 35 CC.
Color-Yashinon DX 40mm/17 - my favorite carry-round lens when I need compactness. I've posted photos with that lens here before.
Yashinon DX 45mm/1.4 - my favorite lens when a little heavier is OK. I don't know if my eyesight has gotten worse, but my tests show this to be at least as sharp as my modern, recently-produced E-mount lens. And the out of focus blur is butter smooth (according to my tastes).
Yashinon DX 45mm/1.7 - lighter than the 1.4 but larger than the 40mm. I have it solidly mounted onto a focusing helicoid, so it focuses really close now (around 0.3m). Can show a pic.
Enough for now. Long enough I suppose. Main point: there's some vintage gold waiting to be dug up.
CK, these post are more about learning g about the person behind some lenses than about lenses themselves. There’s no criteria or even correct or incorrect answer. Really, it’s a social thread to talk about lenses the poster likes, which what a lot here love doing. When someone asks for help in a post, they are usually answered promptly and of great aid.Fine with me. I do not like any threads here in which the perimeter is not set properly. Without a precisely defined perimeter, we are talking apples vs. oranges! You can continue with whatever you want to say here to please those who would agree with you, but please keep in mind that there are always people who know this kind of threads are not the ones that can help people to learn.Offended? How could I be? I don’t agree at all with your comments, therefore, no offense. (-
Think this way. What if I would say the CZ Planar 100mm 1:2 is much better than the 100/3.5 you listed? If you don't have the Planar 100/2, how will you get your conclusion about your 100/3.5? I do have the 100/2, 100/2.8 and 100/3.5, BTW. Or, will you use a macro lens for portrait? Professionals won't do that and I hope you know the reasons.
Yes, I said this bluntly. When you post a thread in the original way, you will get many many positive and negative responses because you don't have a pre-set perimeter. You get many responses; but, most of the responses are just from those who whose collections are similar to yours rather than more universal.
This is an open forum and you certainly can do whatever you want. On the other hand, people come here to learn, and, consequently, set a good perimeter would help people than using a nearly unlimited and unfocused titles. You always got more responses for sure. Think about this: how many people did like your posts? BTW, you don't agree with me and I don't care even a penney.
CK
now on to some general topics…
In this thread I shared some lenses I was expecting less about, but did not mention the most important one because I have already bored half the members with my kin appreciation of the Elmar 50/3.5 optic. There is something g about how lenses deliver a totality of experience, the combination of everything that a person would experience when using a lens. Why the Elmar? There are too many factors and they all weight. Actually, I studied economics that is in part science but largely human, because it deals with people choices.
About speed, I find that in a random test most people would fail to note at any meaning viewing distance something one stop apart, or even two stops. So for me f3.5 isn’t slow, I consider it a bit noisier. One impact that ILCEs had on me, because the screens do not have enough resolution to allow proper focusing, is the zoom to focus (magnify). In some very TANGIBLE way the focus of attention is that very small zone of slight defocus, the transition, and for solids, usually from the peak plane towards the background, acquire enormous importance. And this is what commands most attention in any photo of solids, one is identifying what is in focus and exposed to the slight transition towards background. On the other hand, at full photo, it needs to have nice mid level contrast, and when flaring, low mid level contrast (as that’s how our eyes would present things) but without ANY artifact like odd color, or obvious replicas of the lens structure. In some sense, the Elmar is as close an analog to how I perceive thing when using my own eyes. The second aspect is it allows very fine focus because of it small size. And if there was a “blind use” of a lens, I’d the one that wins by far. I can close my eyes and grab the camera and locate the focusing part in less than a second never ever making a mistake. The fact is has no aperture in the barrel is a huge plus, as it’s part of why it’s the easiest lens on earth to focus: grab any part and you can focus that way.
There another aspect which is how natural the image looks. Is there a function or subjective? It’s with exploring, but the Elmar wins. I bought a second and third copies of the 3.5 just to make sure it was not some artifact of the lens being so old, some lucky jackpot. And no, all of them are like that. Every pixel looks more genuine to me. I can watch at 100% or 10% and I adore the photos.
Same thing with the Elmar 135/4. The images come back alive in a delicate way. This is why I can understand (although out of my budget) the E60. It’s the totality of the experience. Now, I use my phone a lot for photos. So this is not about nostalgia. The 35mm, 58mm and 100mm from Topcor (R) are also works of art, the totality of the experience is amazing to me. This is why I use those lenses a lot more than much better or expensive ones. So if anyone reads this post, they will likely know a little bit more about me, maybe some curiosity about some of the things mentioned, but not expecting to take my comment as an optical description of the lenses for sure.
ProfHankD
Veteran Member
This is why I try to post a little review of (most) of my lenses as I test them. It's not hard to find reviews of specific lenses by searching or by looking at the links on my MYLENSES page . There are also site like dyxum , which are organized as searchable lens reviewes.
Interesting point: we don't really have an "index" that says which lenses are good for things like "landscapes shot with an APS-C body showing stars in the night sky" -- nor would it be easy to construct a search pattern to scan through all postings for an attribute like that... Hmm.
Belgarchi
Senior Member
You missed the point. The CZ100/2.8 Macro has little to do with the 100/3.5, it is not used for the same things, it is a lot heavier. Maybe both are exceptional, I don't know for the 100/2.8 Macro. But what I know is that, compared to other 100mm non-macro with an aperture of, say, between 2.5 and 4.0, the CZ 100/3.5 knocks my socks off, and will do the same to anybody trying one in good condition.Fine with me. I do not like any threads here in which the perimeter is not set properly. Without a precisely defined perimeter, we are talking apples vs. oranges! You can continue with whatever you want to say here to please those who would agree with you, but please keep in mind that there are always people who know this kind of threads are not the ones that can help people to learn.Offended? How could I be? I don’t agree at all with your comments, therefore, no offense. (-
Think this way. What if I would say the CZ Planar 100mm 1:2 is much better than the 100/3.5 you listed?
There is a perimeter. The lenses I talked about, and hopefully the ones other people talked about, are the rare pearls which are absolutely wonderful and superior to anything in their category of focal / purpose / aperture. Note that I listed 8 lenses. If there was no 'perimeter', I could have listed all the lenses I ever used and tested, probably around 250. The perimeter made me select 3% of my lenses, and I think that a lot of people can learn something here : these 8 lenses are outstanding.
Last edited:
Belgarchi
Senior Member
Disagreed. A lens, like many other technical things in life (cars, loudspeakers, etc...) is a compromise. But some rare ones manage to beat the others on practically all criteria. I challenge you to find an optical (and mechanical in this case) weakness in the Contax Zeiss 100/3.5 for example. It is as good or better (more of the later) on all counts than any other comparable lens (100-105mm, f/2.8-4.0, non-macro).
I admit this is rare, and that's why my list is made of only 8 lenses.
- Quite often, the lenses that are "best" are NOT the most famous oldies with the highest eBay prices; a measurement-based selection of high-performing lenses will have a large number of new lenses, 3rd-party lenses, and currently-less-known brands (e.g., Minolta)
- Agreed on Minolta (-
My personal pet peeves for OPs in this type of thread are:
- Not specifying what attributes you want in the lens
- Not specifying what format you will use it on (MFT, APS-C, FF, MF)
Agreed. It doesn't mean a 'best of all' short list is useless. And besides, I am not a salesman: my goal is not to increase the sales of the 'knocks your socks off' lenses. Depending on what type of photos you take, some of them are not very useful.
Belgarchi
Senior Member
The lens (-
These are exceptional lenses, best at what they are typically used for.Your 'what's interesting about a lens' is important for LESSER lenses, that have some strengths and weaknesses (95% of lenses, indeed)
Okay, I thought people would understand what is implied by 'knocks your socks off', but it seems that it is not the case. Lenses with ridiculously small amounts of residual optical aberrations - Distortion, FTM from center to edge, coma, astigmatism, spherical aberration, colors, flare, etc. at all apertures (except very small, where diffraction always reduce the sharpness) and distances.
Last edited:
One good at everything is also never the best at anything in particular. No other way around it. I agree with CK that to be more meaningful some boundary is ideal even if broad. For example, photos to look at (ie. nothing scientific) at X level of detail or lower. Most often than not, for me it’s portrait or photos of objects without being macro not landscape. Two lenses with equally bad longitudinal CA can be dramatically different depending on exactly the shape of each color distribution. One lens may be fantastic for people and another for flowers, and so on. Nice bokeh may matter zero from very close up, but the ugly at a longer distance. That is to say, each lens is a “job” it can do so well, and part of that is science and another is personal taste.The lens (-
Your 'what's interesting about a lens' is important for LESSER lenses, that have some strengths and weaknesses (95% of lenses, indeed)
Okay, I thought people would understand what is implied by 'knock your socks off', but it seems that it is not the case. Lenses with ridiculously small amounts of optical aberrations - Distortion, FTM from center to edge, coma, astigmatism, spherical aberration, colors, etc. at all apertures and distances.
This is why I I think it’s always best to have fewer lenses, so you get to know them very well. I have a lot more than I can handle by an order of magnitude or two. And for example, I don’t have a single Pentax lens that has wowed me positively, although the images seem well rendered the feel dull to me. It’s all so subjective.
ProfHankD
Veteran Member
There is no such thing as a perfect lens; it can't be done because some things trade-off. However, I have no direct experience with the Sonnar T* 3,5/100mm , so I can only talk about some obvious weaknesses:
- Expensive; generally over $200 on eBay
- Slow at only f/3.5
- Moderate vignetting (about 1EV ) and some cat's eye in bokeh at f/3.5
- Average CA: some lateral, some axial (bokeh CA: green near, magenta far )
- 6 blades give hexagon bokeh by f/5.6
- Ill-defined sun stars
- When it flares, it veils (although it resists flare better than most lenses)
- Contax/Yashica mount & directions of aperture and focus rings might/might not be one's favorites
BTW, I don't give extra points for it being a Zeiss -- they tend to be pricey and in my experience often have surprising build quality issues.
Travis Butler
Senior Member
No, sorry. 'Knocks your socks off' is such a vague, idiosyncratic term that it doesn't mean anything useful here.The lens (-
Your 'what's interesting about a lens' is important for LESSER lenses, that have some strengths and weaknesses (95% of lenses, indeed)
Okay, I thought people would understand what is implied by 'knocks your socks off', but it seems that it is not the case. Lenses with ridiculously small amounts of residual optical aberrations - Distortion, FTM from center to edge, coma, astigmatism, spherical aberration, colors, flare, etc. at all apertures (except very small, where diffraction always reduce the sharpness) and distances.
All it says is that the lens really impressed the speaker. OK. Without knowing anything about how the speaker rates lenses, the reader knows nothing about why the lens impressed the speaker, and so it's meaningless.
Does the speaker really value bokeh, and rate the lens highly based on its bokeh? Or is sharpness what they care about most? You've seen how long and extended discussions of '3D Pop' have been on the forum, so calling it that opens up a whole 'nuther can of worms. Color rendition? Microcontrast? The list goes on, and without knowing what preferences the speaker brings to the table, the reader is clueless.
You define it here as 'ridiculously small amounts of residual optical aberrations'. In other discussions on the forum, some posters have gone into a lot of detail on how some optical aberrations create rendering they really like (the 3D Pop threads are an example, off the top of my head) - so your criteria doesn't mean anything to them, and presumably the lenses that 'knock their socks off' would fail your taste.
I'm also wary of trying to reduce everything to specs and numbers - they can be helpful, but I've seen lenses with impressive spec sheets that really disappointed me in their rendering (too clinical). Which just gets back to how this kind of rating has a personal, subjective element; to be useful, that element needs to be acknowledged and described as part of the review.
--
Flickr at https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_prof67/ Warning: Heavy Learning in progress.
Last edited:
Belgarchi
Senior Member
I disagree. Some rare lenses (1 on 20?) are excellent at everything.One good at everything is also never the best at anything in particular. No other way around it.The lens (-
Your 'what's interesting about a lens' is important for LESSER lenses, that have some strengths and weaknesses (95% of lenses, indeed)
Okay, I thought people would understand what is implied by 'knock your socks off', but it seems that it is not the case. Lenses with ridiculously small amounts of optical aberrations - Distortion, FTM from center to edge, coma, astigmatism, spherical aberration, colors, etc. at all apertures and distances.
True for 'lesser' lenses, not the 8 in my list.
I should have stated that I don't give a damn about bokeh. What counts is my subject, not the blurry inconvenient stuff around.
Yes, agreed. IMO, among many, many Pentax lenses I used, only the 300/4.5 FA* is exceptional. Sharp as a razor from center to corners (on APS-C), zero chromatic aberration, low vignetting, no visible distortion, low flare, etc.
Some, if not perfect, are interesting though: the 31/1.8 FA Limited is excellent on all counts at f/2.8+, the 28/3.5 K or M has very high contrast and saturation (but they are not sharp in the corners).
Belgarchi
Senior Member
That's not an optical performance
That's a spec, not a weakness.
True, but it seems to be less than 1 EV to me
I should have stated that I don't care about bokeh
Really small compared to other non-Apo lenses
I never had a photo with flare using that lens! Maybe if I try very hard? (-
They are 'standard', like Leica M and R, Minolta, Canon, Rollei QBM,...
The odd balls are Nikon, Pentax, Tamron, Olympus, all of these are specific to one brand.
Try it. And don't tell me it is expensive, it is a bargain.
Contax Zeiss MM lenses, with Nikon AIs, are the 'pre-1990' lenses that gave me the less trouble. Actually, I never had a Contax Zeiss (all bought used) that had a focusing, a mount or an aperture issue! (some Nikon did)
ProfHankD
Veteran Member
Per dollar performance matters.
That's an aperture that makes it less of a portrait option, which is a typical expected use for 100mm-ish lenses. It's also not a macro.
Not a bad number, just very average for an f/3.5... definitely not great.
Really? That's near the top for most of us judging IQ.
I've got to disagree on the axial. I've seen much worse, but samples looked a tad below average for non-APO 90-135mm primes. Certainly not good.
In the tests I've seen, T* coatings were second only to Pentax SMC, and they also tend toward veiling in the rare cases it happens. Still, it's an issue for some. Some people (not me) actually LOVE structured flare, including sun stars.I never had a photo with flare using that lens! Maybe if I try very hard? (-
Preferences are preferences; some will like this, some will hate it.
It's not even close to making my "gotta try it" list. First off, I already have a Sony 100mm STF, a couple of Tamron 90mm macros, a Minolta 100mm f/4 macro, etc. I also don't particularly want to deal with Contax/Yashica mount (remember that I make my own 3D printed adapters, so it would be another mount to design with just one lens to justify it). This particular lens seems most like the even smaller UV Topcor 100mm f/4 I have. I really just don't need another.
Again, the point is, that's far from being a perfect lens; it is one that is a great match for your particular preferences and metric weightings. ;-)
simple-joy
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,143
- Reaction score
- 1,666
Great sample and very interesting and unusual lenses - thanks for sharing! I'd certainly appreciate some shots from the rangefinder Yashinons you mentioned, if you have any. If I remember correctly, I've seen some of those adapted and used by a photographer I follow on flickr and the sharpness and rendering looked very convincing!I enjoy such threads--as thin as they may be--because they put some lens on the map for me. They also somewhat "endorse" some lenses I own, have owned or wish to own.
I bought my first mirrorless camera (Sony A7) without a lens because I had already started buying vintage lenses and adapters. I have since converted several rangefinder lenses to E-mount.
Interchangeable:
Rodenstock Heligon 50mm/1.9 DKL mount - I discovered "pop" on that lens, and amazing sharpness starting around f2. Also discovered and played with its rainbow effect.
Canon FD 85mm/1.8 SSC or New FD - great portrait lens and for near-stage concert photography/videography. Yeah, the colors can fringe wide open. Fixable in post.
Leitz Wetzlar Summicron-R 50mm/2 v1 - my first Leica product and I saw it in my first shoots, the hype may have gotten to me, but the images seemed 2D++ including deep sharpness and a seemingly wider palette of colors. Version 2 is sharper, lighter, easier to focus and has a great built in hood. But I slightly prefer the rendering of Version 1.
Leitz Wetzlar Macro Elmarit-R 60mm/2.8 - What can I say? Has the ill-defined Leica look, one of Leica's sharpest vintage lenses, made for hi-res copy and macro but very usable all-round.
Helios 44-2 58mm/2 - probably enough written about the swirl machine. Mine looks like it was cleaned with sandpaper but still is surprisingly sharp.
Pentacon auto multi-coating 50mm/1.8 M42 mount - Can the bad reputation for East German sample variation work in my favor? The rendering pops like Zeiss Planar and seems to sharper than it's supposed to be:
Pentacon MC 50mm/1.8 on Sony A7r3
Pentacon MC 50mm/1.8 on Sony A7r3 - highly cropped
Lenses I converted to E-mount:
Aires H Coral 45mm/1.9 - the sharpness and rendering almost did knock my socks off. Too bad Aires went out of business and that their lens supplier moved to making much higher precision optics.
But then I discovered Yashica Yashinon DX rangefinder lenses. I have adapted the following:
Color-Yashinon DX 35mm/1.8 - replete with funky twin-bladed space-ship aperture. From a broken Yashica Electro 35 CC.
Color-Yashinon DX 40mm/17 - my favorite carry-round lens when I need compactness. I've posted photos with that lens here before.
Yashinon DX 45mm/1.4 - my favorite lens when a little heavier is OK. I don't know if my eyesight has gotten worse, but my tests show this to be at least as sharp as my modern, recently-produced E-mount lens. And the out of focus blur is butter smooth (according to my tastes).
Yashinon DX 45mm/1.7 - lighter than the 1.4 but larger than the 40mm. I have it solidly mounted onto a focusing helicoid, so it focuses really close now (around 0.3m). Can show a pic.
Enough for now. Long enough I suppose. Main point: there's some vintage gold waiting to be dug up.
Indeed, I have to agree with that. I almost regret taking part... particularly because I initially expected this to be a fun/light-hearted thread with many interesting lenses that provided something unexpected and unique, particularly given their reputation or origin, like in the quoted post above. Seems like I got this wrong though - so probably my bad.Just an observation on the "noise" in the thread:
It's interesting to see how something comparable to coffee-talk or pub-talk gets questioned for lacking technical boundaries
--
Experimenting manual lens enthusiast.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simple_joy/
Last edited:
Alun Thomas
Well-known member
- Messages
- 168
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 103
My thoughts also. When it comes to adapting decades old lenses, technical perfection is a factor, among many. If it were the only factor, old lenses almost universally wouldn't make the cut. So it becomes an unspoken base rule that in using adapted lenses you almost certainly have accepted, and are open to, some inherent compromises involved in doing so.Just an observation on the "noise" in the thread:
It's interesting to see how something comparable to coffee-talk or pub-talk gets questioned for lacking technical boundaries
At the same time, it is true that relying on the observations of others when deciding to buy something, brings a high possibility of disappointment, but this is the same in any sphere of interest, and something most people learn very quickly. At the lower priced end of the market, it almost doesn't matter.
It’s simpler. A particular photo May benefit from curvature, from lower contrast, some other may benefit from a flare, or veiling. Let me put an example, the 28/2 Hollywood has some curvature that further add to the separation of the main subject. The Elmar 50/3.5 flares very “organically”, I don’t want that fixed with MC, and my 58/1.4 Rokkor has very strong spherical that is great for night shots where I can trade resolution for better colors and lower noise. And bokeh, at the limit, is everything to me. Almost everything that matters is slightly out of focus when shooting objects. I find strong onion rings cause bokeh that is so busy that the image looks flat and messy. It becomes high frequency noise, and I know it’s bad (for most shots) because even sharpening gets confused, even AI.
But the good things is that the more people disagree, the more each of us can get the lens they like the most and not something else.
But the good things is that the more people disagree, the more each of us can get the lens they like the most and not something else.
Last edited:
Belgarchi
Senior Member
IMO, all aberrations are bad, except for curvature depending on the type of photo you take.
Belgarchi
Senior Member
It is like saying 'it is not a 200mm'. The focal and the aperture defines the category of a lens, not its quality.
That's... well, I will stay polite.
The point is that Contax Zeiss uses the standard direction for the mount, the aperture ring and the focusing ring. I personally like Pentax in that regard, but it is non-standard.I've got to disagree on the axial. I've seen much worse, but samples looked a tad below average for non-APO 90-135mm primes. Certainly not good.
In the tests I've seen, T* coatings were second only to Pentax SMC, and they also tend toward veiling in the rare cases it happens. Still, it's an issue for some. Some people (not me) actually LOVE structured flare, including sun stars.I never had a photo with flare using that lens! Maybe if I try very hard? (-
Preferences are preferences; some will like this, some will hate it.
That Tamron and that Minolta don't come close to the CZ 100/3.5 in terms of FTM, the Tamron has more C.A. at full aperture (well, the versions I used, there are so many), I prefer the colors of the CZ (subjective I admit)... on APS-C format.
Well, Contax Zeiss made many excellent lenses. They are expensive, but nothing compared to Leica. The 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/2.8, 135/2.8 (high resolution low contrast), 180/2.8, 100-300/4.5-5.6 are very good, and probably (I didn't use them) the 21/2.8, 28/2.0 and 100/2.8M also.
The 60/2.8M and the 100/3.5 are out of this world.
You should try them, even if I agree with you on the fantastic quality / price ratio of the Minolta MDs.
On a side note: Zeiss makes also incredibly good binoculars, microscopes, multi-focal lenses and probably other optics I don't know of. A pity they don't make telescopes.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum