Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by azmmount

  1. Mine does the same. Never noticed it but then again it is never in "A" either.
  2. @bigbadwolf - That second shot is quite striking. May I ask what it is? Mike
  3. You use that? I had thought it was one of those useless fluff features Still can't quite grasp a scenario where I would need to change the functionality of a programmable button quicker than I could do through the menu.
  4. I was looking into old manual macro lenses to adapt to my X-T1 because I was less than enamored with the native Fuji options. The 60mm only did 1:2 and the Zeiss is pretty expensive. My original plan was to wait for the 120mm from Fuji but I found myself missing the macro capability and not liking the extension tube thing too much (too complicated figuring out which tube to use and too restrictive with composition once I picked one or both). So I stumbled across a Super Multi Coated Macro-Takumar 50mm f/4 on the eBay in a condition I was willing to purchase at a price I was willing to pay. As a bonus it came bundled with a complete set of extension tubes, an extra "short" tube, and a bellows (all also in excellent condition - none of which I have used yet though). This lens seemed to be fairly well regarded even though it too was only a 1:2 lens (the first, uncoated version, was 1:1 but there were only 2 on eBay when I looked and both were much more expensive and in much worse condition). I am super impressed with this lens. It is sharp. Contrasty. Has a nice smooth bokeh. Maybe I'm missing something but I just can't understand how a lens that appears to be this good can sell for this cheap (around 100USD - less if you are willing to accept one with less than near perfect condition). Here are a couple of my test shots with it taken over the past week or so. Most (if not all) are handheld at f/4 because I'm stupid like that. Grasshoppers: This one also used a focal reducer/ speed booster: Flowers: This one also used a focal reducer/ speed booster: Portrait: This one also used a focal reducer/ speed booster: The flicker album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskh47Y1y I am interested to see other old macro adapted results. Mike
  5. The press release says FW4 already addresses the issues for the X-T1. I too was curious why it wasn't mentioned.
  6. Lol @ "Against my own better judgement" Thanks! Mike
  7. I'm going to spend some time with this Takumar and see how I feel about the whole manual focus and 1/2x magnification thing. I did get a full set of the extension tunes and a bellows with it - so, I believe I can reach out to 3x if I wanted. At 1/2x it appears I get a subject just under 2 inches wide at the most. That is with the straight adapter - I also have one of the cheap speed booster/focal reducers - I assume I can not get as close using that.
  8. I did not get the preset version of the Helios - it was too expensive for experimentation. I got a 44M-2 - the ad said "MADE IN USSR JUPITER / VALDAI 1990 YEAR HAS A 8-BLADES IRIS." Actually... now that I look at the ad again I guess I did get the preset version - cool The Macro-Takumar preset version was the one that was too expensive. The adapter I go is all black.
  9. I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that for an image to be B&W it must have tones that go from absolute black to absolute white? I have always considered B&W to be no color. Some images, I think, benefit from the lower contrast appearance that comes with not spanning the full dynamic range between black and white.
  10. Thanks, milandro! I received a proper "no flange" adapter yesterday. Much better. I believe the flanged on will work well with the Helios once I get it.
  11. My daughter wanted her picture taken while sitting on this broken tree. For some reason she held her hand out in front of her and gazed ahead to pose. I filled in the blank. X-T1, 56mm f/1.2 (1/6400s f/1.2 -1.33ec iso200) I don't normally do Photoshop manipulations but this one seemed to beg it. Comments/Critiques welcome. Thanks for looking, Mike
  12. The "square piece of metal" is the problem with this adapter. I see now that there are slightly different listings for the M42 adapters. They don't seem to be clearly differentiated on eBay though (at least not to my simple mind). Some say "Pentax M42" but the picture looks the same. I'll have to shoot a message off to some of the sellers to see if it will work or not (if they even know). Thanks, Mike
  13. Hi all, I just picked up a couple of M42 lenses. I decided to grab the EF to Fuji X adapters (a plain one and a focal reducer) and some cheaper M42 to EF adapters for each lens. However, when I put the M42 adapter on the lens I find that I can no longer adjust the aperture This is because the adapter presses on the aperture lever on the back of the lens enough so that you can no longer turn the aperture ring. Is this a common issue with these adapters? Is there anything I should look for when buying an adapter to avoid this in the future? Here is a test shot with the SMC Macro-Takumar 50mm f/4 and straight adapter (taken handheld at f/4 in slight wind <-- that's my excuse): I can see that there will be some getting used to shooting with full manual lenses. The focus peaking and aids never seem to be there when I anticipate them. I realize that when I half press the shutter it all goes away and I'm used to fine tuning focus with the shutter half pressed for some reason. Mike
  14. I'm pretty sure it's just a formula. All they have to do is plug in the new numbers if the focal length or aperture changes. I don't think it would be that much of a nightmare. It seems like an interesting idea to me and a feature that I would probably use if it were there.
  15. I just traded in my 18-135 for an 18-55/55-200 combo. Unlike most folks the 18-55 doesn't blow my skirt up. The 55-200, however, seem awesome so far. I think it produces results (for me) that are superior to anything I could get out of the 18-135. So, personally, I would take the inconvenience of changing lenses for the quality I think I get from it. I have the 56. The best lens I have used yet on the Fuji - I wouldn't even consider trading it. I had taken a bunch of pictures at a horse jumping event and was going through processing them when I suddenly came across a group of images that just popped. They were razor sharp and jumped off the screen. I was like, whoa, what setting did I change to get these? I need to do that again next time. Then I discovered I had switched from the 18-135 to the 56 for that set. My goal kit (at the moment) is the 10-24, 35, 56, and 55-200. I just haven't had the $ for the 10-24 yet and don't want to get the 35 until last because it is so close focally to the 56. This kit looks pretty similar to your first set of 4 lenses. So, if it were me, I'd take the 55-200 over the 18-135. Part of that is my shooting style where when I'm shooting I am most likely at one end of the zoom or the other. If I start shooting long I generally stay long - if I start wide, I stay wide - I usually don't switch back and forth between long and wide in a particular situation. But that is me, perhaps that is unusual. Mike
  16. You can put it in portrait, can't you? At least I can on my X-T1. You press the right arrow key and can change the direction of the sweep (which also changes from portrait to landscape depending on how you hold the camera). I find the stitching to often be flawed though.
  17. Interesting. I see now that the Tamron and Sigma might even still have aperture control in the Nikon mount. Years ago I had a Tamron 180 macro and it was stellar as a macro - not so good otherwise. More recently I had a Sigma 150 which was awesome for just about anything but super heavy.
  18. IMO, particularly with macro, you need to make sure you get full aperture control. I'm not sure that either of those excellent macro lenses offer that. You probably don't want to shoot all your macros at f/2.8. You could buy the adapters with aperture in them but I got the impression from reading (not experience) that they might just cause vignetting and not really do the DOF management thing for which I assume they are designed. Personally, I would prefer the aperture in the lens. In my limited experience with macros thus far I have never seen one, no matter of price, that wasn't excellent as a macro.
  19. I believe that Samyang/Rokinon make a 100mm that is also 1:1 for close to the 60mm price. But, it just has the fuji mount - it was not made for mirrorless.
  20. I'm sure you will be much happier with the Sony. So, can I have your 35? And the 27 too, if you don't mind. Thanks, Mike
  21. Don't know how to buy (or if you can) but this site lists a slip fit box with those interior dimensions: http://www.alliedplastics.co.uk/index.php?PageID=1371&&j=4&k=41&ParentID=1005&list=box Mike
  22. Could be, though I imagine it has been done. I have the 55-200 and am not particularly displeased with it though it does often come up short. Like the OP I'd like a nice longer AF lens like the upcoming 100-400. Mike
  23. I keep considering the Tokina 150-500mm f/5.6. It can be had for reasonably cheap (considering the focal range) and is supposed to be quite decent. However, I have neither seen nor used one. Mike
  24. I was all ready to buy the 60 and changed my mind at the last minute. Decided to go "vintage" instead and grabbed a 50mm f/4 Macro-Takumar. It also only does 1:2 but this one came with the extension tube set (3 tubes) and a bellows. Despite what someone said earlier on this thread, I was having a hard time justifying another 60mm(ish) lens (I have the 56/1.2). I figured I would use it only for under 3 feet. And I would probably just use it in manual focus so why not save a few hundred dollars and get an older lens? Time will tell if my logic is flawed Thanks for your insights none-the-less. Mike
  • Create New...