View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:15 pm Post subject: Adapted lens |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
---- _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it!
Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2901 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Love #7! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears
Joined: 13 Jan 2010 Posts: 215 Location: Leek, Staffordshire
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears wrote:
Yep, like these I’ve been thinking of picking up a copy myself, it’s an absolute steal in the Prakticar mount. I much prefer to see real pictures that show what’s it actually renders like, not interested in the finer technical aspects of a lens and neither were the great photographers. _________________ Sony A7
Super Takumar 55mm F18, Helios 44-2 58mm f2, Super Takumar 85mm f1.9, Pentacon 50mm f1.8, Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Fisheye, Carl Zeiss Vario Prakticar 35-70mm f2.7-3.5. Carl Zeiss Prakticar 35mm f2.4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
---- _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it!
Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 547 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
noddywithoutbigears wrote: |
Yep, like these I’ve been thinking of picking up a copy myself, it’s an absolute steal in the Prakticar mount. I much prefer to see real pictures that show what’s it actually renders like, not interested in the finer technical aspects of a lens and neither were the great photographers. |
Wow, then you know all them?
I guess instead that you miss someone that really cares of the "finer technical aspects of a lens", and I may introduce them to you if you wish. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 547 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
Now, for the sake of discussion, if there are images that really say nothing about the quality of a lens, these are the ones. From these images I can only assume that the person presenting them is a good photographer, with good aesthetic taste.
But as for the particularities of the lens, such a heavily rigged file (see attached crop) would make even the shoddiest 135 mm 1:3.5 "sharp"
[/img] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears
Joined: 13 Jan 2010 Posts: 215 Location: Leek, Staffordshire
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears wrote:
Ultrapix wrote: |
noddywithoutbigears wrote: |
Yep, like these I’ve been thinking of picking up a copy myself, it’s an absolute steal in the Prakticar mount. I much prefer to see real pictures that show what’s it actually renders like, not interested in the finer technical aspects of a lens and neither were the great photographers. |
Wow, then you know all them?
I guess instead that you miss someone that really cares of the "finer technical aspects of a lens", and I may introduce them to you if you wish. |
Oh dear.
I’m more interested in what idea, meaning or emotional aspect the photographer is trying to convey in their images, I don’t believe the greats were trying to show us how good their camera/lenses were. _________________ Sony A7
Super Takumar 55mm F18, Helios 44-2 58mm f2, Super Takumar 85mm f1.9, Pentacon 50mm f1.8, Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Fisheye, Carl Zeiss Vario Prakticar 35-70mm f2.7-3.5. Carl Zeiss Prakticar 35mm f2.4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 547 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
noddywithoutbigears wrote: |
Oh dear.
I’m more interested in what idea, meaning or emotional aspect the photographer is trying to convey in their images, I don’t believe the greats were trying to show us how good their camera/lenses were. |
Dear friend, yours is a very respectable position. Incidentally, it is the same point of view with which I move when I am about to take a portrait, or a reportage photograph. When the centre of the image is the story, the technical medium almost always takes second place. But there are times when, for work or personal pleasure, my intention is to enhance subjects that may not be interesting at first sight, whose essence is in the texture, in the material, or simply in the perfect representation. Let's call it photographic calligraphy, if you will. In these cases (but I could bring other examples), it may happen that I want to choose an wide aperture to isolate an object, and at the same time I want it to be represented with maximum sharpness. We have endless examples of this in the new digital cinema, for which it just so happens that today most of the best performing optical designs are born.
For these reasons, I don't find it useless to know the individual specificities of each lens, so that I can choose from time to time, within the limits of my possibilities, the most functional tools for a given project. Then, with almost 50 years of photography behind me, fortunately I have enough flexibility to take home the shot even if I don't have the most appropriate tool, but that's another matter.
Thanks for the dialogue |
|
Back to top |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears
Joined: 13 Jan 2010 Posts: 215 Location: Leek, Staffordshire
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Cheers, #7 is the little beach at Hodbarrow Point, one of my favourite places. Looking at it now, it's hard to imagine it is a post-industrial landscape. Until 1969 it was a mining area, but as you can see, nature has taken it back and it's hard to tell it was once totally different.
I paid 26ukp for this lens, I consider that a real bargain. |
To get back on track Ian, what you have shown is that this lens and the photographer behind it are very capable of producing lovely images, which is why I intend on picking one up, thank you. _________________ Sony A7
Super Takumar 55mm F18, Helios 44-2 58mm f2, Super Takumar 85mm f1.9, Pentacon 50mm f1.8, Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Fisheye, Carl Zeiss Vario Prakticar 35-70mm f2.7-3.5. Carl Zeiss Prakticar 35mm f2.4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sciolist
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 Posts: 1445 Location: Scotland
Expire: 2021-04-16
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sciolist wrote:
Do you know what the structure in #4 was used for, Ian? It has me foxed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears
Joined: 13 Jan 2010 Posts: 215 Location: Leek, Staffordshire
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears wrote:
Ultrapix wrote: |
noddywithoutbigears wrote: |
Oh dear.
I’m more interested in what idea, meaning or emotional aspect the photographer is trying to convey in their images, I don’t believe the greats were trying to show us how good their camera/lenses were. |
Dear friend, yours is a very respectable position. Incidentally, it is the same point of view with which I move when I am about to take a portrait, or a reportage photograph. When the centre of the image is the story, the technical medium almost always takes second place. But there are times when, for work or personal pleasure, my intention is to enhance subjects that may not be interesting at first sight, whose essence is in the texture, in the material, or simply in the perfect representation. Let's call it photographic calligraphy, if you will. In these cases (but I could bring other examples), it may happen that I want to choose an wide aperture to isolate an object, and at the same time I want it to be represented with maximum sharpness. We have endless examples of this in the new digital cinema, for which it just so happens that today most of the best performing optical designs are born.
For these reasons, I don't find it useless to know the individual specificities of each lens, so that I can choose from time to time, within the limits of my possibilities, the most functional tools for a given project. Then, with almost 50 years of photography behind me, fortunately I have enough flexibility to take home the shot even if I don't have the most appropriate tool, but that's another matter.
Thanks for the dialogue |
Yes very interesting and thoughtful reply and in all fairness one which I understand. But my personal approach to buying lenses is less technical and more whimsical, if I like it’s “look” then I tend to buy. Perhaps I should have been less through away and more thoughtful with my reference to the great and good. _________________ Sony A7
Super Takumar 55mm F18, Helios 44-2 58mm f2, Super Takumar 85mm f1.9, Pentacon 50mm f1.8, Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Fisheye, Carl Zeiss Vario Prakticar 35-70mm f2.7-3.5. Carl Zeiss Prakticar 35mm f2.4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kypfer
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 Posts: 513 Location: Jersey C.I.
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kypfer wrote:
Sciolist wrote: |
Do you know what the structure in #4 was used for, Ian? It has me foxed. |
It's the old lighthouse … had me interested as well, so I turned to Google |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sciolist
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 Posts: 1445 Location: Scotland
Expire: 2021-04-16
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sciolist wrote:
kypfer wrote: |
Sciolist wrote: |
Do you know what the structure in #4 was used for, Ian? It has me foxed. |
It's the old lighthouse … had me interested as well, so I turned to Google |
Thanks kypfer. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
---- _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it!
Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Yes, it's a lighthouse, the much shorter stone structure you can see in some of the other pictures is an older windmill. The small metal lighthouse on the seawall you can also see pictures of is supposedly the last remaining cast iron lighthouse left in the world.
|
Nice picture, I really like it. However, I didn't understand why the EXIF data show a focal length of 200mm when the lens was a CZJ Sonnar 135mm F3.5:
Even more interesting, the EXIF data show the presumably correct aperture F11, although the CZJ 135mm F3.5 obviously has no means to pass that information to the camera CPU. _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3748 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Ian actually has taken that image with the trustworthy old Minolta AF 4/70-210mm, at f=200mm and f11, and 1/125s, using aperture-priority AE mode, "vivid" color setting, DRO level 3, and his battery had 37% energy left (not joking!):
_________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
---- _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it!
Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 547 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
If you weren't so keen to be a troll, you might have realised the answer is already stated twice.
I'll give you some time to figure out your error and apologise before I clear up the 'mystery'. |
I have to argue that you used the mount of a Minolta lens to modify the Prakticar, did you so? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
---- _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it!
Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3748 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Ultrapix wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
If you weren't so keen to be a troll, you might have realised the answer is already stated twice.
I'll give you some time to figure out your error and apologise before I clear up the 'mystery'. |
I have to argue that you used the mount of a Minolta lens to modify the Prakticar, did you so? |
There's absolutely no need to modify a CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135mm with a mount from a MinAF 70-210mm: All M42 lenses can be used on the Sony A-Mount without modification, just with a simple M42=> Sony/Minolta A adapter. And they go to infinity. It would be very strange to do the complex exchange of the mounts, if there's no such change needed ...
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 547 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
Maybe a bayonet Praktica lens...
stevemark wrote: |
Ultrapix wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
If you weren't so keen to be a troll, you might have realised the answer is already stated twice.
I'll give you some time to figure out your error and apologise before I clear up the 'mystery'. |
I have to argue that you used the mount of a Minolta lens to modify the Prakticar, did you so? |
There's absolutely no need to modify a CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135mm with a mount from a MinAF 70-210mm: All M42 lenses can be used on the Sony A-Mount without modification, just with a simple M42=> Sony/Minolta A adapter. And they go to infinity. It would be very strange to do the complex exchange of the mounts, if there's no such change needed ...
S |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
---- _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it!
Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
Ultrapix wrote: |
I have to argue that you used the mount of a Minolta lens to modify the Prakticar, did you so? |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Yes, that's exactly what I did. |
This explanation has a fatal flaw: the focal length recorded in the EXIF data varies from photo to photo! Indeed, check out the focal length for these photos:
FL = 210mm:
FL = 200mm:
FL = 150mm:
FL = 180mm:
If the mount of a Minolta AF 70-210mm F4 zoom lens were used in a CZJ 135mm F3.5 lens, the focus/zoom ring would have to be
discarded since, among other reasons, the CZJ 135mm F3.5 is a fixed focal length lens!
The only explanation that makes sense so far is that the photos were actually taken with the Minolta zoom lens, as Stephan noted in his post. _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 547 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
Gerald wrote: |
Ultrapix wrote: |
I have to argue that you used the mount of a Minolta lens to modify the Prakticar, did you so? |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Yes, that's exactly what I did. |
This explanation has a fatal flaw: the focal length recorded in the EXIF data varies from photo to photo! Indeed, check out the focal length for these photos:
If the mount of a Minolta AF 70-210mm F4 zoom lens were used in a CZJ 135mm F3.5 lens, the focus/zoom ring would have to be
discarded since, among other reasons, the CZJ 135mm F3.5 is a fixed focal length lens!
The only explanation that makes sense so far is that the photos were actually taken with the Minolta zoom lens, as Stephan noted in his post. |
Ouch! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
---- _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it!
Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|