Jump to content

f/otographer

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

f/otographer last won the day on June 24 2015

f/otographer had the most liked content!

f/otographer's Achievements

  1. Ah, well now you bring up some interesting things not mentioned in your first post. You are entirely correct, there is a phenomenon occurring for the first time in photographic history (as far as I can tell) concerning a merging of old and new technology. There has been widespread acceptance of mounting old glass on the newest modern digital cameras. This started with DSLR's and has propagated even more with mirrorless cameras due to the ease with which such a merging can be accomplished. As for many being younger photographers? I could easily see that. Younger generations are always willing to embrace newer ideas faster and with more enthusiasm then their elders. Older photographers learned how to perfect their craft in a certain way so when changes in technology open up new and sometimes radically different ways of doing things they are not as quick to accept them. Why learn a new way with a new system when my old way with my old gear works fine? A younger photographer will be more excited and see more possibilities since he is not tied to years of past experience. Having said that, Im over 40 and I have been adapting lenses for years, even back to my Canon DSLR's. I personally think the advancement in mirrorless cameras, from the quality of the imagery, the maturing of the format, and advancements in things like EVF and focus peaking, have opened up an incredibly creative world for enthusiast photographers. To have immediate access to some of the best lenses ever made in the world and to be able to use them with almost full functionality (at least in aperture priority mode) and at usually reduced cost is a huge boon to the world of photography. To be honest, I think we are in the Golden Age of photography that Henri Cartier Bresson once talked about. We are at a time and place now where almost all people in developed countries walk around with a camera on their person at all times. However these cellphone cameras, while capable of producing stunning imagery, are mostly used to document the most mundane of daily occurrences. So maybe the golden age isn't so golden as we are inundated with gig after gig of food pics and selfies. All the more reason to bring back cheap, high quality lenses and put them on amazing little digital image creation boxes and put them in as many enthusiasts hands as possible.
  2. Im not quite sure that I agree with these statements in their totality. Are there problems with some legacy lenses? Of course...no system is going to be able to use every old lens available with complete compatibility. But as mdecorte said, most problems lie with wide angle lenses, especially those made for rangefinders due to theirs short flange distance and inherent lens design. The vast majority of SLR lenses should have little to no issue. As for 'you cannot have the maximum possible IQ with an adapted lens", well this is a very open ended and unprovable statement. Define maximum IQ. I have never seen a maximum IQ rating for any lens I have ever used, either new or legacy. What I have seen is some AMAZING IMAGERY on flickr and other photo sites from users across the world using old legacy lenses. Go look up some photo examples of old Leica R lenses on any of the Sony A7's or Fuji cameras and tell me that they are not at maximum IQ, whatever that is. I think the problem here is one that has bothered me for a long time now and is one of the reasons I don't post to forums as much as I used to. To often the discussion on these boards turns to lens sharpness, or quality of bokeh, or corner to corner sharpness, or chromatic aberrations or any number of things that mean absolutely nothing to image creation. Now don't get me wrong, you should always be aware of the limits of what your gear can do. A good artists should always pick his tools wisely. And again, if you are a paid professional shooting for a client the by all means you better have the right tool for the job. But for the most part in enthusiast circles way to much time and effort is spent discussing the technical specifications of lenses or bodies and the merits thereof and very little time is spent talking about things like compelling subject matter or interesting composition. The skill and knowledge and artistic vision of a photographer can overcome gear limitations any day of the week. I know this because of the simple fact that a great photographer can take a great photograph with crappy equipment. Just go look at some of the Pro Photog/Crappy Gear segments they do over at DigitalRev. Here is a favorite saying of mine....There is no Pulitzer Prize for sharpness. The majority of the great photographs of the 20th century, right up until the 80's when autofocus was introduced, were shot with manual focus lenses on film cameras. This is including all the great works from the great masters. I have seen plenty of work shot with the same old lenses on modern digital cameras that meet or exceed the vision and power of those old great photographers. Photography is about image creation. Preferably the creation of a compelling image that can move the human soul. Or at least make you look at it and think. For the enthusiast photographer there is a incredible treasure trove of lenses from the film era out there just waiting to be picked up by you and used to create your artistic vision. Usually at much cheaper prices then modern lenses. Are these old lenses computer/CAD created with updated electronics and super cool coatings made from the rarest moon minerals? No, of course not. But I will be the first to admit that most of them (at least from the major manufacturers) are better lenses then I am a photographer. The day I can outshoot my FD 50/1.4 is the day I will have succeeded at Life. Shoot more. Create more. Love light, not gear. All of the images in these two albums were shot on old film lenses. I guess they aren't at maximum IQ. https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157641534772013 https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157629936411965
  3. Very nice. If I am not mistaken the Helios 44-2 is a direct Soviet made copy of the Zeiss Biotar 58/2. When Germany was divided up among the allies at the end of the war the Soviets got the part of Germany that had the Zeiss factory. They started making lenses under the Zeiss Jena brand (of which my Biotar is a copy) and they also shipped all the plans for the factory back to Russia and started cranking out Soviet made versions of the Ziess lenses in the millions. That should be what your Helios is. Quality control on the Soviet lenses was horrible. Lenses were made on a quota system for the Soviet Communist economy and as the deadline for the quota got closer the factories grew more hasty in making the lenses. But there are many good copies available, you just have to find them. People sometimes joke you have to buy ten or twenty of the same lens to find a jewel. But once you find one it is a keeper.
  4. abjurina, if you stick with any of the bigger lens/camera makers from the 60's and 70's it is hard to go wrong. Minolta, Canon, Contax/Yashica, Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, etc. Once you get into the third party makers things get a little hazy. There are some definite gems out there from Tokina, Tamron, Vivitar and such but they are hidden in a LOT of so-so and meh lenses. Just off the bat I can recommend a Minolta MD 35/2.8. My copy is outstanding. My Yashica ML 28/2.8 (series II) is another good one. Any of the Zeiss lenses in CY mount I can heavily recommend. The Canon FD 35/2 in both concave and regular versions is supposed to be a stellar lens, though I have never shot with one. Konica made a special Hexanon 35/2 that is also high regarded and is on my personal list of lenses to acquire. Konica is somewhat unique in the adapted lenses world since the mount has the shortest flange to focal distance of any of the old Japanese SLR's. This means the adapter needed will be the shortest. I don't really shoot much with lenses under 28mm so I don't have a lot of direct recommendations. I do have an old RMC Tokina 17mm that I use when I really need to go wide. It is a nice lens but can exhibit some sharpness loss in the corners. But come on, its an old third party ultra wide. We cant expect miracles. For macro I have personally used a Canon FD Macro 50/3.5, Minolta MD Macro-X 50/3.5 and Yashica ML Macro 55/4. These have all been very nice lenses that do just fine. I keep the Yashica in my bag mainly because of my love for Tomioka lenses even though it only has a 5 bladed aperture. The lens is a nice little Tessar design which makes it a little different from some other macros. What I usually use for getting up close is a couple of old Minolta Close Up lenses. They usually come in a set of three or four screw on lenses, like filters. They are small, highly portable and I can easily adapt them to whatever lens I have mounted with a step up or step down filter ring. I often use them on my Yashica ML 50/1.7 to very nice effect. Anyway, hope this helps.
  5. Again Mike, I appreciate the comments. If you haven't already tried old glass on your camera then I really recommend it. Get a lens and shoot with it for a couple of weeks so you can get to know it. As for the getting the vision, well that is something everyone develops on their own. But I can say the more you shoot the closer you get to finding it. Photography is like anything else and requires practice, practice, practice.
  6. Thank you Mike, those are very kind words. I have absolutely no talent in any of the painting or drawing arts so I use photography to create works that I would paint had I the skill. My work is heavily influenced by photographers like Ho Fan, Masahisa Fukase, Meatyard, and Diane Arbus. As to the processing...well, I cheat quite a bit on that and really need to learn photoshop. I also tend to shoot fast lenses wide open most of the time which can limit my portfolio but does tend to lend it a certain look. Do I overuse selective focus? Most definitely. I also shoot quite a bit of no focus photography. As I said in another post, it is similar to work don't by Meatyard but to be honest really nothing like his at all. I was shooting this style before I ever saw his work and it was nice to see I was following in the footsteps of greatness, if not really pioneering anything new on my own. A couple of examples, both straight out of the camera. Two of my favorites entitled The Bicyclist and The Black Church. Hope you enjoy.
  7. Thanks VanDeKamp. My little girl was throwing Ritz crackers down on the ground to feed the birds right in front of the camera. She had a ton of fun watching them all scramble in and I got some good shots with her help. Here is another from the same session. (NEX 7, Speedbooster, Yashica ML 28/2.8). I didn't nail critical focus on this one and I wasn't able to even out the horizon without loosing part of the birds wing from the photo, but I still rather like it.
  8. Speedboosters are amazing and I highly recommend them. At least the ones from Metabones who developed them with Brian Caldwell, a notable lens designer. The others seem to have some type of issue or another and were generally just cobbled together concepts based off the Metabones unit without all the benefits the original one had from Mr. Caldwell and his research. Here are some examples from my C/Y Speedbooster on my NEX 7. Not a Fuji X camera I know, but the results should be similar. You may view more of my Speedbooster photos here if you like with all of the relevant lens info. https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157633126249795
  9. I would be completely remiss if I mentioned M42 lenses and did not discuss my OTHER favorite fifty in this mount. The Auto Yashinon 5cm f/2. This is a very old lens from the earliest days of Yashica SLR business. I'm fairly certain that this is also made by Tomioka as the renderings are what I have come to expect from Tomi glass. Unfortunately the records are lost from this era so we will never know for sure. I can say that on the outside this lens is 99 percent identical to the Pentax Auto Takumar 55/2.2 which can lead to some interesting discussion. Did Yashica buy a design from Pentax early on or did a very new Pentax company also buy a readily available design from Tomioka to quickly get a lens to market? My money is on Tomioka, since as a third party maker they sold to a lot of basic designs to many companies back then with only minor cosmetic changes. Who knows for sure? But if you ever come across one of these I HIGHLY recommend you get it. It is a tiny, well made little jewel of a lens and resembles an old rangefinder lens way more then the big SLR lenses that came later.
  10. There are so many good 50 ish M42 lenses you definitely have plenty to choose from. One thing about the M42 mount is that it was in wide use in the time of photography just before good multi coatings became an expected thing. By the time makers really put emphasis on having multi coatings across their entire range most had already moved to a proprietary mount if they hadn't begun with one anyway. There are a few exceptions to this. M42 Pentax Takumars had extremely advanced coatings for their time. They are universally accepted to be excellent lenses and you would be hard pressed to not be happy with the 50/1.4. If you cant take nice photos with this lens then put down the camera. My personal favorite M42 lenses are actually lenses that I have never technically shot with with. Well, sorta. I highly recommend the M42 Yashica DS-M lenses. Like I said, I have never shot with the actual DS-M lenses but I shoot all the time with Yashica ML lenses in the Contax/Yashica mount. Yashica cameras used the M42 mount for a long time and the last series of them, the DS-M, were excellent optics with a very good multicoating. That is actually what the M stands for in DS-M and differentiates them from the older DS lenses. When Yashica hooked up with Zeiss in the late 70's to develop the Contax/Yachica mount they needed a full lens lineup to put on the new cameras. So they simply modified the old DS-M designs to have the new C/Y mount. If you look at the old DS-M's and their first series ML counterparts the lenses are identical except for the mount. The lenses were later updated with some cosmetic changes (and a few had new optical formulas) and these are known as the Series II ML lenses. A quick note about the series II lenses. There is a rumor, unsubstantiated but I believe to be true, that when Yashica changed over to the new series the bean counters at the corporation ran some numbers and discovered it would actually cost more money to make both the Yashica ML 50/1.7 and the Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 along side each other then it would be to simply make more Ziess Planars optics and put them in the Yashca ML body. The thing about the Contax Yashica system was that you had Yachica and Contax cameras using the same mount and all the bodies would be made by Yashica. But for the lenses you could choose the cheaper Yashica ML lenses or the nicer Contax Ziess lenses, some of which were made in Germany by Zeiss and some made in Japan by Yaschica but made to higher Zeiss standards. But the accountants figured it would cost less money to just make a larger batch of Zeiss Planar 50/1.7's and use them in both the Zeiss and Yashica ML lens bodies. They ML did not of course have the Zeiss T* coating but used the ML coating instead, which is still a very high quality coating. Yashica learned a LOT from Ziess during this period and it shows in the ML lenses. So if you buy a series II Yashica ML 50/1.7 there is actually a good chance you are getting a Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 with ML coatings. I can vouch for the lens and it is one of my favorites ever. Actually the Zeiss lenses from the C/Y period are some of the best manual focus lenses you can ever own. The ones made in Japan are actually Tomioka made Zeiss glass....holy crap what a combo. This is actually one of the best reasons to shoot Yashica glass. All Yashica lenses were manufactured by Tomioka, a Japanese lens making company renowned for excellent glass. Yashica had outsourced all of its lenses to Tomioka and liked the results so much that they ended up buying the company and bringing their lens making in house. When the Kyocera takeover of Yashica happened in the 80's all of the Tomioka stuff went to Kyocera. And somewhere, even today, the remnants of Tomioka are buried in the holding of they Kyocera corporation. But all of that is a little off the topic of M42's. Some other really nice M42's to look at are the Mamiya Sekor lenses. Well made, lovely little lenses with some more primitive coatings. A couple of examples of some Mamiya Sekor 50's... Probably my favorite M42 lens of all time is the Zeiss Jena Biotar 58/2. A stupidly good lens with some very nice old world characteristics. Technically the bokeh on this lens is nissen, or 'broken', due to the way it can double render some things instead of smoothing things out. But I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world and it is sitting now on my desk as I type this. Mine is a 1959 aluminum bodies version and they can be had for not a whole lot of money. When used properly a photographer can turn the weaknesses of this lens around and some very nice images can result. Here are some examples... The mantis photo is a good example of what I mean by Nissen bokeh. You can see the very specific double rendering on the hind parts of the little insect. Technically bad, but beautiful nonetheless.
  11. VanDeKamp, thank you for taking the time to link my misplaced post.
  12. Hmmmm, I have not had this problem. Focus peaking will work in some situations or when a fast grab is needed. Otherwise I press a single button on the back of my camera to bring up the magnified view for critical focus. Then a half press on the shutter brings the normal view back up. It is fluid and seamless and I do it while looking thru the EVF. You can even move the D pad around to move the magnified part of the image to where you need it to be based on the composition. Calculus is much harder then this.
  13. Haha, what a derp. The last post of mine was supposed to go in the Canon FD lenses thread. Maybe a mod can be nice enough to move it? Iko, those are some very nice shots with the Helios. Reminds me of the results I got from mine. VanDeCamp, thanks for the compliment. And Im glad the adapter info was useful. My copy really is a nice piece.
  14. As to the adapter questions, the single best adapter I can recommend for Canon FD mount is one I found on the auction site that is made in Poland. It is a unique 1 piece design that doesn't need the sliding ring that most FD adapters require to activate the aperture pin on FD lenses. You can view a video of its operation here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CvB8n5wFPg This is far superior to any FD adapter I have used. Every other one I have ever had has gotten loose and jiggly over time. This adapter solves that problem and it has the added benefit of being made in Poland to very high tolerances. In this modern "Made in China" world this is very refreshing. The maker/seller of the item on the auction site is ciecio7 and I can heartily recommend this adapter. The price isn't to bad and while it does take a while to get here it is well worth it. FD lenses were some of the best glass ever made for manual focus cameras. Some are better then others but for the most part it is hard to go wrong with them. I currently only have the FDn 50/1.4 and I must admit it stays on my camera most of the time. Here are some recent examples. This lens does have a very nice rendering and works nicely for the 'no focus' style of photography I shoot quite a bit, as in the last photo. This is not to be confused with Ralph Eugene Meatyards style of 'no focus' but it is similar. That man was an incredible photographer and while I use him for inspiration his no focus is so much more raw then mine. I find I shot it a bit more clinically, and it is the poorer for it. Any of the fast primes in the FD lineup are worth getting, such as the 35/2. My only minor issue with some of the FD's is that many times the slower version of the primes will only have a 5 bladed aperture. This annoys the heck out of me as I simply cant stand little pentagons showing up in the highlights on the OOF areas. Luckily the faster primes, like my 50/1.4 have an 8 bladed aperture. Oh, I should mention as I did in my last post. These are actually shot on the Sony A7. I am following things on the Fuji forum due to some consideration I am giving about switching over to X cameras. Although that new A7RII has me wondering. But then I think of an X-T1 with all that lovely Fujinon glass and I remember how much the new Sony costs.
  15. Hello everyone, first time poster here. I shoot pretty much exclusively with old 35mm manual focus lenses and have done so for many years now. I can definitely say that they are worth using from both a creative and cost effective point of view. The issue of adapting lenses is really quite simple. Does a lens, be it a new auto focus model or older manual lens, give you what you need to create the shot or vision you are attempting to capture? If the answer is yes then use the lens. It doesn't matter where it was made, or if it was made yesterday or 50 years ago. Now if you are a professional photographer shooting paid work for a client then it is critical you choose the right gear. You will probably see most working photogs using modern auto focus glass that has full functionality with their camera body. This is to be expected since speed is life and AF will help nail shots in critical focus right when you need it. On the other hand, there are plenty of other pros out there using older adapted glass when speed is not as important or when an older lens is lending a desired creative effect to the work being captured. Where you will see much more use of adapted lenses is in the work of non professional photographers and this makes a lot of sense. When you are shooting work/art for yourself (or family/friends) they you have a lot more lee way to slow down and make mistakes while making the capture. And please don't take this in any way as a slam to non pro photogs. I myself firmly fall into this category with only a few small paying jobs under my belt. That is simply not why I shoot photography. It is a common misconception that the goal of photography is to become a professional photographer and nothing could be further from the truth. The goal of photography is to create a compelling image that moves the human soul, or to document something in a visual format. With that in mind it makes sense for non pro photographers to adapt old lenses to their cameras so that they have access to some really wonderful glass, at a fraction of the cost of their modern equivalents. Keep in mind that almost all of the great photographs from all the masters in the 20th century were taken on manual focus film lenses. In the hands of an experienced photographer the lens and camera simply become a tool for the creative process happening in the brain. But it is to easy in this internet forum discussion age to forget this fact and focus instead on the small differences in gear both old an new. People have a desire to min/max everything and will spend countless hours 'discussing' the perfect lens when in fact no such thing exists. I guess the point of all this is....it doesn't matter which camera you hold in your hand. It doesn't matter when the lens you are using was made or who it was made by. It doesn't matter if focus is achieved by a small electric motor and a computer or by the fingers on your hand gripping old worn metal knurls. What matters is the image you create. Is it pleasing to you? Has your art been made manifest? If it is paid work then is your client happy with it? These are just some examples of my art over the last few years. I currently shoot with a Sony A7 and previously with a NEX 7. You might think it odd that a Sony shooter is posting on a Fuji site, but as I said before the name on the box really doesn't matter as long as it is providing what you need. While I do love my A7 I almost purchased the X-T1 instead when it came out and there was much deliberation between the two before the purchase was made. Having said that I am still giving Fuji a hard look at a possible replacement for my Sony gear. There are several things about the X line that I find intriguing and to be honest I miss using the Metabones Speedbooster for my nex 7 and I believe the Fuji cameras are an excellent body to use as a platform for the SB. If you like you may view my A7 files that have many more examples of manual focus lenses here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157641534772013 And for examples of the Speedbooster on my NEX 7 you may go here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157633126249795 I hope the information here helps someone. If you want to try old lenses then I can heartily recommend it. Don't be afraid to try and don't get caught up in the search for gear. By all means educate yourself on the lens choices available but don't let the pursuit of gear be the driving force of excitement in your photography. Just remember that it is the image that is important. Only this and nothing more.
×
×
  • Create New...