lleo

Very nice pics. Enzio, ist es Hänsel und Gretel Haus?

Quincy, my advice is to get a tripod that carries a little more than the weight you might need. If you're 200% sure you won't ever have heavier optics, it's ok, but can you be sure by now? I agree with you over carbon. Of course less weight is an advantage, but how much is it needed? I prefer sturdier than lighter.

I stand with Pierre. I have the Rollei C5i. It's not light as Pierre's (1.6Kg) but it's quite good for me. It's awesome, it has everything, included one leg that becomes a monopod. I carry on it my X-E2 with a Tair 3S attached without any problem. So you might go for the carbon version.

I have the 55-200 and it's a great lens. I don't mind about weight, handling, since this is a joke right now due the fact I used to go around carrying 300 f2.8 and so on. That is the weight. These lenses are a joke compared to those. Anyways I'm sure the 50-230 or whatever is a great lens as well. The only thing is every time you shoot with a lens like the ones in this thread, you realize you're missing one more stop. A 55-200 f2.8 would be perfect, in spite of the weight. Between the two lenses in the title I'd go for the second only for the extra 30mm, than for the stop. Beside the fact it's all plastic.

True, but the heart of the matter is that they made something to make digital music looks like, or better, sounds like, "analog" music.

Put it in this way: photography is to digital as vinyl is to cd. The fact that there are programs (ridiculous for my opinion) that add hisses and scratch sounds to a digitally recorded music, makes to think...

Yep, they are nice. I'll get one, sooner or later, probably a Super Takumar.

For sure

Sure, Warwick. It is a nice lens indeed. But I think a lens you'd get as... third? Or fourth? Not surely even as a second lens. And most important, for me, I'd never try to correct its rounded lines. It's a very personal thought, but why to get a lens like that if one wants to correct the distortion? It's like buying a convertible pretending to build a roof on it.

Nice pics, Japan is awesome. The Gundam... dream of my youth. Though, yes the fisheye is particular. It's made to stand out from the crowd. So I can imagine if used intensively, can become boring in the long run.

Yes Nero, that's a problem with the focal distance on the back of the lens. Though I never had any with Helios 58, but with a Tair 300 that I have adapted to make it work. Basically you just have to rduce the distance between the lens and the camera. Sometimes it works a M39->Fuji X adapter with a M42->M39 reduction mounted on.

Nice pics, Goran. I prefer the ones in b&w and my favourite is the one with the cigarette. Though in the last one... wow: awesome woman. Reminds me a little of Samantha Fox

Yes, it happens to me too every now and then. I forget to switch the selector on the front when going from manual to auto or vice versa.

Sales guys are... sales guys. They have their salary by the end of the month and must sell what the companies and the boss told them to sell. So, unless there is somebody you know personally and/or is serious about his job, never trust them. Much better to take a look on the net, even though many times you have to take what you read not like the absolute truth. It's ok to build a personal opinion with the various tests you can see online, but in the end you always have to try yourself what you're looking for.

Yep, I quote Milandro, CJM. I also wear lenses and in the early I've adjusted the dioptric correction on the camera due my lenses. Then I've changed lenses with other a little stronger and I've changed the correction consequently. Also. Your third picture seems to be blurred other than out of focus. You should try take some shots having the camera mounted on a tripod. Anyway use your lens in manual, is better. There should be a thread about Helioses and there are some samples I've posted taken with a 44-2 and a 44M-4, however the pictures are sharper than yours. Check it out and see if we can solve the thing.

CJM, is just not having sharp pictures on infinity or is the case, focusing with the split image, the vertical lines don't align each other? If so, it's the adapter not being right for the camera. The point is the focal distance not being correct. I had the same problem with a Tair 3S I had to modify because when I was focusing to infinity, the vertical lines weren't aligning well.

Yes, I also want to try with the normal 18-55 at 55 focal with the extension tube and see the result. Right now I'm forced about scanning with the camera, at least the 6x6 format, because I only have a Nikon for 35mm. Anyway it will be interesting if you will upload your samples with the various results.

Until now I've only used my camera on the tripod set up for copy once, with a Super Takumar 50 Macro attached, but only for 6x6 and quite quickly. So, not correct light temperature, and so on. I have to try again as soon as I will have some time. But I think the result will be good using a configuration like yours. With a macro lens probably you don't need a tube extender. Anyways, about your statement “...I am not intersted in scanners, it takes too long...", well to me scanner is quicker. Unless you have a fix copy stand always available for the job. To me, I have to catch the tripod, attach the camera and the lens (via adapter), setting up correctly, get the light table, put the slides on it correctly, and so on. My scanner is always connected, so the time to starting up, put the slides in and it's done. But this is my experience. Though I will try to copy other slides, also 35mm, with the camera to see how it works. Maybe I will make a comparison between camera and scanner to see how close (or far) they can get.

Of course, and partially that's what I did. Though it depends what is meant for competing against modern lenses. Not talking about definition, razor sharp rendition and so on, I prefer these kind of lenses than modern plastic chinese Nikons, just to name one. And I'm not talking about real values otherwise all the modern lenses probably, included Leica and Zeiss, are way too overvalued. In the end is the final result one is able to obtain, and that's not related to single parameters. There's more. Fortunately, I add.

Finally I have some samples, sorry for the long delay. And I'm sorry if the quality is not the top, I haven't used a tripod as I should but it was something made quickly. Anyways. The two lenses almost seem identical, both have the infamous swirl and image rendition. There might be a very little difference in colour representation, but in the end it's only a matter of taste. And, obviously, if one prefers the normal automatic aperture or the preset.