View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
twinquartz
Joined: 11 Jun 2012 Posts: 316 Location: Sweden
Expire: 2013-10-29
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:04 pm Post subject: High resolution, anyone? |
|
|
twinquartz wrote:
Hi all,
I am trying to learn more about which lens qualities
that are the most important for my kind of "work" (= play).
This morning, I read an old post from forum member no-X, that
"the first batch of Zenitar 50mm ... had resolution
slightly over 70/45 (>double the 44-2!) ..."
Is there anyone who has dived deeper into the abyss
of "high resolution" -- preferably regarding lenses
that could be used on my Canon 600D (I have adapters
for M42 and Nikkor already).
Sincerely,
twinquartz |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It doesn't matter how high the resolution of a lens is as long as it's at least as high as your sensor. The maximum sharpness your sensor can produce is obtained when the resolution of the lens is equal or greater to that of your sensor. I have a Zenitar M2S and several Helios 44s and while the Zenitar is a very sharp lens, on my NEX-3 I can't see any difference in sharpness between the Zenitar and my best Helios, this will be because they both have a resolution higher than my sensor. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Same thing with film and scanning:- crap film and poor scanning and looking at results (with no crops) on a computer monitor will be an equalizer in comparing lenses _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
It doesn't matter how high the resolution of a lens is as long as it's at least as high as your sensor. The maximum sharpness your sensor can produce is obtained when the resolution of the lens is equal or greater to that of your sensor. |
In a recent article entitled Do sensors outresolve lenses - or vice versa ? (Amateur Photographer, 10 March 2012, pp 60-61) Prof. Bob Newman, the magazine's photo-science consultant, concludes ...
... the idea that a sensor outresolves a lens (or vice versa) is a simplification to the point of error. Improving either sensor or lens will always yield benefits in resolution...
Dr. H. H. Nasse of Zeiss, writing in the article How to read MTF Curves Part II ( http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf ), talks about ...
... the misconception that only the resolution limit of the system (camera + lens) determines the image quality and that it is identical to the resolution of the weakest link of this chain. This is not the case, though, since the (MTF) curves are multiplied.... _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Yet most of us continue to seek and value the sharpest of lenses. It's like saying a woman doesn't have to be good looking, but what do we really think? If your lens outresolves your sensor, great, you are going to be okay when you upgrade your sensor.
I personally love very crisp lenses, then I look at the other characteristics of the sharp lenses. And I admit I like beautiful women. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ilguercio
Joined: 08 Mar 2012 Posts: 414 Location: Southern Italy-Calabria!
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ilguercio wrote:
No matter how good a lens is, it's going to produce mediocre resolution figures on a 6 mpx body.
Having a very good camera body is essential to get the most out of your lenses.
The Nikon D800 is a clear winner nowadays, if we speak of DSLRs. More resolution is simply better, always.
Just make sure you pair it with high quality lenses, especially in sharpness. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
ilguercio wrote: |
No matter how good a lens is, it's going to produce mediocre resolution figures on a 6 mpx body. |
OK, but increasing the resolution of the lens increase the resolution of the system (camera+body)
Quote: |
Having a very good camera body is essential to get the most out of your lenses. |
Thats right. But it's true for ordinary lenses as well as very good lenses.
Quote: |
The Nikon D800 is a clear winner nowadays, if we speak of DSLRs. More resolution is simply better, always. |
If you want resolution - yes. And providing other factors such as cost and noise are acceptablr.
Quote: |
Just make sure you pair it with high quality lenses, especially in sharpness. |
You will get an improvement even with ordinary lenses. _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10959 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:06 pm Post subject: Re: High resolution, anyone? |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
twinquartz wrote: |
Hi all,
I am trying to learn more about which lens qualities
that are the most important for my kind of "work" (= play).
This morning, I read an old post from forum member no-X, that
"the first batch of Zenitar 50mm ... had resolution
slightly over 70/45 (>double the 44-2!) ..."
Is there anyone who has dived deeper into the abyss
of "high resolution" -- preferably regarding lenses
that could be used on my Canon 600D (I have adapters
for M42 and Nikkor already).
Sincerely,
twinquartz |
Welcome twinquartz!
I think nearly all lenses will be sharp enough unless you have more specific requirements. The greater problem imho is obtaining accurate focus, especially with lenses faster than f/2.8, using only the standard 600D focus screen...a faster focus screen (or live view) is required. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
buerokratiehasser
Joined: 12 Jun 2011 Posts: 470
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
buerokratiehasser wrote:
They are right, with a small dslr, about any lens stopped to f8 is good.
It is true that the MTFs do multiply, however, digital has 100 % almost to the end, then drops fast. For all practical purposes, that's a multiplication with 1.0. And when the lens resolves much more than that, it's on its "plateau" sloping slightly off 90% or so, it won't yield a lot to pop in a better lens with 92 % plateau.
If you want the best buy Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, stop it down to f4, f5.6, f8, and use film. There may be other worthy lenses but I know the old one (UC) personally and read a report someone made with slow s/w film with the newer version. The resolution is insane. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
buerokratiehasser wrote: |
They are right, with a small dslr, about any lens stopped to f8 is good.
It is true that the MTFs do multiply, however, digital has 100 % almost to the end, then drops fast. For all practical purposes, that's a multiplication with 1.0. And when the lens resolves much more than that, it's on its "plateau" sloping slightly off 90% or so, it won't yield a lot to pop in a better lens with 92 % plateau.
If you want the best buy Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, stop it down to f4, f5.6, f8, and use film. There may be other worthy lenses but I know the old one (UC) personally and read a report someone made with slow s/w film with the newer version. The resolution is insane. |
You must be thinking of Gigabit film and in theory may be able to resolve 600 l/mm
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/analog-processing/7817-gigabit-film.html
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/gigabit-film-gigabit-film-is-slow.html _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
buerokratiehasser
Joined: 12 Jun 2011 Posts: 470
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
buerokratiehasser wrote:
I'm not sure it can do 600 lp/mm, probably not
you can see the test here
http://www.sonyuserforum.de/forum/showthread.php?t=104309
if I read that one right this thing (the "new" one) is diffraction-limited even at 5.6, peaks at f4 320 lp/mm. Never mind that you won't find any scanner that can scratch that resolution off film, and (good, Fuji) color reversal film dies at about 130..150lp/mm
unfortunately German
it was slow adox cms film, not Gigabit |
|
Back to top |
|
|
enliten
Joined: 20 Sep 2011 Posts: 201 Location: Perth, WA
Expire: 2014-07-03
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enliten wrote:
correct me if i'm wrong, but if the original poster's point was to stick the lens on tubes or a bellows, then a high resolving lens is absolutely appropriate, correct? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
twinquartz
Joined: 11 Jun 2012 Posts: 316 Location: Sweden
Expire: 2013-10-29
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
twinquartz wrote:
enliten wrote: |
correct me if i'm wrong, but if the original poster's point was to stick the lens on tubes or a bellows, then a high resolving lens is absolutely appropriate, correct? |
You are not wrong! That is one of the intended uses.
@iangreenhalgh1: you are partly correct.
A certain lens/sensor combination can never achieve
a resolution that is higher than that of either the lens or the sensor.
But using a better lens, one can come closer to the maximum
allowed by the sensor. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Bye the way resolution and sharpness are two different shoes.
Resolution is only the ability to catch details. There are many lenses with very high resolution which are looking less sharp than a lens with the half resolution. Sharpness is mostly a mixture of acutance, contrast and resolution.
That's the reason why you can add some sharpness in post-processing; contrast can be increased and acutance can be faked with an unsharp mask around structures.
Enlarger lenses like the Rodagon- or Componon Series have a comparable very high resolution for a cheap price for example but often they don't look sharper than "normal" lenses on a first look.
They can be used with an M42-bellows and M39-M42 adapter ring on your camera for great macros and close-ups from ~1:2 to ~1:15 bye the way. A hood and some post processing to conform contrast/acutance are recommended.
twinquartz wrote: |
A certain lens/sensor combination can never achieve
a resolution that is higher than that of either the lens or the sensor.
But using a better lens, one can come closer to the maximum
allowed by the sensor. |
+1
even a comparable low-resolution-lens will always catch more details when used on better sensors.
For example an imaginary typical 18-55 Kit lens
With a upgrage from an 4MP to 8MP sensor the effective resolution will be increased by let's say ~80%
From 8MP to 16MP the resolution will be increased by ~40%
From 16MP to 32MP the resolution will be increased by ~20%
and so on.
Same applies with higher-resolution lenses on the same sensor.
With a Zenitar you're very far away from the maximum you could reach with a 18MP sensor.
But if stopped down to optimum (~F5.6) the Zenitar will be imho better than the Helios 44 for example, especially in the 100% crop. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:10 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
For example with an imaginary typical 18-55 Kit lens
With a updrage from an 4MP to 8MP sensor the effective resolution will be increased by ~80%
From 8MP to 16MP the resolution will be increased by ~40%
From 16MP to 32MP the resolution will be increased by ~20%
and so on.
Same applies with higher-resolution lenses on the same sensor.
|
Can you tell us how your calculations work ? _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
sichko wrote: |
ForenSeil wrote: |
For example with an imaginary typical 18-55 Kit lens
With a updrage from an 4MP to 8MP sensor the effective resolution will be increased by ~80%
From 8MP to 16MP the resolution will be increased by ~40%
From 16MP to 32MP the resolution will be increased by ~20%
and so on.
Same applies with higher-resolution lenses on the same sensor.
|
Can you tell us how your calculations work ? |
That's only an imaginary example for clarification. The real mathematical function will be always different from lens to lens and not easy to calculate them exatly because in reality a 16MP won't always have the double resolution of an 8MP sensor due different size of the bayer array, build-in noise reduction and several other factors. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:14 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
sichko wrote: |
ForenSeil wrote: |
For example with an imaginary typical 18-55 Kit lens
With a updrage from an 4MP to 8MP sensor the effective resolution will be increased by ~80%
From 8MP to 16MP the resolution will be increased by ~40%
From 16MP to 32MP the resolution will be increased by ~20%
and so on.
Same applies with higher-resolution lenses on the same sensor.
|
Can you tell us how your calculations work ? |
That's only an contrived example. The mathematical function will be always different from lens to lens. |
But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ? _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
twinquartz
Joined: 11 Jun 2012 Posts: 316 Location: Sweden
Expire: 2013-10-29
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
twinquartz wrote:
Quote: |
But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ? |
I presume our German friend used the basic formula
1/total = 1/lens + 1/sensor |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
sichko wrote: |
But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ? |
Only guessed examples to show general tendency. They could be also 90%, 60% and 20% or with better lenses 95%, 90%, 50% etc...
(At some point the diffraction will make a bend in every curve) _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
sichko wrote: |
But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ? |
Only guessed examples to show general tendency. They could be also 90%, 60% and 20% or with better lenses 95%, 90%, 50% etc...
(At some point the diffraction will make a bend in every curve) |
OK. Thanks. _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
The (in center) sharpest lens I personally know are is the Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 (available in Contax-G- and Leica M mount)
It's so sharp that the diffraction seems to already limiting the resolution above F4 on NEX
Unfortunatly you can't adapt it to DSLRs due large rear element and short register distance, it works only on NEX, MFT, Leica M oder other digital mirrorless digicams. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:21 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
sichko wrote: |
But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ? |
Only guessed examples to show general tendency. They could be also 90%, 60% and 20% or with better lenses 95%, 90%, 50% etc...
(At some point the diffraction will make a bend in every curve) |
I used to be a deep down in the mud person with technology, but 28 years of it cured me of that. I now suscribe to the I know it when I see it approach. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
twinquartz
Joined: 11 Jun 2012 Posts: 316 Location: Sweden
Expire: 2013-10-29
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
twinquartz wrote:
woodrim wrote: |
I used to be a deep down in the mud person with technology, but 28 years of it cured me of that. |
Suum cuique, or as the French put it: à chacun son goût
(which a British comedian translated into everyone has his gout). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
twinquartz wrote: |
woodrim wrote: |
I used to be a deep down in the mud person with technology, but 28 years of it cured me of that. |
Suum cuique, or as the French put it: à chacun son goût
(which a British comedian translated into everyone has his gout). |
The translation I found is to each his own. Gout is something I've had too - you don't want that!!! _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SonicScot
Joined: 01 Dec 2011 Posts: 2697 Location: Scottish Highlands
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SonicScot wrote:
woodrim wrote: |
ForenSeil wrote: |
sichko wrote: |
But you quote actual numbers - 80%, 40% and 20%. Where do they come from ? |
Only guessed examples to show general tendency. They could be also 90%, 60% and 20% or with better lenses 95%, 90%, 50% etc...
(At some point the diffraction will make a bend in every curve) |
I used to be a deep down in the mud person with technology, but 28 years of it cured me of that. I now suscribe to the I know it when I see it approach. |
I like that. _________________ Gary
Currently active gear....
Sony a7
E-M1 Mkll
Rubinar 1000/10 + 2x matched extender
Tamron 500/8 55BB
Sigma 100-300/4
Vivitar Series 1.... 200/3, 70-210/3.5 (V1 by Kiron), 135/2.3, 105/2.5 macro, 90/2.5 macro (Bokina), 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Macro, 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
Carl Zeiss.... 180/2.8, 135/3.5, 85/1.4, 35/2.4 Flektagon, 21/2.8 Distagon
Nikon.... 55/3.5 micro, 50/1.2
Elicar 90/2.5 V-HQ Macro
Zhongyi Speedmaster 85/1.2
Jupiter-9 85/2
Helios.... 58/2 44-3
Hartblei 45/3.5 Super-Rotator TS-PC
Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye
Samyang 8/3.5 fisheye
Nodal Ninja 4, Neewer leveling tripod base
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/gazsus/ Website http://garianphotography.co.uk/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|