1. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    5yrs off the stinkies here :) These days I make my own juice, only ever build my own coils too - which is great when nay sayers try the old 'do you know what's in them 'yokes' spiel - I can confidently respond 'yes, yes I do 100%'

    The Nikon 105 2.5 looks a super little lens, it's another one of those that you'd be lucky to find at reasonable prices in good nick though.
     
    Fraser Euan White likes this.
  2. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    4,078
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have bought and sold more vintage lenses than I care to remember. I mainly shoot them for the rendering than anything else. When I shot Sony a-mount I also bought Minolta AF lenses because they were brilliant and Sony didn't have a modern option like Minolta 200mm/2.8 or the 70-210 f4 a.k.a. beercan.

    Currently have...
    A collection Helios 44 (I have modded a couple)
    Meyer optik trioplan 50mm/2.9 (the old version not the new rebranded out of business stuff)
    Sigma 400mm f5.6
    Tamron 17mm f3.5 adaptall
    Yashica 50mm f2

    Some favourites I have owned in past...
    Oly OM 21mm f3.5
    Oly OM 16mm f3.5 fisheye
    Oly OM 50mm f1.2
    Oly OM 100mm f2.8
    Minolta AF 35-70mm f4
    Minolta AF 85mm f1.4
    Minolta AF 200mm f2.8
    Minolta AF 500mm f8 reflex
    Meyer optik Trioplan 100mm f2.8
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
  3. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No

    Nice collection. How do you find that Sigma 400mm? I've come across it before but then some on adapted lens forums say it's poor in terms of CA performance and sharpness, I'd love a 400mm for me garden birdies
     
  4. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    4,078
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Found it in this forum :D

    I bought it for same reason. A green woodpecker which are rather rare regularly visits our garden. So I picked it up wondering if I can get better shots than using my canon EF 100-300mm.

    I can work with the CA. It produces low contrast images which make them look less sharp than they actually are. A modern zoom would easily match it but then again I paid £30 for it :p

    I'll probably sell it once I am back from holiday if you want to give it a try.
     
    Cagey75 likes this.
  5. LeeRatters

    LeeRatters

    Messages:
    890
    Name:
    Lee
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    True. I paid £5 for my Helios 44-2 :D
     
  6. LeeRatters

    LeeRatters

    Messages:
    890
    Name:
    Lee
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Sorry, quoting you again :D

    But on the subject of adapters....... I have a cheap C/Y > Sony E one I've had years from China. It's okay, bit of a tight fit though. So recently I bought a K&F one - the fit on both ends is much nicer. But, the light leaks from it (daytime long exposures) are crazy!!
     
  7. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,657
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    No problem :D Quote away :D

    The last adapter I bought was a K&F for Nikon to Sony and it seems fine. The mark on the adapter doesn't line up with where the lens needs to be aligned to mount so I assume something is very slightly wrong but now that I know I need to be a little bit past the mark all is well and it doesn't seem to affect the image quality.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
  8. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,657
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I went for Minolta, Olympus and Canon FD lenses with some third party lenses in those mounts as they're mass market and relatively cheap and easy to find. I avoided Nikon as I'd read that they were expensive and not terribly good but after buying three pre ai primes I'm quite happy and think that what I read back then was maybe a bit harsh.
     
  9. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,657
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I take a lot of pictures just for colours and shapes.

    Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2.

    1-DSC05358.jpg

    1-DSC05351.jpg
     
  10. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,657
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Minolta Rokkor 85mm f2, sunset over the wind farm.

    1-DSC02584.jpg

    85mm f2 again, Brenizeer method stitch for a wide angle effect.

    1-Pook-Stitch-1.jpg

    I'm impressed with the Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.4, the sharpness and detail across the frame when stopped down a bit is very good.

    1-DSC02537.jpg


    1-DSC03102.jpg
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
  11. Fraser Euan White

    Fraser Euan White

    Messages:
    1,096
    Name:
    Fraser White
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Really don't know where you could have read that! The Nikkor 105 f2.5 has always been regarded as one of Nikons best ever lenses and the 135 is also extremely highly rated. The lenses being expensive would suggest they are still in high demand because they are that good!

    Nikon's Most Famous Portrait Lens:

    https://www.casualphotophile.com/2015/07/08/noteworthy-lenses-nikon-nikkor-105mm-ƒ2-5/



    Form DP Review:
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
  12. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,657
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I can't remember which blog it was that said they weren't all that good but maybe a part of the reason the Nikon's are relatively expensive is that you can still mount them on todays cameras, unlike the Canon FD's.

    One thing about the FD's though is that they still crop up now and again at dealers as new unused stock whereas I've never seen any Minolta or Olympus film era lenses for sale as unused. There also seem to be a lot of FD's about in very good condition. Maybe they made too many.

    105mm is a bit long for me. I can just about cope with 85mm.
     
  13. Fraser Euan White

    Fraser Euan White

    Messages:
    1,096
    Name:
    Fraser White
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
  14. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I had the Nikon 200 F4 AI in the basket, almost pulled the trigger, but it was £90 before buying an adapter. I decided on the Vivitar 200 F4 instead for 1/4 the price, it is really only for birds in the garden. For little more I could buy a brand new 150mm native lens and crop in a bit, it'll probably be sharper. I just like using these old lenses, they feel so much nicer. You cannot substitute fo proper mechanical MF, and though even cheap modern lenses might be sharper and have better contrast - the AF on them is terrible for the likes of small birds. They've moved by the time AF nails them. Much better to pre-focus where they land or take off or just perch to feed. And that is what I do.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
  15. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No

    I meant how do you find it, as in the quality :D What's the min focus distance on it? I might be interested but shipping a big chunk like that to here would probably cost near the price of the lens itself!
     
  16. goinggreynow

    goinggreynow

    Messages:
    556
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Agree 100% with these sentiments.
     
    Fraser Euan White likes this.
  17. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It's funny, much as I do like to have AF on the modern lenses, I recently bought a native zoom and one of my favorite things about it is the clutch mechanism that switches it to true mechanical focus. It's got bog-standard 'fly-by-wire' MF before you switch it, and the difference between the two is staggering. I don't think I can use fbw MF again! Macro shooters in particular will appreciate proper MF, also astro photographers
     
  18. LeeRatters

    LeeRatters

    Messages:
    890
    Name:
    Lee
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Focus by Wire is AWFUL!!!!!
     
  19. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Yeah it's terrible, you never know where you're at, it feels much flimsier too. So many modern lenses only offer this outside of AF.
     
  20. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    MD to M43 adapter arrived just now, looks a dank, miserable gloomy morning out there so will wait until it at least brightens up a little then I'll do some testing on the 200 F4 :)
     
  21. ianmarsh

    ianmarsh

    Messages:
    4,940
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Testing out a new-to=me Sony a7 with my Olympus 35mm/2.8 shift lens. This just a single unshifted frame, though.
    [​IMG]Kenwood I by Ian, on Flickr
     
  22. the black fox

    the black fox

    Messages:
    6,372
    Name:
    Jeff
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Shouldn’t that read 200 f3.5 ?
     
    Cagey75 likes this.
  23. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No

    Whoops! You are correct, though may as well be 5.6 as that's probably where I'll mostly use it.
     
  24. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Love the Autumn colours here, looks like a sweet lens. Pricey though, according to a quick glance on ebay
     
  25. ianmarsh

    ianmarsh

    Messages:
    4,940
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yes, the colours were lovely and the sun picked them out for about five minutes. It was just lucky I happened to be there for those five minutes!

    Not a cheap lens but I think I got it for a good price from here, though I forget exactly how much I paid. I've a Canon FD 35mm tilt-shift too and when my adapter arrives I will be out testing that.
     
    Cagey75 likes this.
  26. G.K.Jnr.

    G.K.Jnr.

    Messages:
    12,303
    Name:
    George.
    Edit My Images:
    No

    “Excellent’ presentation Sir, love everything about it.(y)

    George.
     
    ianmarsh likes this.
  27. Bearair

    Bearair

    Messages:
    1,667
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    @ianmarsh if Constable did photography, this is what he would of produced, really lovely photograph in post 101 Ian.
     
  28. goinggreynow

    goinggreynow

    Messages:
    556
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Purchased a Pentacon 135mm F2.8 (the 16 blade version) about a year ago and apart from giving it a clean, I don't think I've used it until today.
    A couple of photos from the garden this morning. Nothing special other than I quite like the colours and "feel" of the images.
    I could have improved them by doing a bit more in LR but on both photos, I've merely placed the sharpen slider to +20, clarity to +10 and curve to medium contrast. Not cropped because the real point is to show how the lens plays with my newly acquired Zhonghyi Lens Turbo II and the difference in field of view etc.
    Almost forgot, the full set up here is Pentacon 135 ( M42), screwed into a Minolta P adapter (M42 to MD/SR), then into the LTII, then mounted on a G80, Shutter 1/640, ISO around 1000. Both f2.8 (so that didn't help sharpness), The first one with dumb adapter, the second with focal reducer. No obvious colour shifts, etc as far as I can see.
    Not saying that i couldn't have achieved much better results with my 70-300L, but for £14, I'm happy.

    Pentacon 135 F2.8 no FR.jpg Pentacon 135 F2.8 with Focal reducer.jpg
     
    woof woof and Cagey75 like this.
  29. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No

    Are you using the one LTII, and then adding the slimmer adapters lens depending? I.e, Say I buy a LTII MD to M43, and I want to use an M42 lens, I just get one of the slimmer M42 to MD adapter and stick that on the LT? I'm guessing a LT in MD mount is the way to go - not M42 or FD?
     
  30. ianmarsh

    ianmarsh

    Messages:
    4,940
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    That is the nicest comment I've every received, I think! Much appreciated
     
    Fraser Euan White and Cagey75 like this.
  31. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Not the fairest on the lens to test it out on such a grim mucky day, I know even my old Pany 100-300 used to struggle in crappy light like this, also it's been a while and my technique sucks atm, but here's an initial couple of testers with the Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 [as shown in the OP]

    Both at f/5.6 I believe, the first at 1600 ISO 1/400th, the second at ISO 400 1/125th ... it's down to what you can get away with really as the light keeps changing.

    These were shot through the kitchen window and both are cropped a bit. Very little PP, bump of contrast [I think almost all older lenses require this] tiny bit of NR and WB adjustment

    [​IMG]Great Tit by K G, on Flickr

    [​IMG]Blue Tit by K G, on Flickr
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2018
  32. goinggreynow

    goinggreynow

    Messages:
    556
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hi Keith.
    At the moment, I have just the one LTII and this is the Minolta MD (SR) mount to micro 4/3. After some research into what lenses can be adapted to which lens mount (and ignoring Canon EOS for now), I discovered that back in the day Minolta themselves made a thin metal adapter (called a P adapter) which allowed the mounting of M42 lenses onto MD/SR mount Minolta film bodies. I've assumed this was to allow Minolta camera users to be able to use the plethora of M42 lenses which were available at that time.
    I've taken a couple of photos of my P adapter and these are attached. The original P adapters come up from time to time (auction site) and although I've not checked, there may be 3rd party ones made also.
    I deliberated for some time over which LTII to go for. I coud see no point in M42 to M4/3 when i had the P adapter. I did hesitate over FD to M4/3 as I have 3 lenses including a 24mm but in the end, the fact that I own 5 MD lenses won the day. If I could get a focal reducer for my Konica 135mm F3.2 then I would, but no-one makes one as far as I can see.
    What I can say is that I notice no "play" between the P and the LTII, but a very minor amount of "play" between the LTII and the G80. Less than 1mm though and no different to what many other users report.
    Here are the photos, hope they help. Stuart

    P1210789.jpg P1210790.jpg P1210791.jpg
     
    Cagey75 likes this.
  33. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No

    Excellent, cheers for that, makes sense :) I wonder is there such a thing for FD to minolta? maybe it's not possible?
     
  34. goinggreynow

    goinggreynow

    Messages:
    556
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Flange distance for MD/SR is 43.5mm and FD is 42mm. M42 is 45.46mm. I've looked before and couldn't find any commercially available MD > FD adapter. However, I've read some posts (not on TP) about 3d printing of such an adapter but parts of it are apparently only 0.5mm thick! Not for me - I'll stick with what I've got for now.
     
    Cagey75 likes this.
  35. daffington

    daffington

    Messages:
    28
    Name:
    David
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I was fortunate enough to borrow a Canon Dream Lens (50mm f/0.95) for a weekend a couple of years ago.

    It was an odd little setup because it had been converted to a Leica M Mount, which I then used a Metabones adaptor with a Sony a7 II.

    Granted I struggled a bit to take some decent pictures, but it was good fun for the weekend!

    Here's some souvenirs from a shop in Southend.

    [​IMG]_DSC6190 by daff-ington, on Flickr

    The seemingly obligatory flower shot.

    [​IMG]_DSC6116 by daff-ington, on Flickr
     
    Cagey75 likes this.
  36. wardy07

    wardy07

    Messages:
    1,897
    Name:
    chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I know this probably should be in the designated thread but there seems to be more action in here lol!. I just bought myself a minty Helios 44M-4 58mm f2 lens with a couple of bonus items included, namely a set of extension tubes and a 2x converter (not sure how much use the extras will get but nice to have).
    I had the 44-2 in a previous incarnation and regretted getting rid of it so hopefully this one will be a keeper.
     
  37. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It's a fun lens to use, and is well capable of doing more serious work with too when required. Been looking about for a cheap one myself, they have definitely gone up a bit since I bought mine a couple years back.
     
  38. mikew

    mikew

    Messages:
    3,137
    Name:
    mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Would you give me a link to a good info site for mixing my own.
     
  39. wardy07

    wardy07

    Messages:
    1,897
    Name:
    chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yes the prices are a bit higher than they used to be due to so many folk using them now. I paid £45 for mine with the bits and bobs which is more than I’d hoped to pay but considering condition etc, it’s still worth it IMO.
     
  40. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,372
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    [edit I'm half awake, just realised you needed info on how to also? check the forum on there too]

    I use this one here: http://e-liquid-recipes.com/ It's got all you'e need in a calculator for mixing

    Here's probably my personal fav recipe, seems to go down well with anyone who tries it, been one of my all days for a long time now: http://e-liquid-recipes.com/recipe/499838/Long gone day

    I guess I paid that a couple years back, but I bought locally and over here prices are usually a lot higher. Atm the same guy I bought from back then is now looking for up to €68/£59 for nice condition copies - There's people trying to haggle and argue him down on his price but he's not budging. Says he offers some come back that you won't get on ebay. It'll sell too in the end.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2018
    wardy07 and mikew like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice