The good, the bad and the ugly (lenses)

7artisans 35/1.2

100% crop, centre right, around f5.6

Check out Phillip Reeve's site HERE

What's good for the A7 is generally good for the A6000 (I have both)

 

I started with older manual focus lenses years ago when I first got my NEX 6. These days the only ones I still use are the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8, Canon FD 400mm f/2.8 and Canon FD 50mm f/1.2. IOW, specialty lenses. I do have a few of my old Olympus Pen lenses that work well on APS-C and are super small/light. Most Nikkors work great. Most RF lenses I tried were so-so in a strict sense but show a lot of "character". It's hard to beat the modern Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm lenses if top optical quality is what you're after. That's what I use mostly on my A6000 but older lenses can have a cool look. Experimentation is the way forward. I found a cool, uncoated four element Tessar that I adapted out of an old folder...cool!

I'm glad I decided to keep my manual focus Contax lenses from my SLRs. I have 11 of them and, even though they are all manual focus, they fit my style which is, at my age, slower than it used to be.

I recently 'found' a Chinon 55mm f/1.4 lens in M42 mount (I've actually had it for years and forgotten about it).

Anyway, it turned out to be surprisingly good on the Sony a7Riv.

I think it was made by Mamiya-Sekor. At least, it looks nearly identical to a 55mm f/1.4 Mamiya-Sekor lens, and performs similarly.

The cheap Chinon name should keep its price low; so maybe a bargain to look out for?

Damn! I see the eBay vultures have already got their claws into that Chinon find, and prices are stupidly high.

Its Mamiya-Sekor sibling is still quite cheap though.

If you want ugly -- none of the wide angle Leica or Voigtlander lenses works worth a d*** on the A7.

With the regard to Voigtlander - that statement only holds for the older lenses, not the ones that have been released in the last few years. I used an M-mount 21/4 on a NEX-6 - doable with post-processing correction. Not doable on an A7. An M-mount 40/1.4 Nokton worked fine. Of the newer Voiglander M-mount lenses, the 21/1.8 and the 15/4.5 Heliar III worked well.

The Leica 35mm Summicron ASPH turned out to be a major disappointment on the Sony A7 Series bodies I have tried it on - corner smearing a lot worse than using a $170 DX Nikon 35/1.8. It's OK on an APS-C body - but given its price, I wouldn't run out and buy one for that purpose. Blame the thick sensor cover glass on the Sony bodies, not necessarily the optical construction of the lens (though symmetrical lens designs appear to be the worst performers).

A Leica R-mount Apo-Telyt 180/3.4 does fine on the 24MP-Sony bodies I have tried it on - I have yet to mount it on the A7RIII though. It's claim for fame is its performance at infinity focus - it sure won't win any awards for good bokeh rendition.

I hear that Leica R (SLR) lenses are better, but I'm past caring.

Aside from the Apo-Telyt mentioned, I have none left. And given the cost of acquisition, I am not eager to acquire any that might be tempting to try.

Blame the thick sensor cover glass on the Sony bodies, not necessarily the optical construction of the lens

I wouldn't be too quick to jump to that conclusion Dieter.

I recently stuck my 28mm f/3.5 P.C. Nikkor on the a7Riv, expecting to see massive colour fringing when shifted. It was actually quite useable; unlike when I tried it on the D800. Yes, there was fringing, but less so than on my Nikon DSLR bodies.

If the limit guidelines for shift amount are followed, and considering how revealing 60 megapixels is, it's not too bad at all. Defying expectations.

A Leica R-mount Apo-Telyt 180/3.4 does fine on the 24MP-Sony bodies I have tried it on.

Any better than a 180mm f/2.8 AF-Nikkor?

Any better than a 180mm f/2.8 AF-Nikkor?

I never owned any of the 180mm f/2.8 Nikkors and thus can’t say from personal experience. The Apo-Telyt is about the same size and weight as the AF-Nikkor but with 60mm filter (older versions have Series VII filters) instead of 72mm. At the center the Apo-Telyt performs about the same as the Sony 70-200 f/4; in the corners the Sony loses big time. Minimum focus distance is 2.5m (vs 1.5m for the Nikkor); performance is said to drop somewhat towards closer focus distances (haven’t noticed if indeed true). Vignetting wide open is higher and the Apo-Telyt is a bit prone to flare. Coating was changed a few times, mostly affecting color rendition. Early versions rendered greenish, mine (E60) tends more towards magenta. I need to mount it on my A7R3; I’m now sufficiently curious to see how it performs.

I've found all my range finder lenses work very well on a Fuji X-Pro2 especially the Leica Summicron 35 and 50 both last pre-Asph versions. Also some older Cosina Voigtlanders including the 50 Nockton 1.5 which I don't use much because I love the look of the Cron's and the Fuji, plus the Leica lenses have a much smaller footprint. The Cosina lenses are also LTM so I use those with 2 adopters. Right now the 35 Summicron lives on the Fuji. I haven't tried any of my Nikon lenses. Though obscenely un-balanced, it might be interesting to try something like a Nikon 17-35 on it, or the 24-70 and 70-200. Have any of you used zoom nikons on your non-Nikon Mirrorless? Also, the Leica lenses worked well especially the 50 on a 4/3 Camera.

I see pix posted here with really bad distortion in the center of the lens(es), yet the publisher seems proud. I don't want to embarrass anyone, so I refuse to point them out. Is this a cult and I'm missing the point, or can no one else see the distortion?

Please do, it's always interesting to learn. PM me if it's not my photo, if it is mine, I don't mind.

I assume you mean geometric distortion (barrel or pincushion)? I loaded what I thought were the most likely images into GIMP, applied a grid and no, I couldn't see it.

Lenses designed without 57 elements, aspherics and massive computational power will have some 'flaws' and yes, that is part of the point.

Don't forget that some modern systems automatically correct for certain 'designed in' lens flaws, including sometimes significant geometric distortion.

I see pix posted here with really bad distortion in the center of the lens(es), yet the publisher seems proud. I don't want to embarrass anyone, so I refuse to point them out. Is this a cult and I'm missing the point, or can no one else see the distortion?

Yeah if its me. I'll survive. It's helpful to point it out. sometimes center sharpness isn't the be all end all.

Here's one for the 'ugly' list:

CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 on a Lens Turbo 2 (Fuji X).

When I initially tried this indoors, I liked it, nice (in my opinion) bokeh and plenty sharp enough. A few days later, I took it outdoors and was sorely disappointed, shots at or close to infinity just weren't sharp, even stopped down to f8.

Examples, of no artistic value, shot in my garden this morning:

Wide open, with LT (~f2)

100% Crop

Near infinity, f8, with LT (so ~f5.6)

100%

Wide open, without the Lens Turbo (f2.8)

100%

Distance, without the LT, f8

100%

So, my conclusion from this quick and dirty test is that, while it works just fine at portrait distances, there is something about the CZJ Tessar + Lens Turbo combination that just doesn't work when the lens is focussed towards infinity. My immediate thought is that the rear element of the tessar protrudes significantly from the mount when at infinity, sufficiently so that I was very careful about mounting it on the LT, maybe when it gets too close to the elements of the adaptor, the optics just don't work anymore and the sharpness falls apart?

This might apply to other lenses with rear elements positioned close to the LT elements?

I've not had this issue with 85 and 135mm lenses.

there is something about the CZJ Tessar + Lens Turbo combination that just doesn't work when the lens is focussed towards infinity.

Come on Steve, it's a rear-lens converter!

Sticking any collection of extra elements on any lens (not specifically designed for) is going to be a gamble.

Same as 'universal' teleconverters. On some lenses they work well. On others not so well.

Which reminds me. I have an M42 CZ Jena Tessar acting as a dust cap for a set of extension tubes. Never used it. It came virtually free with a camera. I must try it out sometime. Those shots above, sans converter, look pretty good.

And, Emperor's New Clothes style, I can't see the 'distortion' either.

need to mount it on my A7R3; I’m now sufficiently curious to see how it performs.

I did try the Apo-Telyt 180/3.4 on the A7R3 - performs really well. Most importantly - no loCA (which should distinguish it from the 180mm AF Nikkor) and sharp edge-to-edge.

no loCA (which should distinguish it from the 180mm AF Nikkor)

Yeah, what is it with Nikon's lens designers that they can't seem to get rid of LoCa?

Maybe they can't get over the film days when the thick emulsion of a colour film absorbed it - or even neutralised it.

Or maybe the bean-counters stop them using expensive LD or high-index elements and make them use cheap window glass instead?

Yeah, what is it with Nikon's lens designers that they can't seem to get rid of LoCa?

Seems like one ED element isn't sufficient to get the job done. Maybe even two aren't. The Apo-Telyt 180/3.4 is known to be particularly well corrected well into IR range (there's no focus correction needed for IR photography). The lens was originally designed for the US Navy - which is why infinity performance was of particular importance.

As a fairly recent MILC convert, I'm still fascinated by the ability to easily adapt almost any lens to my camera. I currently have 3 adapters - Nikon F mount, M42 and 39mm Leica thread - and a pile of old lenses gathering dust that I've been working through to see what they can do on the Sony a6000.

 

There have been a couple of surprises; mainly that old Pentax Super-Takumars ain't really that super -despite their one time high reputation. And that 'cheap' Praktica lenses (and some Russian lenses) usually knock spots off them.

 

Pity about the old Takumars, they're generally small and lightweight.... and disturbingly fuzzy!

 

Anyhow. The real point of this thread is to open it up to contributions.

 

What lenses have you tried? Any surprises, cheap gems, unexpected fails?

 

To kick it off.

 

My first surprise find was a Jupiter 8. Small, fairly lightweight and with astonishingly good IQ and no colour fringing. Useable even wide open at f/2. Only negative is its tendency to flare.

 

Major fail was a 28mm f/3.5 Super-Takumar. Very poor in every respect at all apertures. A great pity, since its small size fitted the camera well.

 

Two more pleasant surprises.

1. A Zeiss Jena Pentacon 35mm f/2.4 Flektagon. Clinically crisp from wide open, but with a rather cool colour rendering.

2. A 55mm f/1.8 Fujica in M42 fit. Quite a small and neat lens with excellent IQ from wide open, and a warm colour rendering.

 

Over to you.

Recommendations, sleepers and 'absolute dogs' please.

my contribution of a cheap ugly 'gem' 50mm 1.8 lens on a cheap old mirrorless

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

Anyone tried any of the Tamron Adaptall lenses?

Maybe there's an Adaptall 2 Mount for Nikon Z? Ho Ho!

Maybe there's an Adaptall 2 Mount for Nikon Z? Ho Ho!

Hey, there is!

And yet I couldn't find a simple M39 lens reverser, nor an M42 female lens flange!

Summat wrong with the world of DIY photo-enthusiasts these days I reckon.