Jump to content

mdominic20

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. If you look a few posts above, you can see my comparison of the Tokina (+0.4) and Minolta (+0.33). I found the Minolta on KEH for $45 shipped. The Minolta is much cheaper than the Tokina, yet identical in quality (and possibly more versatile in range). I've been looking for a 72mm or 77mm +0.5 (does not need to be achromatic) for a little while, but they seem somewhat rare on ebay.
  2. i finally got a hold of a minolta 100-500 and compared directly it to my tokina 0.4. setup was a gh4/contax zeiss 50mm @ f2.8/iscorama 36. tokina focus range: 3.8' to 8.9' (measured to the diopter) minolta focus range: 4' to 10.5' (measured to the diopter) field of view (at the same distance): minolta was about 1-2 degrees wider than the tokina. sharpness/overall image quality: identical i was surpised that the tokina was able to focus that far out (seems like mine is closer to .37 than .40). i was also surprised the minolta was able to stay sharp all the way down
  3. I have a question about the popular (but hard to find) minolta close-up lens for 100-500... some people say it's strength is 0.33, and others say it's 0.43. no one seems to agree. can anyone who owns one weigh in with some clarification?
  4. Thanks for the responses. I ended up getting an Iscorama, because it made the most sense for what I'm looking for personally. I also had a chance to test one out first, so I know I like the look. Obviously the Kowa looks great too, and I have one that I'll use if the right project comes along. As far as wide angles, I agree that a 37mm equivalent on FF is wide enough for 95% of shots I would need. But on every project I inevitably find myself in a cramped interior space needing a 21 or 28mm lens in order to get a certain shot. Small kitchens, cars, bathrooms, closets, etc. An oval a
  5. Here's some tips, based on my experience with the sharpness tweak: I'm not sure if this is the case with every lens, but with mine, it was possible to adjust the sharpness without even removing the brass tabs. Just by loosening all 6 screws, but leaving the tabs in place, it created enough rotational play in the front optic for me to fine-tune the sharpness. This is because the holes in the brass tabs are ever so slightly bigger than the screws, so you have a little room for rotation. For me it was just enough. Once you find the sweet spot, simply re-tighten the screws. No gl
  6. I'm very close to buying an iscorama (despite the outrageous cost). My priorities are, in order: 1) single focus (either native or with an attachment) 2) capable of wide angles... i'm thinking 50mm on full frame is wide enough for me. With a full-frame 16x9 sensor and a final 2:40 aspect ratio, a 50mm taking lens has the equivalent FOV of a 37mm spherical lens, regardless of whether using a 1.5x or 2x anamorphic, due to cropping of the sides to get from 3.56:1 or 2.66:1 down to 2.40:1. And a 37mm FOV on full-frame is pretty wide. 3) 2x stretch (for the more exaggera
  7. Thanks Hans! Very helpful information. By the way, would this effect also happen with the 36 (single-coated version)? I imagine it would, but the flares would be slightly further towards the edge of the frame since the rear element is larger?. I will give your o-ring solution a shot!
  8. I rented an Iscorama pre-36 to test out, and I noticed the flares were very strange. There was a horizontal streak as expected, but the streak was surrounded by a bunch of criss-crossing lines at odd angles. I found a video that showed the exact same thing i was seeing in my tests (starts at 2:07): At first I thought maybe it was an issue with the taking lens (I'm using Contax Zeiss lenses), but I tried several different lenses and they all flared with those weird surrounding lines. I also tested my Kowa B&H with the same taking lenses and same setup, and it look
  9. Thanks guys! So if it doesn't say "MC," it might be single coated or it might be multicoated. That ebay listing looks nice, and definitely looks single coated. The price seems a little crazy though, compared to other lenses I have seen being sold.
  10. I've searched the forum but I can't find a clear answer about this one. If a 36 has the "MC" written on it, obviously it's multicoated. If it doesn't have the "MC" written on it, does that mean it's single-coated? Or did they just make multicoated lenses without the "MC" label for a while? Does anyone own a 36 that's definitely single-coated? Thanks for your help!
×
×
  • Create New...