Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About noone

  • Rank
    Frequent member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,777 profile views
  1. noone


    You ain't seen my ancient Promura 135 1.8. Impressive lens to look at, big, heavy and solid. Was ok with film and 6mp DSLRs I guess. Mine looks like someone tried to clean it inside and ended up smearing things a bit but it has remained the same since I got it when there were half a dozen bricks and mortar camera stores in Wagga (and I got it from one of them). The EF Canon 135 f2 L is a nice AF lens still Used on M43, APSC and FF and I regret selling mine when I needed the money. I kept my Sigma 150 2.8 instead though and I am glad I did though still miss that Canon (plus they can be found pretty cheap these days since they have been around so long).
  2. Again I am seeing NOTHING different to trolls AGAINST Sony. Sure there are Sony trolls but no different to Canon and Nikon trolls especially. I just see some Sony users posting about "issues" in the Canon and Nikon mirrorless FF cameras that are pretty much the same as was posted against the first Sony mirrorless FF cameras for the same things. This thread should be deleted. At least a great many Sony users used to BE (and often still are) users of other systems including lots of Canon users who still have many Canon lenses. I would go so far to say that for many Sony users that have Canon lenses, the CAMERA can be from anyone as long as it takes their lenses and does what they want at a price they can tolerate. That means if Canon (or Nikon) releases a camera that doesn't meet their needs they can and many will whinge about it. Are those people SONY users (because they have a Sony camera currently), or are they Canon users (because they have a shed full of Canon lenses)? People are seeing what they want to see, nothing more.
  3. And yet if you look at the new Sony 135 1.8 lens, there are any number of anti-Sony people posting on THAT. Go figure.
  4. noone


    Not sure what you mean by that? A M43 150mm 2.8 lens would be the same as using a MF 150 2.8 lens if both used on a GH5 for instance (assuming you could find such lenses). The difference would be the individual lens quirks but not how bright an image is or DOF. Using a focal reducer on the MF lens will change the lens effectively but then it would just be the same as another M43 lens (again, assuming there is one). The 15mm Body cap "lens" can be fun but it isn't something I would want to use very often. Better thought of as a body cap you can shoot with rather than any real lens. It was more fun for me using it with a FF Sony A7s with a bit of clear zoom to remove the vignetting (and no different using it since it is focus free - three positions plus off). Still they can be found really cheap after people have tried them and put the away. Not something I regret selling (unlike the GX7) though it was fun at times.
  5. noone


    Of course there is Mattias. I just don't think you can say a lens is better (or worse) because it is made for one particular format. Some people will like using MF lenses on smaller formats but not BECAUSE they are MF lenses. I am getting to the point with all the hundreds of lenses I have owned over a few decades I could happily get by with just four to six or so. That would include a Canon 17 f4 TS-E, Sigma 150 2.8 (Canon mount) an ancient 300 2.8 manual focus lens adaptall (interchangeable mount) with the rest being less important but maybe used more often. There are actually some others I want to keep (FD 24 1.4 L for instance and Sony FE 55 1.8 but I can not use those right now). Adapting lenses WAS/IS fun (at least for me) but I have reached the point I am happy with the lenses I have (if not the cameras since my A7s died).
  6. noone


    Didn't say don't do it. Again, it IS fun and you can find lenses you like for sure, I am sure some will prefer the look they get but that isn't BECAUSE they are medium format lenses but rather because they like those particular lenses. My point is that if you want a fast lens for instance, you have MUCH greater choice using FF lenses than you do using MF lenses (and even with a focal reducer). Tilt shift adapters ARE a valid reason for some people and some uses with MF and LF lenses on FF (as they are using FF lenses on APSC and M43). Still, nothing compares to a real tilt shift lens (I guess I have been spoilt by my Canon 17 TS-E and previous 24 3.5 L TS-E ii). Those Mamiya lenses of yours are not going to give something that isn't readily available with FF lenses (with or without a focal reducer) other than some tilt/shift (when using the FF lenses on a FF camera) though there are plenty of different TS lenses available now. It is simply there are far more lenses available for FF than larger formats and larger format exotic lenses have even more exotic prices than anything. For what it is worth I am now too poor to experiment much further but I have tried adapting just about anything. IE, many different lenses even on a Pentax Q (like a Canon FD 85 1.2 on a Q or 300 2.8 on a Q), or mounting Nikon lenses bare on Pentax cameras (do that at your own risk but if careful it does work for older lenses).
  7. noone

    Penis camera

    How do you pull focus?
  8. noone


    While adapting and trying different lenses is fun, MF lenses generally don't have anything readily available and reasonably affordable that I would prefer over better FF lenses like Canon FD (especially L's) and some of the better Nikkors and others. Even after using a focal reducer. There ARE some super fast MF lenses I would love to try but I doubt I will ever see any in real life or ever be able to afford them (mostly made for aerial photography) and most others just are not going to be different (even with a focal reducer) to what can be readily found for FF. I do have a couple of Mamiya lenses for my old Polaroid that I would LIKE to try but they are slow. That they have their own shutters is what makes them interesting to me though not something I can use.
  9. noone


    That 28 f2 Vivitar is a decent enough lens but to me it has two main issues. Firstly it has a lot more distortion than most 28mm lenses and secondly it often gets stuck blades. I had two and one did have the blades stuck together while the other was ok. I used it a fair bit but was not good with people close in due to the distortion.
  10. Just go back a few years and see all the negative stuff about Sony and why Canon and Nikon were ever so much better. Now, the SAME things from Canon and Nikon are like, meh, so what. Nah, they are all as bad as each other. (Currently I do not have a working Sony camera and I have four working Canon cameras among others but I would still prefer a Sony for MY uses).
  11. noone


    It costs more but the nicest fast lens I have had in the 50-60mm range was the FD 50 1.2 L which is different to almost all those fast lenses in having a hand ground aspheric element (the ultra expensive Noct Nikkor did as well). That could be converted I think.
  12. Depends on what you mean by a high end lens and what they are designed for. I would not expect "character" in a higher level macro lens but in a portrait lens, sometimes yes sure. Sigma has come a long way in the last few years. I have had a few that were not so good (one was about the best built lens I have had but was worse than a coke bottle optically - some weird 200mm lens from decades ago), Sigma lenses had the same importer to Australia as Pentax so Sigma zooms were often Pentax kit lenses here. That said, even though it isn't an art lens, the 150 2.8 APO macro (mine is the older non stabilized version) is one of my favourites and I have liked using it on M43 Panasonic, FF Sony and for now I even use it on a Canon APSC (EF mount). An ancient 180 5.6 APO macro wasn't all that horrible either.
  13. noone


    That is generally the case. Pentax did make a mirrorless with the K mount but that is probably one of the main reasons it flopped. An already small user base and at the time , little reason to use K mirrorless instead of a K mount DSLR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
  14. noone


    I would just caution that with many (most?) old lenses your individual copies can be light years different to someone else's exact same lens. Many things will be the same but with old lenses there can be all sorts of issues (let alone if some were not great copies to begin with). Still at least you get to find the lenses that YOU like.
  15. Is it really lighter than the original A7/A7R? Does the weight include batteries and card? I have seen a couple of different weights mentioned (485 with battery and card which would put it a little more) but it will be close either way.
  • Create New...