- Edit My Images
LOL! You're right, those extra 4mm do often cost!!
Can you post some pictures. I have an Adaptall II Nikon adapter and can compare yours. I also have a Nik to M4/3 adapter from K&F. They are both attached to my SP500.I meant to post this here but did so in the other thread so hoping someone following this and not the other one may be able to solve the issue im having with adapting a Tamron 90mm Adaptil lens to a fuji camera.
I have a Vivitar 55mm Nikon mount vintage lens, this fits perfectly onto the Nikon "Lens to Body" adaptor from K&F concept.
The Tamron 90mm Adaptil i have just got has a detachable "Adaptil" section that makes it fit a Nikon mount camera. This should be exactly the same as the mount on the Vivitar but it is not fitting the above mentioned Nikon "Lens to Body" adaptor correctly. The aperture ring that couples to the adaptil part of the lens is binding in the K&F Lens to Body Adaptor.
So what I need is a recommendation of an alternative manufacturer of a "Lens to Body" adaptor that has been used with a Tamron Adaptil lens with the Nikon fitment with out an issue,
I have one of these. Mine starts with 814. It's one of 2 lenses that I sent off to have the aperture blades "unstuck". I'm using it on my D700 at the moment. Haven't spotted any real Zebras though ... apart from crossings.Worth a go. I bought this one last night:
For me the corners are unimportant in this image. You captured a lovely sharp image of your wife and everything around her is just framing. You might want to buy her a watering can though, that's a lot of trips with that bottleJust one more Chinon 28mm f2.8 picture.
Mrs WW watering the plants.
It does have mushy corners but IMO it doesn't always matter and although I'd like a cheap fun lens to be perfect sadly that's not always possible
We have watering cans but she's into recycling and likes to use pots and boxes and bottles that would otherwise go in the recycling bin. This bottle has holes in the top and is perfect for the teeny tiny plants.You might want to buy her a watering can though, that's a lot of trips with that bottle
Yes, and at owned by Kodak at one time. There's a number of Wiki pages. They were still going making "toy" and helmet cameras in 2010. I don't know about now.Weren't Chinon tied up with Dixons? I haven't tried one of their primes, but I do have a mid range zoom of theirs. Pretty little thing. Feels solid and handles well. Unfortunately the image quality is nothing to write home about, erring on the soft side and with dull colours. Pity. But then I got it for a song.
Very true. That's why we like our vintage lenses.Yes, and at owned by Kodak at one time. There's a number of Wiki pages. They were still going making "toy" and helmet cameras in 2010. I don't know about now.
"Currently (as of 2010) Chinon produce digital cameras such as the Superheadz/Digital hedgehog retro 110 style toy camera and the Tachyon helmet camera. They also produce film scanners and various other non camera related devices."
One reason I bought these lenses, apart from them being cheap, was that some reviews said they were soft and well... not very good and sometimes things like that pique my interest as sometimes lenses that some say aren't very good can be interesting
Nice colour. Is it tweaked at all?Super Takumar 135 on a Fuji XT10 First outing for this lens. Dropped my better half off at the chiropractors and had a play with this combo. Absolutely NOTHING of interest near to the car park. Finished up snapping tulips. I know what I would have liked the end result to be ,but ... flowers don't always grow exactly where you want them to. Concentrated trying to have one or two flowers in focus and the rest to be a bit blurred.
View attachment 316989
View attachment 316990
A lovely thing to have.
The 55mm f/1.8 is a good lens and some say the sharpest of the Takis in that focal range. Prices are normally £25 to £60. The only 50mm range Taki that gets up to over £200 is the rarer 8 element 50mm f/1.4. That one get's £250 upwards, depending on condition.I picked up a Pentax (M42) SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8 in Brick Lane market today. Of course, I didn't have the M42 mount with me, so I couldn't check it out until I got home. It's scruffy but the glass looks OK, and a couple of test shots wide open are giving me acceptable results for, say, street shots. It focuses a lot closer than my Viltrox 56mm f/1.4, and I think I'll have some fun with it as an all-round lens.
The guy on the stall wanted £50 for it. Going by the prices on eBay (from about £23 up to about £230) for this lens, does this seem like an OK deal, or was he out front with a pair of binoculars, waiting for someone like me? (You can probably tell I'm new to vintage lenses...)
I had that thought, too. Also, the guys on that particular stall get a lot of people coming up to try and get a photo of old camera gear, and not that many sales. It's good to help them keep going. Plus they gave me a free yellow filter. And they might get something good around 23mm one day.At least you got one in your hand rather than the lottery that evil bay can be.
Definitelty! You'll pay double the price and more for the extra 4mm range over the 28mm. The one I can say is worth saving for is the 85 f/1.9. That's a lovely lens with brilliant optics.As a partner to your 55mm a 24mm would IMO be a great option but maybe more expensive. I went for a Takumar 28mm f3.5 as it matches the build of the Takumar 50/55 and isn't prohibitable expensive.
They can sometimes be a tad off. If you look at the lens you should see three tiny screws that hold it in place. They do sometimes come lose and if the person tightening them back up doesn't make sure everything is correctly aligned that scale can also be off. I had it once with a Taki 105mm 2.8. Easy fix. If you're not sure where the scale should line up exactly just find a pic of one on the net and use it as a reference.Alan and Dunc: Thanks for your advice. I'm taking it in small steps. I took the 55mm out today and it looks like a keeper. Just need to learn its quirks. At midday I had it at 1/125 sec @ f16 at ISO 200, and had plenty of light. The distance scale seems to be off, though.
I sometimes think I'm missing something. Because they look fine to me.A while back I bought a couple of Nikon series E lenses, 28mm f2.8 and 35mm f2.5.
I bought these just out of interest as they're small and I got them relatively cheap. I did read on one famous bloggers site that the 28mm is awful and the worst prime Nikon ever made and that got me interested as sometimes "poor" lenses can maybe be rather interesting so I thought I'd give one a go and I have to disagree with that famous blogger as I find it to be a perfectly useable lens. Good even. Maybe that bad review was down to sample variation? But after saying that I have to say that I can't say that I've read a good review of this lens but maybe I just got lucky or perhaps I'm not that picky. I got the MK2 version which is IMO better looking than the MK1.
The 35mm f2.5 has a bit of a fault as it sometimes squeaks when moving the focus ring. It only does it in one direction and only when pointing downwards. I never complained as I got the lens cheap and maybe the seller knew there was a problem and therefore pitched the price low (but you should always declare a problem, IMO.) I think a clean and lubrication might sort this out but as it's a cheap lens I haven't bothered but I checked the "Sold" listings on evil bay today and saw what these lenses are selling for and they're going for a lot more than I paid so I think I will invest in a service
A few 28mm series E pictures.
I'm definitely going to send that 35mm f2.5 for a service soon