Kyoei Acall 135mm f/3.5 m42 Preset

[ADDCollector]

Picked this up recently off of eBay. I turned out to be the only bidder. I think that might be due to the seller not mentioning the mount being m42 instead of the more common LTM. (It certainly wasn't due to the $40 price tag.)

It's in very good condition, too. The only real flaw is some slight fungus or separation on the edge of the front element. This is difficult to see and isn't nearly bad enough to impact image quality.

Some shots of the lens:


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5



I haven't had much of a chance to shoot with it due to the weather here. It's either been extremely overcast or extremely windy. I do have a few test shots to post, taken in those brief periods of sun we've had lately. I'll put some of those up in a later post tonight.

BTW, the focal throw on this lens is almost 360 degrees. When the lens is at it's minimum focal distance, the indicator mark lines up with the F in Feet. You can see that in the side picture when the lens is set at infinity.

[ADDCollector]

Test shots taken during a brief period with sun. (It lasted about 45 minutes between heavy overcast.)

f/3.5




f/5.6 (Skipped f/4.0)




f/8.0




f/11




f/16




Shots are unprocessed except for exposure compensation.

[ADDCollector]

100% crop of above shots, in same order:


#1


#2

-Missed focus on this one.

#3


#4


#5



Shots were taken using an APS-C sensor camera. I stopped after f/11. Dispersion seems to start at that point.

[kds315*]

Honestly, I find the results rather disappointing...
Looks like a hazy lens to me...

[cooltouch]

I have a Kyoei Super Acall 135/3.5 in LTM. Haven't put it through any sort of rigorous testing though. Just some B&W shots with one of my LTM Canon rangefinders. In that respect, it's done a good job. Your shots make me want to mount it on my NEX 7, though, and see how well it does.

My Kyoei came with original box and a catalog of lenses. It shows the M42 ones, but I suspect they were fairly rare. I always see only the LTM ones for sale.

BTW, have you noticed that "Meters" and "Feet" are reversed on your lens? Next to "Meters" is the number 305 and next to "Feet" is the number 100.

[luisalegria]

Its certainly capable of much better.
I have the later SLR version, the later LTM version, and this one or very similar in LTM, but unfortunately with etched haze that cannot be cleaned off.

[ADDCollector]

I suspect the shots really don't show what the lens is capable of.

Shooting conditions haven't been the best here, and it was fairly windy the day I took those. (it's was the fist day I had the lens where it wasn't heavily overcast.)

I was also shooting into the sun to a certain extent and didn't have a lens hood on. I also have an older model camera with an ASP-C sensor.

I think the disappointing results might have more to do with the subject moving, the limitations of my camera as well as my limitations as a photographer than the lens.

(There is some fungus or separation on the front lens, but it's only on the edges and shouldn't effect results that much.)

I'll post some results shot under better conditions if the chance ever presents itself.

[cooltouch]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I've got a mint copy in LTM and it really does have very low contrast, so bad you would think it was an uncoated lens (it is coated). It's decently sharp though and the images look fine if you fix the contrast in PP.

[ADDCollector]

I finally got a chance to take a few more shots. It's been a very bad month for shooting outdoors here. I think we had a total of five days with sun in March.

(And April isn't starting out any better. Mother nature decided to give us snow today as an April Fool's Day prank.)

The only thing different in these shots is the use of a lens hood. I was shooting up at the tree limbs in the front yard in the original shots as well as in these shots. I'm an experienced enough shooter to realize that shooting against a bright sky can negatively impact results. That's why I mentioned no lens hood in the original posts.

Here are the shots with a lens hood at 3.5, 5.6 and 11.0 in order (no adjustment except exposure compensation) followed by 100% crops of the 3.5 and 5.6 shots. I forgot to crop the one taken at f/11.


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5



I knew shooting into the sky could effect image quality, but I didn't realize it could be that dramatic.

[ADDCollector]

Same shots with some processing. (I just used the auto levels in my editing software. I usually fine tune a bit more.)


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6

[ADDCollector]

As to the feet and meters being reversed:





Yep. They're reversed.

[cooltouch]

My Kyoei 135 Super Acall looks quite a bit different from yours. Since mine's LTM, it doesn't have the preset aperture ring. And its focusing collar appears to be shorter. Still I would be surprised if the optical formulae were different.

Here's a shot of mine:


And here are a couple of pix I shot with it. It was heavily overcast that day, so I used some of the enhancement tools that are available with Photoshop's raw file converter. Mostly brightness and a little bit of sharpness. I actually had to desaturate the flower image somewhat because the colors were coming across too strong. I had the Kyoei set to wide open at f/3.5 for all the shots I took with it.

A Rosemary "tree":


And some roses:


Here's a 100% crop of the point of focus with the roses:


It may not be "macro sharp" but it's certainly sharp enough. And I suspect that, because it isn't a tack sharp optic, it will probably do quite well for portraiture. I've learned from experience that tack sharp optics are not always the best lenses to use for portraits.

[spitzer]

[Alun Thomas]

[Oldhand]