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

Adapted lens
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:15 pm    Post subject: Adapted lens Reply with quote

----

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Love #7!


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

----

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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]


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you know what the structure in #4 was used for, Ian? It has me foxed.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Wink


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Wink


Thanks kypfer.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

----

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:02 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!):



Laugh 1


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

----

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:02 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

----

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:02 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

----

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:02 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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! Laugh 1


PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

----

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:03 pm; edited 1 time in total