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

Use of 6X6 lenses on full frame
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:26 pm    Post subject: Use of 6X6 lenses on full frame Reply with quote
Hi to all you guys! I am new here and this is my first post.
I have a collection of manual lenses...most of them, Canon FD simple and "L" glass or good quality third party FD compatibles plus some M42 ones that "tickle my fancy".
I decide to re-enter the hobby by using all my lenses (more than 40) to the new Sony A7 bodies.
Plus i want to fill in the small gaps in my collection.
I have a question: I have read many times that by using 6X6 lenses that can be converted to M42 and then to Sony E (or any other similar digital camera) you are using the central portion of the glass
thus getting better images...as old lenses tend to be soft on the edges.
One question there: when using them in the Sony body do i get the e.g. F4 on an F4 lens or i loose light because i am using part of the lens glass?
Lenses like these are the ones by Meyer/Pentacon and ENNA that were used on EXACTA 6X6 cameras.
I have just bought from ebay and the Pentacons 135-2.8 / 300-4 / 500-5.6 and wait on them to arrive.
I will use a friends Sony A7SII for the first test shots.
I hope they are very promising in sharpness and rendering.
Now i want to ask if anyone has experience with ENNA lenses.
I am especially interested in the Ennalyt 400-4.5 and 600-5.6 (that can be found very cheap) as i want a taste of bird photography.
If someone has used them it would be very helpfull to hear their wisdom.
Thanks again. It's nice to be here!


PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Use of 6X6 lenses on full frame Reply with quote
soundofvoid wrote:

...
Now i want to ask if anyone has experience with ENNA lenses.
I am especially interested in the Ennalyt 400-4.5 and 600-5.6 (that can be found very cheap) as i want a taste of bird photography.
If someone has used them it would be very helpfull to hear their wisdom.
Thanks again. It's nice to be here!


I only know the Enna 4.5/400mm. Compared to good vintage MF 400mm lenses (e. g. the Canon nFD 2.8/400mm L), it is very "unsharp". For portraits from a distance i might recommend it, otherwise not.

If you look for a 400mm "vintage" lens for animals, i would prefer the Canon (n)FD 4.5/400mm, since it is very sharp in the center, even at f4.5, and since it is really lightweight. Be aware that many of these lenses have a worn-out focusing mechanism with lots of play. The FD 4.5/400mm (like all non-ED 400mm lenses) has lots of CAs, however.

The nFD 4.5/500mm L is an excellent lens, and not to heavy. I suspect that the Nikkor ED lenses are excellent as well, but i don't know their 400mm / 500mm / 600mm from own experience.

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Use of 6X6 lenses on full frame Reply with quote
soundofvoid wrote:
...
I have a question: I have read many times that by using 6X6 lenses that can be converted to M42 and then to Sony E (or any other similar digital camera) you are using the central portion of the glass
thus getting better images...as old lenses tend to be soft on the edges.
One question there: when using them in the Sony body do i get the e.g. F4 on an F4 lens or i loose light because i am using part of the lens glass?
...


Welcome soundofvoid!

Actually, it's center part of the image circle, not central portion of glass -- all of the glass is used until outermost portions are cut off by closing aperture.

Thus better edge performance because center of image circle not edges get used.

The f-stop number indicates amount of illumination per unit area -- no matter the area of sensor, f/4 lens lights it at f/4.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Use of 6X6 lenses on full frame Reply with quote
soundofvoid wrote:
Hi to all you guys! I am new here and this is my first post.
I have a collection of manual lenses...most of them, Canon FD simple and "L" glass or good quality third party FD compatibles plus some M42 ones that "tickle my fancy".
I decide to re-enter the hobby by using all my lenses (more than 40) to the new Sony A7 bodies.
Plus i want to fill in the small gaps in my collection.
I have a question: I have read many times that by using 6X6 lenses that can be converted to M42 and then to Sony E (or any other similar digital camera) you are using the central portion of the glass
thus getting better images...as old lenses tend to be soft on the edges.
One question there: when using them in the Sony body do i get the e.g. F4 on an F4 lens or i loose light because i am using part of the lens glass?
The sensor will see the light from an f4 lens.
Quote:

Lenses like these are the ones by Meyer/Pentacon and ENNA that were used on EXACTA 6X6 cameras.
I have just bought from ebay and the Pentacons 135-2.8 / 300-4 / 500-5.6 and wait on them to arrive.
I will use a friends Sony A7SII for the first test shots.
I hope they are very promising in sharpness and rendering.
Now i want to ask if anyone has experience with ENNA lenses.
I am especially interested in the Ennalyt 400-4.5 and 600-5.6 (that can be found very cheap) as i want a taste of bird photography.
If someone has used them it would be very helpfull to hear their wisdom.
Thanks again. It's nice to be here!

They should work just fine, they will be bigger and heavier than FF lenses of similar focal length and speed, The A7sII won't challenge the optical resolution much.
There are Medium Format speed boosters for FF now.
I would rather pick up a Canon 400/5.6 and a smart adapter for birding with a body that has IBIS.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Using a wider angle lens than your sensor format can be problematic due to reflections. The light from a much bigger image circle has to go somewhere. Often it can reflect off internal surfaces of extensions/adapters onto the sensor, reducing contrast. Sometimes it forms a hot spot in the center of the image. It's important to somehow absorb this extra light.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Medium format lenses might be useful if your going to adapt them in a way to allow camera movements. I very much doubt they're worth the extra weight & expense otherwise.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some of these can be used to good effect though. I have had decent luck with eg the 55mm f4 for the pentax 67.
As noted though they are WAY HEAVY for the FL. If you already have them most of the adapters are not to expensive and they can be fun to play around with.


See mine and BeardsareBest's samples from the 55mm F4:


http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=73576


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
6x6 lenses tend to be generally weaker in lpmm than the best 35mm lenses. They do produce spectacular images but that is because 6x6 is huge. The resolution is ok but there is the sweet spot of cheap 35mm macro and other lenses that are so razor sharp that it is really a close call with the final image.

Adapting them to a format as little as E would dig right into their weak spot, imho. Could be still fun measuring this for yourself. As people have said Tilt and shift becomes possible with right adapter.

f/4 will stay f/4 unless you use an adapter which is too short (speedbooster style).


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What about adapting full frame lenses to 6x6. Now that is more wicked idea. There are many producing image larger then full frame and edges tend to go berserk afterwards. Just a thought Smile.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 6x7 55mm lens has wide angle lens formula. What effect does that have on performance when used on ff or aps-c?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
What about adapting full frame lenses to 6x6. Now that is more wicked idea. There are many producing image larger then full frame and edges tend to go berserk afterwards. Just a thought Smile.


Hmm, but that thought neglected that in lens design only the image diameter of 6x6 was considered and optimzed to reach certain qualiyt parameters, so the outside will be way outside of the defined quality... Wink


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
The 6x7 55mm lens has wide angle lens formula. What effect does that have on performance when used on ff or aps-c?


None.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
buerokratiehasser wrote:
6x6 lenses tend to be generally weaker in lpmm than the best 35mm lenses. They do produce spectacular images but that is because 6x6 is huge. The resolution is ok but there is the sweet spot of cheap 35mm macro and other lenses that are so razor sharp that it is really a close call with the final image.

Adapting them to a format as little as E would dig right into their weak spot, imho. Could be still fun measuring this for yourself. As people have said Tilt and shift becomes possible with right adapter.

f/4 will stay f/4 unless you use an adapter which is too short (speedbooster style).


Indeed, generalizations are generally wrong Wink For some lenses this will certainly be true, howeever I know that Zeiss optimized lenses for their absolute optimum during their computation, hence why some lenses have (had) extremely high resolution, way better than any film needed. This may not be true for other manufacturers...


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ray Parkhurst wrote:
Using a wider angle lens than your sensor format can be problematic due to reflections. The light from a much bigger image circle has to go somewhere. Often it can reflect off internal surfaces of extensions/adapters onto the sensor, reducing contrast. Sometimes it forms a hot spot in the center of the image. It's important to somehow absorb this extra light.


Indeed Ray, this is a very important factor, way too often neglected and people wondered about a massive loss of contrast!!

Especially "home adaptations" often even have shiny metal surfaces inside which even enhances that effect!


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Standard lens, 75 to 80mm, for 6x6 camera should works pretty well for FF or APS-C especially those double-gauss type. Here is some samples take with Schneider Xenotar 80mm F2.8 on NEX 5N http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1386457.html .


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ι was expecting all this TBO. I will use the ones ordered and report. I will try to find a Canon 400/4.5 Fd. I have to admit though that less than 200$ for a 400/4.5 and less than 300$ for a 3.5 Kgs 600/5.6 is tempting...


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
buerokratiehasser wrote:
6x6 lenses tend to be generally weaker in lpmm than the best 35mm lenses. They do produce spectacular images but that is because 6x6 is huge. The resolution is ok but there is the sweet spot of cheap 35mm macro and other lenses that are so razor sharp that it is really a close call with the final image.

Adapting them to a format as little as E would dig right into their weak spot, imho. Could be still fun measuring this for yourself. As people have said Tilt and shift becomes possible with right adapter.

f/4 will stay f/4 unless you use an adapter which is too short (speedbooster style).


Indeed, generalizations are generally wrong Wink For some lenses this will certainly be true, howeever I know that Zeiss optimized lenses for their absolute optimum during their computation, hence why some lenses have (had) extremely high resolution, way better than any film needed. This may not be true for other manufacturers...


I have only limited experience with medium format lenses on digital FF cameras. I own quite a few Mamiya 645 lenses, plus the corresponding tilt/shift adapter to use them on my Sony A900. The wideangles (Sekor C 3.5/35mm and 2.8/45) are nothing to rave about; a simple Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm is better.

The double gauss Mamiya Sekor C 1.9/85mm, however, is excellent when stopped down to f4 ... f5.6. on 24 MP FF, the corners are perfect. At f5.6 there are no CAs at all, and we have a very even illumination due to the larger image circle. While the Minolta AF 1.4/85mm or the Sony Zeiss ZA 1.4/85mm are among the sharpest lenses in the Sony Alpha system, the Mamiya 1.9/80mm results in even clearer and crisper images! The cheap Sekor C 4/150mm is very good as well, and so is the Sekor C 5.6/300mm. My "non-ULD" version of the Sekor C 5.6/300mm has as little CAs as my Canon FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite, and less CAs than the Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO.

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've had superb results using my mamiya 645 lenses on a nikon D810. They are particularly remarkable wide open.

That is the 35mm f4, 80mm f1.9, 80mm f2.8, the 150mm f2.8 and the 210mm f4.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kei wrote:
I've had superb results using my mamiya 645 lenses on a nikon D810. They are particularly remarkable wide open.

Interesting. Which Nikon lenses did you use before, on the D810? Coming from Minolta/Sony/Zeiss, i was quite astonished to see how different (inconsistent) the performance of Nikkor lenses can be. Some of them really excellent (AF 2.8/60mm and 2.8/105mm Macro for instance), others very good (AF 2.8/180 ED, AiS 2.8/55 and AiS 2.8/105mm Macro; AiS 3.5/35-70mm, AF 2.8/14-24mm), many so-so, and others frankly ... disappointing (AF 2.8/35-70mm and AF 2.8/80-200mm for instance).


Kei wrote:

That is the 35mm f4, 80mm f1.9, 80mm f2.8, the 150mm f2.8 and the 210mm f4.

35mm f4? I'm not aware of such a lens in the Sekor C line-up ... The 2.8/150 must be really nice lens (as are the 2.8/200 APO and 2.8/300 APO), but i never saw one for sale, here in Switzerland. And i use the Minolta AF 2.8/200mm, which is clearly better than most 2.8/70-200mm zooms from the 2005-2010 timeframe. I found the Sekor C 4/210mm to be inferior (more CAs) to the Minolta AF 2.8/200mm, and therefore not that interesting. Interestingly, the Sekor C 5.6/300mm has less CAs than the C 4/210mm!

Stephan
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1