Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Derek Gardner f/2.8 135mm M42
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:58 am    Post subject: Derek Gardner f/2.8 135mm M42 Reply with quote
Another ebay cheapie, looks like it's never been used.

Took all these early this morning when it was still dull and overcast.















PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Do you have some pictures of the lens itself? I imagine it something from Japan that's been rebranded, but it would be helpful to identify it.

This might sound a bit harsh, but I think most of your shots look out of focus, thus it's difficult to tell how good / bad the lens is. Are you relying on a focus confirm chip by any chance?


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Do you have some pictures of the lens itself? I imagine it something from Japan that's been rebranded, but it would be helpful to identify it.

This might sound a bit harsh, but I think most of your shots look out of focus, thus it's difficult to tell how good / bad the lens is. Are you relying on a focus confirm chip by any chance?


I need to get a af confirm chip, I ordered an M42 adapter with one and it never arrived sadly.

Please, don't worry about sounding harsh, I value the input, I'm just a beginner.

The viewfinder on my EOS 5D is bugger all use trying to ascertain focus.

Here's some pics of the lens, looks a bit like a Cosina to me. Sorry for the crap quality, had to snap em with my phone cam cos my cam batteries are charging.

I'll try to get some better sharper shots with this lens.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hehe we all start somewhere and it can be very frustrating with MF lenses to begin with, but oh so rewarding in time Smile

The lens looks like others I've seen branded "Optomax" and reminds me a little of the older Tamron Adaptamatic lenses, although I think this is probably more the third party manufacturers copying the styles of more popular brands, rather than a link to be honest.

It looks like many of your shots are back-focused, meaning the background is sharper than the main subject e.g. people on the beach, person walking the dog. The daffs came out OK though and show that the lens is probably OK...the middle daff seems to be the one most in focus.

I'm surprised you are struggling with the 5D's viewfinder though, as it's thought to be one of the best - big and bright. Have you adjusted the diopter on the viewfinder to match your eyesight? If that doesn't match then there's no chance of getting focused shots Wink


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Hehe we all start somewhere and it can be very frustrating with MF lenses to begin with, but oh so rewarding in time Smile

The lens looks like others I've seen branded "Optomax" and reminds me a little of the older Tamron Adaptamatic lenses, although I think this is probably more the third party manufacturers copying the styles of more popular brands, rather than a link to be honest.

It looks like many of your shots are back-focused, meaning the background is sharper than the main subject e.g. people on the beach, person walking the dog. The daffs came out OK though and show that the lens is probably OK...the middle daff seems to be the one most in focus.

I'm surprised you are struggling with the 5D's viewfinder though, as it's thought to be one of the best - big and bright. Have you adjusted the diopter on the viewfinder to match your eyesight? If that doesn't match then there's no chance of getting focused shots Wink


It feels like a quality lens and is a lot brighter in the viewfinder than my Jupiter-11A 135mm and ebing 2.8 it is noticeably faster than the f4 Jupiter. I got the feeling with the Daffodil shot that there was more potential in this lens than I was getting out of it. What worries me is the shots taken at infinity like the man and child on the beach don't look in focus. I'll take some more shots with the lens at infinity and see what they look like.

One reason I found it so hard to focus was it was about 6.30 Am and not very bright, dull and overcast, the sun was just breaking the clouds as you can see in the clouds shots so most of these shots are wide open.

I am finding it very frustrating trying to focus these manual lenses. I keep thinking I've got a shot in focus only to get home and find out it's just out.

I wear glasses so I need to play with the dioptre on the viewfinder. Why I find it hard is because the subject looks in focus in the viewfinder when it's way out and there isn't a split focusing screen like old 35mm SLRs.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A quick point...many adapters are actually slightly too thin, which means lenses actually focus beyond infinity.

For Canon, it might be worth investing in an adapter with an EMF AF confirm chip. These adapters can be programmed from the camera to set a focal length and auto focus adjust.

Basically, you hook the camera and a lens up, point towards a building in the distance, focus to infinity, take the shot and review on the lcd to check it's sharp. Keep doing this until infinity is spot on. Remember the focus position on the lens (write it down! e.g. 25m) and then adjust the adapter setting until the AF confirm light shows at that point on the lens.

From then on, the adapter is calibrated for your camera and results should be better. Definately check the diopter though as that is critical. Take the lens off and move the diopter wheel until the focus points are sharp in the viewfinder.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
A quick point...many adapters are actually slightly too thin, which means lenses actually focus beyond infinity.

For Canon, it might be worth investing in an adapter with an EMF AF confirm chip. These adapters can be programmed from the camera to set a focal length and auto focus adjust.

Basically, you hook the camera and a lens up, point towards a building in the distance, focus to infinity, take the shot and review on the lcd to check it's sharp. Keep doing this until infinity is spot on. Remember the focus position on the lens (write it down! e.g. 25m) and then adjust the adapter setting until the AF confirm light shows at that point on the lens.

From then on, the adapter is calibrated for your camera and results should be better. Definately check the diopter though as that is critical. Take the lens off and move the diopter wheel until the focus points are sharp in the viewfinder.


Hmm, I thought that the lens may have been focusing past infinity when I was shooting with it, I thought the same was true when I was shooting with my Paragon 200mm the other day as well.

I'll go shoot some more shots at infinity then we can talk more about adjusting things. I aim to ge an adapter for each lens eventually, but at the moment I'm testing the collection of very cheap lenses I got on ebay to decide which are worth keeping and which aren't. I'll get an af confirm adapter for all those I decide are keepers then if you don;t mind, you can advise me on setting each one correctly.

Many thanks for your help so far, very much appreciated.

I notice in the shot of the road with the woman and dog on the right that the horizon in the far distance looks more in focus than the woman and dog in middle distance which is a clue that it is focused past infinity I think.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For comparison's sake here's a shot I took with my Jupiter-11A just after 6am this morning so a very dull, low contrast setting.

Lens was wide open and focused to infinity.

Looks fairly sharp to me but could be better, looks more in focus than the Derek Gardner I think.



And here is another shot with the Jupiter-11A taken wide open and focussed to infinity but this was about 2..30PM and very bright light:



PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon sells very good focusing screens for the 5D, especially designed for bright lenses and very useful for manual focusing. Look on amazon for an EE-S screen, it's about 30€, very easy to install, and it makes all the difference when focusing.

You might also want to order a set of shims to fine tune your screen, 5D shims part numbers are

CB3-2850-000-003
CB3-2850-000-005
CB3-2850-000-008
CB3-2850-000-010
CB3-2850-000-012
CB3-2850-000-015
CB3-2850-000-018
CB3-2850-000-020
CB3-2850-000-025
CB3-2850-000-028

I got mines from hlehmann.co.uk they are maybe 10€ all of them.

The EE-S is for the old 5D I seem to remember, the mkII uses a slightly different version (EG-S?).


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Um, the last two shots don't look focused to me. That could be the lens beinfg soft wide open, but I'd be surprised as the Jupiters are generally sharp wide open. I'd say they are all focused a bit past infinity. Frustrating isn't it? Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Um, the last two shots don't look focused to me. That could be the lens beinfg soft wide open, but I'd be surprised as the Jupiters are generally sharp wide open. I'd say they are all focused a bit past infinity. Frustrating isn't it? Laughing


Yes it is, I will beat it though!

Thanks for the info on the focusing screens, sounds like a wise investment.

I should measure the thickness of this M42 adapter then see if I can get a thicker one.

How much thicker are we talking? I have tons of M42 extension tubes and I suppose I could trim one of the very short ones?


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd be more inclined to get an EMF chip adapter (they are only about a tenner) rather than adjusting the adapter itself, or you could end up with an adapter which is slightly thicker on one side causing all sorts of horrible effects Smile


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I'd be more inclined to get an EMF chip adapter (they are only about a tenner) rather than adjusting the adapter itself, or you could end up with an adapter which is slightly thicker on one side causing all sorts of horrible effects Smile


My Praktica Bayonet to EOS adapte is AF confirm and I really like it, makes things a lot easier so I intend to get an M42 AF confirm adapter. I did buy one on ebay from hong kong but it's a month and no show.

I've been playing with the dioptre adjustment on the viewfinder and I think I've got it set right now, see if that makes any difference.

I suppose the best thing for the time being is to practice!


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here are some more shots I shot this afternoon, a very dull grey and overcast day so not very contrasty light at all.

I think I nailed the focus a little bit better on these shots and I think the lens is fairly sharp. I like the bokeh and the colours, it's not bad I think, not great but acceptable.
























PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was at first using chipped adapters for focus confirm and much appreciated that assistance, but I have since honed my focusing skills and now prefer the chip-less adapters and now also shoot in manual exposure mode. You CAN improve your focusing skills.

On the issus of focusing past infinity, that is my experience too with the adapters I've purchased for my Sony A200. But I don't have the ability to adjust the camera's focusing as described by MFG. Many of my lenses are never used at infinity, but with the few that are, I take a series of photos, starting at full twist to infinity, then back out by tiny increments, taking a picture each time. From those I can tell to what degree the lens needs to be backed out. Typically, it is about the same amount with all the lenses, so I don't have to remember too much.


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For all of those shots I took I made several exposures at slightly different focus settings then picked the sharpest one. I'm slowly getting better at hitting focus but it will take lots of practice I think to become proficient.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So no-one got any comments on the second set of test images? Guess lenses without a known name aren't so interesting.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
So no-one got any comments on the second set of test images? Guess lenses without a known name aren't so interesting.


flower photos are almost but not quite focused, maybe try sharpening them a bit in photoshop , also i like the shot with wood palettes (i hope that is correct word for it) but it could use adding little more contrast in photoshop

you seem to improve in outdoor shots, hitting the focus better

just keep practicing and you'll get used to how the lens works


PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
WolverineX wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
So no-one got any comments on the second set of test images? Guess lenses without a known name aren't so interesting.


flower photos are almost but not quite focused, maybe try sharpening them a bit in photoshop , also i like the shot with wood palettes (i hope that is correct word for it) but it could use adding little more contrast in photoshop

you seem to improve in outdoor shots, hitting the focus better

just keep practicing and you'll get used to how the lens works


Thankyou for the feedback, I value it very much. Looking back at my pics I think you're spot on with all those points. The outdoor shots so lack a bit of punch in the contrast, not sure it that's down to the low contract light because it was gray and overcast, being slightly overexposed or the lens lacking contrast.

It's a little frustrating because I really would like to know if this lens is any good or not and atm my lack of proficiency in using it is making it difficult to judge. I really wish I'd jusy saved a few more pennies and got an M42 Pentaon 2.8/135 or a Zeiss 3.5/135 because at least then I'd know it was my fault if the IQ wasn't upto par for those lenses.

I've learnt a bit of a leson with this lens - no-name rebranded lenses of unknown manufacture are not ideal for guys like me who need to perfect their skills because you don't know if the lens is at fault or you are at fault.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
WolverineX wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
So no-one got any comments on the second set of test images? Guess lenses without a known name aren't so interesting.


flower photos are almost but not quite focused, maybe try sharpening them a bit in photoshop , also i like the shot with wood palettes (i hope that is correct word for it) but it could use adding little more contrast in photoshop

you seem to improve in outdoor shots, hitting the focus better

just keep practicing and you'll get used to how the lens works


Thankyou for the feedback, I value it very much. Looking back at my pics I think you're spot on with all those points. The outdoor shots so lack a bit of punch in the contrast, not sure it that's down to the low contract light because it was gray and overcast, being slightly overexposed or the lens lacking contrast.

It's a little frustrating because I really would like to know if this lens is any good or not and atm my lack of proficiency in using it is making it difficult to judge. I really wish I'd jusy saved a few more pennies and got an M42 Pentaon 2.8/135 or a Zeiss 3.5/135 because at least then I'd know it was my fault if the IQ wasn't upto par for those lenses.

I've learnt a bit of a leson with this lens - no-name rebranded lenses of unknown manufacture are not ideal for guys like me who need to perfect their skills because you don't know if the lens is at fault or you are at fault.

Beside of your J11, many other 135mm are good performers. Like the commonly avaliable cheap Vivitar 2.8/135 with serial No. starts with 28 .
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=30667


PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm starting to like my J11A for it's sharpness and build quality, the bokeh can be nice too.

I would like a faster 135 as well though and my interest in getting a Japanese one is cost as the Pentacon 2.8/135 isn't cheap and always attracts a lot of bidding on ebay.

I have been looking at 28 series Vivitars because I keep reading how good the Komine made lenses are. I see mostly Komine made zooms and I'm not a fan of zooms but I will keep my eye out for Viv primes with a 28 serial. I was rather annoyed that I forgot to bid on a Vivitar Komine prime that said 'close focus' on it and the review I read of said 'if you see one GRAB IT'. Auction ended with no bids so I could have had it for 99p with 2ukp delivery. i was most annoyed.

Is it just the Komine made Vivitars that are really good? I see a lot of Kiron made Vivs for sale, they seem the most common in the UK, Tokina and Hoya made ones seem common too.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm starting to like my J11A for it's sharpness and build quality, the bokeh can be nice too.

I would like a faster 135 as well though and my interest in getting a Japanese one is cost as the Pentacon 2.8/135 isn't cheap and always attracts a lot of bidding on ebay.

I have been looking at 28 series Vivitars because I keep reading how good the Komine made lenses are. I see mostly Komine made zooms and I'm not a fan of zooms but I will keep my eye out for Viv primes with a 28 serial. I was rather annoyed that I forgot to bid on a Vivitar Komine prime that said 'close focus' on it and the review I read of said 'if you see one GRAB IT'. Auction ended with no bids so I could have had it for 99p with 2ukp delivery. i was most annoyed.

Is it just the Komine made Vivitars that are really good? I see a lot of Kiron made Vivs for sale, they seem the most common in the UK, Tokina and Hoya made ones seem common too.

The close focus is a very capable performer. Not all Komine made lens are really good but most are good or above average.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I see this lens pop up from time-to-time. There are a few Flickr threads about it. It always seems below average but does have decent bokeh.

A fun lens.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
***I would like a faster 135 as well though and my interest in getting a Japanese one is cost as the Pentacon 2.8/135 isn't cheap and always attracts a lot of bidding on ebay.****

The Meyer 135 f2.8 bokeh monster is very nice, but on a film (and DSLR) camera it's annoying having to focus/see the subject at f2.8 and then reset the lens to f8 as in this shot (which can cause inaccuries of focus).

Just supermarket dev and low scan (about 3 to 4MP), superia 200 asa


PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
I see this lens pop up from time-to-time. There are a few Flickr threads about it. It always seems below average but does have decent bokeh.

A fun lens.

Sharpness is not the most important things for me. It has creamy bokeh but not as sharp as others. Build quality is excellent.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2