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

Which are your "regular" lenses?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Hey , thank you for you long post! Please send pictures from your sets! Thanks in advance!


Haha! I figure it's "better" to give the whole ball of wax at once, then I can get down to the nitty gritty of actually giving some feedback of USE of all that metal and glass. Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="peterqd"]
Laurence wrote:
I just feel that, in my lifetime, I want to get back to the roots of my photographic impetus from when I was a teenager. So, it's time to cast off the auto-this and auto-that and digital-those, and go for the seat-of-the-pants all manual regime that is always such a blast!

Hello Laurence. I have a great affinity with you about getting back to roots, I think we are of similar age (I'm 61 at Christmas). For the past 2 years I've been collecting M42 cameras and lenses too. My original 35mm cameras back in the 60s were a Zenit 3M with the little Industar 3.5/50 lens and a Praktica Nova 1B with Meyer Domiplan 2.8/50. In those days I used to long for a Spotmatic but could never afford one, so in the past two years I've bought two! (SP and SPII). My list of M42 lenses is now quite long and I'm beginning to feel I don't need many more.


Great! I am glad someone else in my age group (we're not THAT old!) has an affinity for the ol' KISS principle in using M42 compatible gear!

I never had the Zenit, but a friend back then had a Zenit (don't remember which model) and the Industar 3.5/50, which was to me, incredibly sharp. I know he won a couple of local contests with that Industar.

I guess it's nice to be "of age" to have somewhat disposable income to spend on our camera bug! But hey...it could be a lot worse, at least that's what I tell myself! Glad to meet you! And I hope we continue a dialog through the next years on here.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Steve, it looks like you are quite set with some wonderful equipment! Regarding a wide-angle, I wonder how a 17mm Tamron would do for you? Seems like it's in the "middle" of the 14 and 20 lenses.

Thanks for the nice information on your "usual" lenses, I hope to see some images on here! Best, Larry


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You young whippersnappers are too young to remember the "good old days". Personally I really missed the set-up when it was all by hand (oh the luxury of a light meter actually built into the camera!) - when I first moved to digital some five years ago. Even though the quality of the prints very quickly rivaled film the fun was missing. Then I found the manual lenses for my nikon D70 and next came the D200 with its focus confirm and metering. Now the evolution takes me to the M42 lenses and I am looking forward to charting new territory. Feel sorry for the technotsars who throw lots of money at it. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
I really missed the set-up when it was all by hand (oh the luxury of a light meter actually built into the camera!) - when I first moved to digital some five years ago. Even though the quality of the prints very quickly rivaled film the fun was missing.


Totally agree with you Patrick. Digital photography is a wonderful thing, and being able to produce instant pictures and mail them or insert in a document straight away is a massive step forward in my job. But I really miss the fun of film, the excitement of waiting a week for the prints to arrive at the chemists, waiting for the box of slides to drop on the mat, watching images appear on the paper in the darkroom, wondering if they'll turn out OK.

One of the things for which I'm really grateful to this forum, besides the fun of buying and using manual lenses, is that it has led me to start using film cameras and developing film again (only B&W so far but kits for colour negs and reversal film are available Very Happy). The big problem I had in the 60's was converting our only bathroom into a darkroom for enlarging and printing, but with a changing bag and a scanner that's a thing of the past. I'm even beginning to get into medium format for the first time since about 1958, when my father's Coronet folder gave up the ghost. The fun's coming back!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
.... The fun's coming back!


Very Happy Good to hear! Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
The fun's coming back!


Wait until you try one of these big 6x9 Fuji rangefinder cameras with a 50mm superwide (like a 21mm lens on a 35mm camera) Twisted Evil

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Or a Pentacon Six + prism finder + Sonnar 180... Cool

Or the above + 4/50 Flektogon....

Especially if you fit each lens' correct hood.... Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...and rent a trailer to haul the stuff around in. Plus a massive tripod to hold the thing steady.
Smile
Peter
I almost envy your patience with film, but I was always bothered by the limitations of numbers - how many left on the roll? It was not speed that got me into digital, it was the freedom of several "rolls" in my pocket (CF cards). And of course the "darkroom" of the computer. Could never afford the gear for colour printing (too many kids) - but a relatively small computer will do it all with the right software. Still - I can appreciate the fun with film, my brother still uses his old Zorki and Rolleiflex.


patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's the point, digital for regular photography because it is fast and cheap and film for the occasional nostalgic feeling - that's what I do (even though I am just 36). Wink


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
I was always bothered by the limitations of numbers - how many left on the roll? It was not speed that got me into digital, it was the freedom of several "rolls" in my pocket (CF cards).


I feel that's one of the most important reasons why film is more fun. With a memory card you have the luxury of being able to keep snapping away hoping you'll find a picture you like out of maybe hundreds you've taken. Film forces you to think and take care with each shot before you press the button.

Quote:
And of course the "darkroom" of the computer. Could never afford the gear for colour printing (too many kids) - but a relatively small computer will do it all with the right software.


But once I've scanned my neg or slide I have a digital image to work on too. It's the best of both worlds - why not? Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And a "shooting away" would cost a looooot of money! Wink


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
niblue wrote:
Medium format enhances that even further as you're usually doing everything for yourself rather than letting the camera sort out everything except where to point it.


Well, maybe for most people, but I'm an old fuddy-duddy remember. The only 35mm camera I've ever used that had any auto functions at all was the ME Super (with aperture-priority only), and the single reason I chose it in 1982 was because it had full manual mode. With hindsight that was a bad choice in some ways - I should have bought a fully manual Spotmatic then instead of waiting until last year.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
... was the ME Super (with aperture-priority only), and the single reason I chose it in 1982 was because it had full manual mode. With hindsight that was a bad choice in some ways - I should have bought a fully manual Spotmatic then instead of waiting until last year.


I don't think the ME Super was a bad choice. I think this is a great cam.
I once had one and I've sold it again. I could hit myself. Mad


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
peterqd wrote:
... was the ME Super (with aperture-priority only), and the single reason I chose it in 1982 was because it had full manual mode. With hindsight that was a bad choice in some ways - I should have bought a fully manual Spotmatic then instead of waiting until last year.


I don't think the ME Super was a bad choice. I think this is a great cam.
I once had one and I've sold it again. I could hit myself. Mad


I agree with you Carsten, it's a nice camera. That's why I recently had it professionally serviced, with a new focussing screen. But it was a bad choice in the sense that my old M42 lenses were left to gather dust (but not fungus!) for 24 years. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Peter, there are M42-PK-adapters. I've got one and thus I can use my M42 lenses at my Ricoh KR-10x (PK).


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Peter, there are M42-PK-adapters. I've got one and thus I can use my M42 lenses at my Ricoh KR-10x (PK).


Thanks. I bought an M42-PK adapter with the camera in 1982, but unfortunately the spring clip broke after just a few days and caused me to drop and smash my old CZJ 3.5/135. After that I mistrusted the adapter and didn't use it. I've bought two more recently, but I still think it's a poor design.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Viejo's lens set is eclectic and interesting. I would love to see some of the results!

Speaking of 6x9, I've had a Zeiss Ercona (East German version of Ikonta) 6x9 for several years, and have probably a bit more than 1000 trannies from it, all in sleeves and in a three ring binder.

I had a fit of "give-away compassion" for a college young man I know, who really has been "nose to the grindstone" working 2 or 3 jobs at a time to fund his higher education. He is a super young guy, and was lamenting that he would probably "never be able to get a medium format camera, let alone any other kind of higher end camera" until later after his degree.

Well...I gave him the Ercona. Go figure! But, the look on his face was such a treasure to me, that I am not "too" remorseful. And, really I have enough transparencies to work with for a long time from it. The images are sharp and clean from the 105 Tessar lens.

I had an Agfa Isolette III (6x6) prior to the Ercona, but sold it off for funding a Pentax 645. It was something I needed to do at the time, but I do miss that fine, compact medium format camera. The black and whites from the 6x6 made for some wonderful images (some are still on my walls). The P45 was used for more hand-held images with a moderate degree of success. And, THAT one was sold off to fund some Tamron lenses...man, cameras are kind of neat in that respect - you can "buy and sell" and usually come out even. And, my collection of trannies for scanning grows accordingly.

Peter, I never actually have developed b&w on my own. I understand it's relatively easy now, without even needing a darkroom?

Oh...just got another Tamron Adaptall 2 to M42 screw mount today. I hope to have up to about four of them soon, as I think it's nice to leave the adapter on the lens as much as possible.

And, as stated earlier, I'm waiting for a Tamron SP 35-80 to come in any day. I think I got a good price at USD $28 for it. Got it from that large auction site here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=330177943591&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=014 It LOOKS to be in good shape, although the pictures of the lens are not flattering; of course usage will tell all. I have certainly read glowing reviews for this lens, and it will be good companion lens for the SP 70-210 (which is one of the nicest lenses I've ever owned, by the way).

The 35-80 seems to have a Minolta adapter...is there anyone on this forum needing that particular adapter? I'll send it for the cost of postage if you can use it.

So, perhaps I'm a Luddite too, Peter and Patrick? Well...maybe NOT because it looks like even "young" 36 year old guys have been delving into purely manual film imaging too! Smile

That's all for this current rambling...

Last edited by Laurence on Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:06 pm; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
niblue wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
I don't think the ME Super was a bad choice. I think this is a great cam.


Agreed - the ME Super was a great camera. I don't have one now although I do have an ME-F (which is the same but with limited AF capability).

I've not owned an LX (yet!) but of the manual focus Pentax cameras I have owned the MX is my favourite.


I almost bought an ME-F the other day on ebay, but I missed it. I like the concept.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I also now have a K2 for fun. It has manual + Av auto, and more knobs and dials than I've ever seen before! Mirror lock-up, stop-down button, EV control etc. For the time being I'm using Tamrons with PK mounts, as the only PK lens I have is the 1.7/50 on the ME Super. I've replaced the seals and buffer and now I'm still waiting to see the results of the first roll.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Viejo's lens set is eclectic and interesting. I would love to see some of the results!


You can find photos taken with all those lenses (except the latest RR) at http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/ . The RR will have to wait till the weather here gets a little bit less cloudy - yesterday I did some shooting with it mounted on a 350D but I had to shoot at ISO 800, which is somewhat noisy. To-day was even worse, 5D at ISO 1600 and 1/20s hand-held isn't fun anymore Sad

Anyway, here are four shots from yesterday, heavily post-processed (noise reduction and sharpening). These are not too bad given the weather and 350D@ISO 800, not much to tell apart from photos taken with "better" lenses. This lens was designed in 1866, built around 1915 and is here pushed much outside the original specs - most of the photos taken with the type of cameras from which this specific lens was extracted were contact printed, i.e. these photos would have covered an area of 14 mm x 22 mm on such a print. You must also keep in mind that I do not expect a lens like this to perform miracles, I'm trying to find a "signature" which is different, worth my while. These were shot at the full aperture of f/8, pretty dim in the viewfinder of the 350D and very difficult to focus due to the weather conditions.


(see corresponding photo taken with 4/180 APO-Lanthar at f/5.6 in much better light: http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_al180_files/al7746_s.jpg )

Some bokeh:







Veijo


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Peter, I never actually have developed b&w on my own. I understand it's relatively easy now, without even needing a darkroom?

Yes, all you need is a changing bag. You put the camera, developing tank, scissors etc in the bag and zip it up, then slide your hands into the two light-proof sleeves and put the film into the tank by feel alone. I do this is a fairly dark room just to be safe, but it's not necessary. Once that's done you can take everything out of the bag and start the lovely process of messing about with chemicals clocks and thermometers. Smile

If you want to go ahead please PM me, as I have a spare brand-new bag I can send you.

I know exactly what you mean about the look on that lad's face. I gave an old treasured camera and lens to a young friend earlier this year. The Tamron SP35-80 looks fine BTW, I think you'll be really pleased with it. Mine normally stays on my camera all the time but I left it at home when I went to Paris and really missed it!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:

Anyway, here are four shots from yesterday,
Veijo


Veijo, every time I open one of your messages, I thank God that you're here. You're a constant source of inspiration and to see these old lenses revived and see what you can produce with them today, is every time a thrill!

I can't wait to see your new old RR in real action!

BTW the pink roses shot is stunning, both for colour and for the incredible bokeh.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Vilva
I must echo Orio. You do really inspire with your efforts and wonderful lenses of the less recent past. It looks like you have found a "signature" for yourself. Many sincere thanks.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Viejo's lens set is eclectic and interesting. I would love to see some of the results!


He has got a website, Laurence. It's worth a visit (or two):
http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/

Ooops, I missed that he has already posted it. Well, never mind...

Last edited by LucisPictor on Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4