The Vintage + Classic Adapted Glass Thread

OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
10,803
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#81
Indeed fellow vaper :)

Both lenses are excellent, prefer the colours of the 105 and it's a very famous lens.
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.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,286
Edit My Images
Yes
#82
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:
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
10,803
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#83
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

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
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,286
Edit My Images
Yes
#84
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
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.
 
Messages
1,103
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
#86
Speaking of adapters. I have Novoflex adapters for Canon, Olympus and Minolta and they're about £90-100 each but to be honest the £10-20 ones you get off evil bay seem to work just as well. I have cheap adapters for MFT and also for using my Nikon lenses on my Sony FF. I've read reports from others saying that the cheap adapters can be a lottery but so far I must have been lucky as I've had no problem with them. I think I've learned a lesson there and I don't think I'll be paying £90 for any adapters in the future unless there's no other choice.
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!!
 
Messages
19,670
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#87
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!!
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:
Messages
19,670
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#88
Nikkor 135 f2.8 &105 f2.5 Ai-s lens comparison I carried out:...
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.
 
Messages
19,670
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#90
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:
Messages
2,730
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
#91
I avoided Nikon as I'd read that they were expensive and not terribly good
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:
DP Review said:
I'm here rating the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI-S lens at 4.5, out of 5, giving what it can do with the D810.
 
Last edited:
Messages
19,670
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#92
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.
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
10,803
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#94
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:
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
10,803
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#95
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.

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!
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
10,803
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#97
Agree 100% with these sentiments.
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
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
10,803
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 :)
 
Messages
7,024
Name
Jeff
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 :)
Shouldn’t that read 200 f3.5 ?
 
Messages
5,100
Edit My Images
Yes
Love the Autumn colours here, looks like a sweet lens. Pricey though, according to a quick glance on ebay
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.
 
Messages
1,920
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
@ianmarsh if Constable did photography, this is what he would of produced, really lovely photograph in post 101 Ian.
 
Messages
586
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
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
10,803
Name
Keith
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.

View attachment 138055 View attachment 138056

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?
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
10,803
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

Great Tit
by K G, on Flickr

Blue Tit
by K G, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Messages
586
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?
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
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
10,803
Name
Keith
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

View attachment 138102 View attachment 138103 View attachment 138104

Excellent, cheers for that, makes sense :) I wonder is there such a thing for FD to minolta? maybe it's not possible?
 
Messages
586
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?
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.
 
Messages
39
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.

_DSC6190
by daff-ington, on Flickr

The seemingly obligatory flower shot.

_DSC6116
by daff-ington, on Flickr
 
Messages
1,906
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.
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
10,803
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
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.
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.
 
Messages
3,429
Name
mike
Edit My Images
Yes
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.
Would you give me a link to a good info site for mixing my own.
 
Messages
1,906
Name
chris
Edit My Images
Yes
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.
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.
 
OP
OP
Cagey75
Messages
10,803
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Would you give me a link to a good info site for mixing my own.
[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

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.
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:
Top