noone

I think with the prices of the FD 20-35 3.5 L for about the same or maybe less, can get the later EF 20-35 2.8 L and while I am a fan of FD L lenses in particular, and I am not a huge fan of zooms, there is just something about the old EF 20-35 2.8 L that i hang onto mine (the alternative is throw it in the trash since it is very battered and the MF/AF switch cover is gone and I use a piece of coloured electrical tape in its place).

23 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

How do the Sony and FD L 85mms compare?

Does anyone know what the ideal humidity is for lenses? I have my FD lenses in a humidity locker now but I'm seeing some signs of aging on them and am worried they're too dry.

I have had a LOT of 85mm lenses FD 1.2 L, Nikon 1.8, Sony FE 85 1.8, Sony A mount 85 2.8, Minolta 85 1.7 (I thhink?) and from a photographers point of view (not so much video), the GM is light years better than any of the others and I loved the FE and the FD ones.       I can not wait to find portrait victims and use it (and do a comparison test against other portrait lenses i have). 

The GM is expensive and does make noises when focusing (not as bad as i expected reading reviews but it is there) but is very sharp and 11 rounded blades make for lovely bokeh even stopped down a bit.

On 2/16/2022 at 7:50 AM, PannySVHS said:

Not commenting on affordable FD lenses since prices are high enough already.😊 55mm 1.2 asph, sheesh. One sold for "cheap" last weekend for 1600 EUR. They usually go for 3500 and more. Afaik all the Fd 35mm f2 lenses and other FDs as well will have mechanical faults due to use of rubber in the focussing mechanisms. My 35 70 f4 has a gnarling focussing sound and lens elements are rattling.

On some Fds, the brass bearings are coated in rubber and the rubber dissolves over time.

It does not affect every copy it seems (or at least some take much longer for it to happen).

It happened with my 85 1.2 L and I just gave the lens away to the bloke I sold my FD24 1.4 L too (that did not have the bearing issue) and I got a Sony GM 85 1.4 from the buyer as well as some cash.

I could still use the FD 85 but it was very annoying that the focus was very loose and the GM 85 1.4 is spectacular to me by comparison so was never going to use it again anyway.

Some of those FD 24 1.4 asphercials have sold for around $20,000 which is plain nuts!

20 hours ago, kye said:

I'm not an expert in sensor tech, but Sony did a pretty amazing job of improving the ISO performance of their A7S line from normal FF sensors of the time, so if that can be done then maybe it is possible to have similar improvements in MFT sensors.
If the GH5 is a reference point for ISO performance on MFT sensors then I'd suggest that we aren't anywhere near what is possible!

I'm not saying anything definitive here, just that Sony showed that the tech can really be pushed - presumably with serious investment in the tech, and maybe that effort could significantly better low-light to MFT cameras.

The FIRST version A7s is STILL the camera with the highest DR of all above ISO 12800 (at least by DXO).

The latest version A7siii is a bit behind the original A7s for lowlight ISO BUT it has a LOT more detail at all settings probably due to being 80mp in subpixels or however they describe it (so not really 80mp but maybe not really 12mp either).

This new Olympus seems to d something similar so I kind of expect the same....Lots more detail at most settings but no or only a little improvement in terms of high ISO.

Low light and dynamic range are two separate things.

A 1 stop improvement in DR will always be nice.

I do not yet buy the two stops improved ISO (is it even possible?) though no doubt will be better than previous M43 cameras.

As a interested bystander (and unlikely ever to buy it), the thing for me would be if it improved DR AT high ISOS.  

Smaller sensor cameras fall away in DR more steeply in general than larger sensor cameras (case in point, my Sony Rx100iv a now aging camera with a 1 inch sensor has about the same DR as the also aging Canon 5d iii at base but by around ISO 800 the Canon FF is well ahead).

So, my question is how well this camera holds up at higher ISOs for DR compared to previous m43 cameras. 

Seems to me it IS a "wow" camera but only for a couple of specific groups of people.

For SOME already high end m43 users, it might be and for adventurers who travel to remote locations off the beaten track in all weather for wildlife it might be just the ticket.

For me it is just a nice m43 camera that I am unlikely to ever buy but i hope it does sell well.

I just want "enough" DR for any given use.

Every camera i have had is different and I have never said that any of them did not have enough.

I have had an old Canon G10 (pro grade with a tiny point and shoot sensor photo camera) and it took lovely photos (at base ISO only) but had about the same DR (about 10 stops) as my A7s has at ISO 6400.

2 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

Have to share a little story here.

The year is 2012, starting to shoot stills and video more seriously, just got an GH2, influenced by a british guy which have a video site with DSLR / mirrorless cameras. Funny that the guy put "EOS" in  the name of the site and the rage there was hacked GH2s (the GH3 was just launched).

The same guy had a GH2 guide in which he recommends some vintage lens to use. One of then was the Canon FD 35mm f/2, which he praised a lot - got one in eBay, compared to the other FDs that I've got, was kind of expensive.

Liked the lens; one "problem" was the yellowish tint of the thorium element. The british guy said that it was a pleasant characteristic, but my copy had a VERY strong tint, cheap ND filter like. With the "Ikea lamp" method, in 3 days the tint was much lowered, and yes, now it is very pleasant.

I known that the prices were raising, specially after that popular video (very good, indeed) that tested each one and compared the FDs to the Canon cinema lenses. My copy have the concave front element (got by luck, was not filtering the seraches by it when I bought), which I know that is more valuable too.

Paid US$ 199,00 in 2012, very good shape, optical elements pristine. Got a look at the prices in eBay this morning. HOLY SHIT.

Thanks, british guy, a.k.a. @Andrew Reid. 🙂

I just sold my FD 24 1.4 L for $5000 Australian ($4000 to me),     Mine was very ratty externally but the glass was ok (apparently a few cleaning marks and a tiny not noticeable scratch).

Others with bad fungus and worse have sold for MORE than i got.      I maybe could have got $7000 on Ebay worldwide but am not greedy and sold it to a local dealer.

Turns out these are being purchased to rehouse as cinema lenses and likely the same for your 35.

I used some of the money to buy a GM 85 1.4 lens from the same bloke (and for about what I paid for the FD in the first place!).

5 hours ago, kye said:

Technically the question was "wider than 12mm".  It sounds pedantic, but for me 12mm isn't wide enough for landscapes and architecture, and it's also not wide enough for comfortable vlogging either as you have to hold your arm out basically straight to get a neutral composition.

Turns out the Oly 12 f2 IS wider than 12mm (if you can find a RAW convertor that does not correct for distortion).

What do i win?

https://www.lenstip.com/310.6-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_12_mm_f_2.0_ED_Distortion.html

3 hours ago, kye said:

Technically the question was "wider than 12mm".  It sounds pedantic, but for me 12mm isn't wide enough for landscapes and architecture, and it's also not wide enough for comfortable vlogging either as you have to hold your arm out basically straight to get a neutral composition.

Yes but some M43 lenses are actually wider than marked and it is AFTER the distortion correction is applied that they become that focal length.

I do not know if the 12 f2 is one of those (maybe not since it is a bit older).     There is a chance it MIGHT be something like 11mm or 11.5 (You can not out pedant a pedant!).

Wouldn't the Oly 12mm f2 qualify IF you shoot RAW and turn off corrections?

It has been many years since I had it.

On 1/4/2022 at 3:36 PM, kye said:

 

The lens is a copy of the Carl Zeiss Biotar 58mm but has a dreamier look, which with todays high-resolution cameras, contributes a welcome antidote to the digititis that lovers of cinema recoil from.

This is an interesting article about it if you want more information..  https://www.gearfocus.com/blog/2020/05/helios-44-2-bokeh-king

Don't confuse cheap with low quality! 🙂 

I had a Biotar years ago.    A really old one with 17 blades (I think it was) and it was sharp but very low contrast.   Of my two (from memory for the Biotar) I would say the Biotar was the one with the dreamy look and the Helios is almost like any similar lens of its era.    Just got a hood for it yesterday too, not that i had any real issues with stray light.

My Helios is one of the newest.      The coating was probably the biggest difference although the Biotar was a lot smaller 

On 12/31/2021 at 12:00 AM, PannySVHS said:

360p youtube looks worse than anything:) But thanks for getting a point across. Why this film. Looks a bit dull. There are other classics of Soviet cinema. There are also more than one classic Soviet lens. Helios 58mm is not the end of all lens desires. This film looks rather like something like this, to give it a lens equivalent. 🙂

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smena_(camera)

I just got a Helios 44M-6 for $20 (Australian) with a camera.

I am shocked at how much i like it given it is almost throw away and especially because it focuses to infinity (I was led to believe if I used a flange adapter I would have a reduced range or I could use a non flange adapter but only wide open unless the pin is taped down).

I can use my cheap Neewer m42 to E mount flange adapter with infinity and able to stop down.

I will probably not use it for video but I can highly recommend it (mine is almost like new).

16 hours ago, leslie said:

 

  I haven't seen any input from @noone for a while, i hope he's ok. I think i may have,  even seen webrunner about again. I wish the rest of this community good health and prosperity, although i'd rather you don't confuse prosperity with wealth.

 

 

Not much for me to say really.

Just an old amateur still shooter who rarely dabbles in video now.

More interested in what i can get cheap from the charity shop I work at now as a bit of fun.       A Canon FD 50 1.8 is a surprisingly sharp little lens.     Helios 44-M 6 is a fun little thing too. (along with a Tokina 28 2.8 they all cost me $40 total Australian in the last few weeks....The Helios came with a camera I donated back).

Still trying to sell my Canon FD 24 1.4 L (very frustrating because I see them selling now for sometimes over $21000 (Australian) for mint copies while lesser ones go for $6000 and up.     Mine is ratty on the outside but good on the inner but because I will not sell world wide, I will probably not get anywhere near that).   I am in no hurry to sell it though but would love to get a new AF portrait lens, a mid range zoom and a Laptop PC for it soonish

Seasons greeting to all and stay safe!

Great thread.

A few thoughts from a 99% stills shooter.

Sony Clearzoom.    How much I use depends on the lens used.    With a better lens I am fine with 2x as for example my Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 is still better at 110mm than many old lenses of that focal length (or similar).

I use primes mostly for specific purposes, Tilt shift, macro, super telephoto, shallow DOF (including portraits) and in the case of the 55 1.8 for IQ and as a body cap.       It helps that all of those CAN be used with clearzoom.

I have never been a big fan of zooms but have always had a few including maybe a dozen or so  "kit" lenses and I have been happy with all of the kit lenses for what they are.

Some zooms I love are the old Tokina 60-120 2.8 (great as a portrait lens), my ancient EF 20-35 2.8 L (technically not great optically but i do like what it does even if hardly used).

I keep a Canon IS ii APSC kit lens as it is useful as a almost disposable lens that actually covers FF on my A7s from about 24mm and up and it is currently my only stabilized lens.

I have a few old MF variable aperture zooms and they are a mixed bunch some ok some just old but none used very often.

I work at a charity shop and handle the camera gear most of the time.....we have a few lenses in at the moment and if they do not sell will probably buy most of them.

Still have the Contax 50 1.7 and 35 2.8 I posted about ages ago in the lens forum.     Looks like they will be coming home at some point but just got an FD film camera with a 50 1.8, a 28 2.8 and a mint condition old Promura zoom in case. I would love to try the Promura but will probably pass but could get the primes for no reason.      

We also got three Pentax film cameras in last week and all had the same Sigma 28-70 macro zoom that was sold as a kit lens in Australia with Pentax (same distributor) and an old Russian Kiev camera with a Helios 58 f2 M .....This thread has me thinking i will buy one of the Pentax kit zooms and the Helios to compare them at 58mm.

11 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

I switched from Sony back to Canon due to owning a lot of EF glass, but there's NO WAY they're releasing a 30p only 4k camera in 2021, right?

Why not?   It will be a still focused camera that CAN shoot 4k (which is all most people buying it will want to know).

Fuji released a 50mp camera that tops out at 1080 30p in 2021 for a LOT more money!

On 8/24/2021 at 5:24 AM, noone said:

What more is there to say!

Still six days to go, 25 bids currently $6400 US (nearly $9000 Australian) and it has FUNGUS!

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/324759786578?hash=item4b9d311452:g:20gAAOSwoQphCIJT

 

Ok this was actually the rarer older Aspherical version rather than the FD L but geez 26 bids and a final price of 10,100 US dollars (about $14,000 Australian) for a lens with fungus? 

What more is there to say!

Still six days to go, 25 bids currently $6400 US (nearly $9000 Australian) and it has FUNGUS!

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/324759786578?hash=item4b9d311452:g:20gAAOSwoQphCIJT

If you already have a FF camera (one that has a crop mode anyway) you can sort of test it yourself somewhat by using the lens both FF and APSC.

Not exactly the same as M43 and FF but close and would give you an idea (and closer if the FF crop mode is not 1.5 or 1.6x but has a larger crop still).

For something different, what about a 1 inch sensor compact.    Some of the Sony RX100 cameras have amazing AF and can focus quite close and later if she wants to upgrade you can still sell them for a decent amount if looked after.    Sound would have to be maybe done apart unless you get one with a mic input.

The AF in my little Rx100 iv is great and that is  old now and the last of the CDAF only RX100s so the v and va are better still or maybe the Sony ZV-1 might be good (if pricey...Maybe used?) Or even an older and newer model combination....

The coming APSC ZV-E10 would be ideal but too dear.

Any of the other large sensor compacts? Canon?  Panasonic?

The madness continues!    Another used one (this one had a CLA) in the US for $5800 (a hundred or so short of $8,000 Australian) and with 25 bids!

I have asked a couple of major camera stores if they would take mine on consignment.

Sydney store would but does not think i would get as much as i think, Melbourne store would and does think I might .... Both take 20% commission which is fine and as long as I get about three times what I paid for it I will be happy (both subject to the condition when they see it).      Think I will go with Melbourne store once the borders are open and I have some time to visit there with it

Has to be a Lumix camera but that could mean any little point and shoot EG little underwater camera.

Can this get any more crazy?   Today an FD 24 1.4 L from Germany sold on Ebay for just under $6500 Australian.

About the same condition as mine maybe a bit better externally and a bit worse internally.

Pure and simply nuts!

Maybe asking Sony might be the best option?   

Probably cost a LOT but if you can get them interested in what you are doing, who knows?

8 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Question about these low light sensors (specifically S1's sensor but I've seen similar things I think in A7S maybe): compared with less light-sensitive cinema cameras, the image seems to wash out to one color quickly. 

 

Original A7s has a greater dynamic range at higher ISOs than anything consumer still.

Yes, the more recent high megapixel cameras are better in even light that used to be regarded as low not so long ago but the A7s just ramps down in a lot shallower line.       I mainly use mine for stills but in low light I still do not want anything else for my uses.       I doubt any of these sot of cameras is what the OP is after though.