Jump to content

Zeiss Icarex

ArturT

By ArturT
in Adapting lenses to Fuji X

 Share

Recommended Posts

ArturT Rookie

ArturT

Posted
Posted

Hello everybody,

 

I still own a lot of old lenses, got from my dad, which I didn't wanted to sell.

Last year, after I bought some adapters for common lenses I have (QBM, Canon) and I was impressed how well they still are.

So I decided to build one adapter for Zeiss Icarex BM lenses, primary for the heavy Ultron 50/f1.8, which my dad used very often.

 

So I bought an adapter for Minolta (because of the depth I needed), a broken Icarex (to took out the bajonet) and made my own adapter.

The guys from the mechanical workshop at the job helped me a lot, thanks to those.

 

Compared to the Carl Zeiss Planar HFT 50/f1.4 the ultron produces warmer pictures with the same sharpness.

With the X-T1 and Provia the pictures looks a little bit like the Classic Chrome, but not too much.

 

After that I bought another Icarex from the bay, a focal reducer from Mitakon and did the same.

Now I have a set of 5 lenses (35/50/90/135/200) which I can use with the crop factor or without on the X-System.

I own also a bellow, a distance ring and a 2x tele (not from Zeiss) for the Icarex system, which are not in the picture.

 

My problem is:

Last time I recognized, that I'm using this lenses not really often to keep them.

And right now I need money :-(

 

Hopefully I'll find somebody, who is interested in it, before I put in the bay.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted

you should put them on the classified section of the forum,  http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/classifieds/

 

 

this is the discussion section of the forum which won’t immediately tell anyone, at a glance, that you are selling your stuff.

 

There might be some folks here specifically interested in adapted to Fuji Icarex lenses but I think that you probably, if not make more money, sell it quicker to collectors or users whom still use film and shoot with an Icarex.

 

Incidentally, if I am not mistaken, Ica made also M42 version of the camera and lenses. Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C film simulation LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 film simulation LUTS because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then you are not getting the correct results.
    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • George_P
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By George_P · Posted

      I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
×
×
  • Create New...