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

Eyemik 28/2.8 revisited
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:39 pm    Post subject: Eyemik 28/2.8 revisited Reply with quote

I knew it was crap, but it's succeeded in being very crap. I wonder if this lens has been dropped at some point, for the right side of the image is sometimes awful.
Anyway, a small ruined church and graveyard near me...









This used to be the inside of the church. Looks like some folks don't like being outside, even when dead.




You can see on this last one, the mess made of the detail on the right hand side.



Whether it's just bad glass or a de-centred element, I don't know, but it was cheap enough not to care about - it's going in the bin.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I love the last picture.
Great composition and I love the deep DOF, and the forground subject gives a "tone" to the whole image.
One for a magazine.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know, it isn't THAT bad, and those pictures have a lot going for them.

I would keep it if it looks interesting, even if only because of the name. Hey, they're not making them anymore.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eyemik from Mitake....I own this lens , and another , the 200mm . I obtained stunning pics with the 200mm . I 'd never tested the 28 , but I'll do soon ! The strange "distorsion" visible in this "fantastic" (atmosphere) picture , maybe a problem of elements misalignement , but not sure 100%


Mitake Eyemik 3,5/200 :






PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dave wrote:
it's going in the bin

think about it... when you will buy a Olympus dslr it will have perfect border


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the postive comments, guys. The pics look ok on screen, but full res there is something dead wrong on the right hand side - stands out like a sore thumb.

Today was a one-lens day - I thought I'd give the Eyemik a go today, but now I wish I'd taken the Tamron 28, or even the Sirius.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agree, they are not that bad, Dave. So c1200 is considered Pre-Norman? I
would think it would have to be before 1066 (Hastings) because the place
had a management change soon thereafter...

Bill


PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Katastrofo wrote:
Agree, they are not that bad, Dave. So c1200 is considered Pre-Norman? I
would think it would have to be before 1066 (Hastings) because the place
had a management change soon thereafter...

Bill


There was a church there before the Normans showed up, and in c1200, the site was given over to the ownership or running by Kells Priory. Reminds me, I must get over to that and shoot some stuff - it's a proper job of a place. A fortified complex with the surrounding walls intact.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dave, I must've taken a stupid pill this morning by mistake, sorry about
that. Would like to see some further work about this when you get the
chance.

Bill


PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On screen they look good enough. I am glad you highlighted the area in question because I sure couldn't find it on my own.