Jump to content

Lenses - Sticky Topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

Right! For FF the Walimex 135mm F2.0 sounds right for rather little money. Not up for battle though:) Such a kewl review for that beautiful Voigtlaender. Doubt the Samyang has a review going like that. Vintage lovers, beware of the vintage Porst 135mm 1.8. The people on a German gentleman forum put out a warning for it due to its lack of quality. They call it a doorstopper for a reason.

The Canon 135 f2 L I had was wonderful (and even though it is an old lens, auto focused ok depending on camera used).

I actually still have one of those old 135 1.8 lenses (mine is a Promura) and it is a very impressive lens to look at and hold...using it? Not so much (though mine seems to have a thin layer of gunk on an element inside probably because I think a previous owner tried to clean it).

I have had it for decades but not used it for years now...will have to see where it is.

My pathetic little brain has actually started thing I might try and get one of the f0.95 Voigtlanders just to try and use on my A7s both FF and APSC with clearzoom if necessary.......does anyone know how much of FF they would cover? (my 50-200 four thirds lens covers apsc entirely).

This ancient battered 20-35 2.8 L Canon lens would need a 10-17.5 1.4 lens to give a similar look with M43 and it is coming up for its 31st birthday in January (from the date code on the lens).   Despite its looks, it still works fine (even AF) though I use it MF on my Sony).

DSC06201.JPG

DSC06155.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Got myself some new glass for Christmas. I do prefer native lenses but the Sigma Speedbooster combo works really well! Screengrabs from GH5 + Speedbooxter XL + Sigma 35/1.4 + Black Pro Mist 1/4. 

Just got a Voigtlander 40mm 1.2. Haven't had a chance to test in video yet. But DAMN

A few stills from a shoot last night all on the Pocket 4K XL and CZ 35mm 2.8. 

Posted Images

2 hours ago, noone said:

The Canon 135 f2 L I had was wonderful (and even though it is an old lens, auto focused ok depending on camera used).

I actually still have one of those old 135 1.8 lenses (mine is a Promura) and it is a very impressive lens to look at and hold...using it? Not so much (though mine seems to have a thin layer of gunk on an element inside probably because I think a previous owner tried to clean it).

I have had it for decades but not used it for years now...will have to see where it is.

Have a look at it and if the images aren't any good, why not try to clean it yourself?

Worst case is that you'll turn something you don't use that has no value into something you don't use that has no value.

2 hours ago, noone said:

My pathetic little brain has actually started thing I might try and get one of the f0.95 Voigtlanders just to try and use on my A7s both FF and APSC with clearzoom if necessary.......does anyone know how much of FF they would cover? (my 50-200 four thirds lens covers apsc entirely).

My completely uneducated guess would be that there's a chance it wouldn't have much coverage.  My understanding is that when they push a lens design (eg, to make it small or fast or light or whatever) then they will have to make sacrifices in some other area, and I'm guessing that a larger image circle might be one that they've built into the lens.  

I could be completely wrong though, so maybe a google will set us straight?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, kye said:

Have a look at it and if the images aren't any good, why not try to clean it yourself?

Worst case is that you'll turn something you don't use that has no value into something you don't use that has no value.

My completely uneducated guess would be that there's a chance it wouldn't have much coverage.  My understanding is that when they push a lens design (eg, to make it small or fast or light or whatever) then they will have to make sacrifices in some other area, and I'm guessing that a larger image circle might be one that they've built into the lens.  

I could be completely wrong though, so maybe a google will set us straight?

I just realized I do not even have an adapter to use my 135 1.8 anymore so i have just ordered one from Ebay.    M42 mount.     It is not a lens I will ever use again seriously (I remember using it to photograph Jimmy Barnes with a Pentax film SLR years ago).

Regards coverage of the f0.95 lenses on My A7s, my guess is none of them would fully cover it but one or two might fully cover APSC.    It is hit or miss and as i said, my 43 50-200 DOES fully cover APSC at least and in either case, using Clear zoom will get rid of the vignetting ...I just wanna know how MUCH vignetting with either the 17.5 or 25 (those are the only two real candidates).

I could always just get one of the cheaper f0.95 brand M43 lenses though if doing that, I might as well get one of the E mount APSC ones 

Unfortunately it has to be a fully mechanical M43 lens as there are no smart adapters for M43 lenses on E mount cameras.

The one fully mechanical M43 "lens" I have used is the 15mm body cap "lens" and it has a huge vignette FF, an almost but not quite usable field of view APSC but with 1.9x clearzoom FF is ok (for what it is) 

Adapting lenses made for smaller formats is always very hit and miss and some sort of work for coverage and most do not but at least with Sony there is always clear zoom.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My old Promura 135 1.8.

It lives with a protective filter on it and in its own case so it has hardly been out of the case for years.

The layer of crud is not anywhere near as bad as I remembered and I guess the lens is just not so great to use.

Excellent poser value though!

 

DSC00787.jpg

DSC00788.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, noone said:

Here is a size comparison of the 135 1.8 Promura against a "small" more "regular" lens.

DSC06218.jpg

Wow.

Looks like it might be a great candidate for modification and adaptation.

In this case, modifying it by taking out all the insides, sealing it up, and adapting it to be a photography-themed wine goblet!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kye said:

Worst case is that you'll turn something you don't use that has no value into something you don't use that has no value.

 

They go for some nice money. Selling it could fund a Samyang 135mm F2.0:)

@noone This lens comes under different labels such as Weltblick, Porst, Beroflex. Just like Samyang going under Walimex, Rokinon... There are a few jokes about this bulky beauty on the German gentleman forum. They are not gentle about some lenses, after trying so many of them.:) Now, very exited to see that Promura to see some light. Would be cool to see some footage, if you can find time.

6 minutes ago, kye said:

Wow.

Looks like it might be a great candidate for modification and adaptation.

In this case, modifying it by taking out all the insides, sealing it up, and adapting it to be a photography-themed wine goblet!

You sound like some of these German gentlemen lens afficiandos:) I dare you to not mean it as a joke! 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

They go for some nice money. Selling it could fund a Samyang 135mm F2.0:)

@noone This lens comes under different labels such as Weltblick, Porst, Beroflex. Just like Samyang going under Walimex, Rokinon... There are a few jokes about this bulky beauty on the German gentleman forum. They are not gentle about some lenses, after trying so many of them.:) Now, very exited to see that Promura to see some light. Would be cool to see some footage, if you can find time.

 

I think there are about two or three different 135 1.8s but they do go under multiple brand names.    

I can never be sure which one is which.

I will see what I can do once my new adapter gets here though it will not be pretty (both image quality and my "competence").

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

They go for some nice money. Selling it could fund a Samyang 135mm F2.0:)

@noone This lens comes under different labels such as Weltblick, Porst, Beroflex. Just like Samyang going under Walimex, Rokinon... There are a few jokes about this bulky beauty on the German gentleman forum. They are not gentle about some lenses, after trying so many of them.:) Now, very exited to see that Promura to see some light. Would be cool to see some footage, if you can find time.

 

This is a page I saw years ago.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/porst-135mm-f1-8-tele-mc.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

My M42 to Sony E adapter turned up today (a lot quicker than I expected after the long delays for the last couple of things from Sydney).

Just a quick photo snap at 1.8 (the mesh window screen is almost touching the back of the rabbit).

I am not sure I will be able to post a video but I will at least try and post a couple of snapshots from video.

The lens is very heavy and does not have a tripod mount and I do not want to put the camera on a tripod with this lens out front.    The camera is not stabilised so any video I take will likely be very shaky.

Other issues (all coming back to me now), minimum focus distance is 1.7 metres and being m42 it just screws in but that means it can also just screw out when focusing that direction and you reach the end.

It also does not end up with the lens at the position I would like when mounted and screwed in.

DSC06255.JPG

DSC00819.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2020 at 4:35 PM, noone said:

 

It also does not end up with the lens at the position I would like when mounted and screwed in.

 

look for a cheap adapter that has an inner ring that is held in position with a couple of set screws you can turn the inner ring until the lens is orientated the way you like, then tighten the set screws.

inner-ring.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, leslie said:

look for a cheap adapter that has an inner ring that is held in position with a couple of set screws you can turn the inner ring until the lens is orientated the way you like, then tighten the set screws.

 

I just got the cheapest M42 to E adapter I could find ($6.99 Australian posted).

Previously I have used a Pentax K to E adapter with a M42 screwmount adapter slotted into the K adapter (I have both the one that focuses to infinity and sits fully in the mount and the one that loses infinity by having a flange that sits on top and both had their uses).

I sold my Pentax K adapter when i sold my NEX-3N.

I really do not care for this lens much now so not something I want to spend any more money on and it will likely just go back in its case in my box of wounded and orphaned lenses for another decade or so

Link to post
Share on other sites

cheap for me, is up to $20  for a few extra dollars you can at least get rid of one source of annoyance, besides its m42 you can use alot of lenses with it. Well vintage lenses anyway 😉

regardless of cheap adapter or not they all seem to have a little bit of play in them which is my biggest source of annoyance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, leslie said:

cheap for me, is up to $20  for a few extra dollars you can at least get rid of one source of annoyance, besides its m42 you can use alot of lenses with it. Well vintage lenses anyway 😉

regardless of cheap adapter or not they all seem to have a little bit of play in them which is my biggest source of annoyance.

I usually spend about $20 on dumb adapters but in this case, i just know the lens (it is the lens I have owned the longest that i still have) so cheap as possible it was...Turns out there IS a small screw on the side of the adapter.

I have fond memories of using the 135 with film and having fun with it autofocusing on a Pentax DSLR with a 1.7x AF adapter (i had to use a bit of aluminium foil across the adapters contacts).

Now. it is not something I want to use anymore.

I have settled on my lens kit pretty much (AF portrait lens excepted). 

I only have one other M42 lens left and that is a 28 2.8 used mainly as a bodycap on my Spotmatic (come to think of it, that is ALSO a Promura).

I do not want to sell the 135 for sentimental reasons.

Yes, the previous adapter that fits inside the K adapter did have some play, the one with the flange did not (but no infinity).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, noone said:

I usually spend about $20 on dumb adapters but in this case, i just know the lens (it is the lens I have owned the longest that i still have) so cheap as possible it was...Turns out there IS a small screw on the side of the adapter.

I have fond memories of using the 135 with film and having fun with it autofocusing on a Pentax DSLR with a 1.7x AF adapter (i had to use a bit of aluminium foil across the adapters contacts).

Now. it is not something I want to use anymore.

I have settled on my lens kit pretty much (AF portrait lens excepted). 

I only have one other M42 lens left and that is a 28 2.8 used mainly as a bodycap on my Spotmatic (come to think of it, that is ALSO a Promura).

I do not want to sell the 135 for sentimental reasons.

Yes, the previous adapter that fits inside the K adapter did have some play, the one with the flange did not (but no infinity).

looks like the cripple hammer makes it to adapters as well. You can have infinity focus or a tight fit but not both 🙄

finished paying of the mortgage last week. So now i can get really serious on getting some lenses. Looks like some moderns coming right up 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, leslie said:

looks like the cripple hammer makes it to adapters as well. You can have infinity focus or a tight fit but not both 🙄

finished paying of the mortgage last week. So now i can get really serious on getting some lenses. Looks like some moderns coming right up 😉

Vintage lenses can be fun but having had a bit of money a few years ago to get what I wanted (within reason), well unless for something very specific, I would take the modern lens every time...

Just using this 135 as an example, I had the Canon 135 f2 L and it shits all over this old Promura ...and that Canon while current is getting on a bit now too (wish i still had it but i kept the Sigma 150 2.8 macro instead when i had to sell one and the Sigma is a better for for me).

As for cheap adapters, I guess it can sometimes come down to luck and for the prices we pay, we should not expect too much given the tiniest difference in making it can mean a huge difference in how it works.

I had two M43 to E adapters and they are just very thin sharp metal rings....they do not let all M43 lenses fit and one would not let the M43 to E adapter I got recently to fit either so i just threw it away.

I love to experiment but on the cheap these days and keep a few good lenses as my main users.

Buying the Canon 17mm f4 L TS-E was a cost but is by far my favourite lens ever.

Buying my ancient 300 2.8 manual focus Tamron was a cost (at the time though not really THAT much) but I have had it for years and across systems and there isn't another lens I would want for portraits IF I have the space and the time.....I should have got a 200 f2 when I could have though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you guys ever considered that constant aperture zooms are also seriously crippled? They are really brighter at the short end, I would say by about 1 stop. The diaphragm starts to close as you zoom out.

This is easily visible e.g. with the current RF 24-105/4L and also with my old Sigma 24-60/2.8.

Speaking of which, I just compared the two lenses at 35mm f/5.6. The Sigma's performance, which came out in 2004 and was always much cheaper, is almost identical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need some help identifying this lens (pictures below). I believe its for 8x10.

It’s a Voigtlander & Sohn with serial no. 28281 which, if authentic, would put its production around 1880s. It has no lens markings at all and from my limited research you have to find out the focal length and aperture yourself. I didn’t have much time with the lens to figure it out since I was such visiting.

Friend found it while helping someone go through their grandma’s stuff in the basement. From my limited research.

 

 

E05B2E2A-D914-4331-8158-D04260D3F31E.jpeg

9D0A0CC5-8F32-46DE-B771-89CBA3CACEBD.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Enjay said:

Have you guys ever considered that constant aperture zooms are also seriously crippled? They are really brighter at the short end, I would say by about 1 stop. The diaphragm starts to close as you zoom out.

This is easily visible e.g. with the current RF 24-105/4L and also with my old Sigma 24-60/2.8.

Speaking of which, I just compared the two lenses at 35mm f/5.6. The Sigma's performance, which came out in 2004 and was always much cheaper, is almost identical.

Not sure I get that.

F stop is a ratio and a constant aperture zoom has a constant ratio (IE 2.8 at 24 and 2.8 at 60 for your Sigma).   

The physical size of the lens will be determined by the longest focal length if it is constant aperture.

Probably should be called a constant f stop zoom rather than constant aperture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...