Glow appears in my photos.

Hi there

I am using a Supertakumar lens on my Nikon D800 with an adapter with infinity correction. A general glow appears in these photos, which detracts from the sharpness of the image. I do not know if it will be because it is an inappropriate lens for my type of camera, if my Supertakumar has fog inside. Any ideas to correct this problem? With my nikkor lenses that luminous phenomenon does not appear. Please help me. Thank you!

It's mainly due to the cheap (and probably uncoated) lens in the adapter adding a shedload of spherical aberration.

If you stop the Pentax lens well down, the 'glow' might reduce or go away.

P.S. 'Lomography' and similar freaks would almost certainly pay handsomely for such an effect, if cunningly packaged and sold with sufficient hyperbole.

I recently picked up a simple meniscus lens in a brass iris mount. It was once sold as an arty effects lens - doubtless at several times what it was worth.

The name of that lens? 'Little Ars'. I kid you not!

I just remembered that I had one of those lensed M42-to-Nikon adapters.

['Of course you have Joe. Why wouldn't you?']

Grabbed my Nikon D7200, fitted the adapter and screwed an old 35mm f/3.5 Takumar into it - no 'glow'. However, it was an entirely different result when I fitted a 55mm f/2 Super-Tak and used it wide open.

There you glow!

That was a crop. Here's the full frame:

And when you stop down to f/5.6 the glow is extinguished:

So, as I suspected, the effect is almost entirely due to spherical aberration introduced by the negative lens element in the adapter.

FWIW, the element in my adapter is single coated, and the 'glow' appeared to be more prominent in bright sunshine than in overcast conditions. So I guess there's some flare involved as well.

Anyway, the answer, unsurprisingly, is that cheap adapters give poor results.... or very artistic ones, depending on your point of view

All good advice so far. I know nothing about using 'classic' lenses with DSLRs via adaptators. I read in this article that Nikon F-mount users (such as the D800) 'may struggle' to find suitable adaptors. The only time I've personally come across this kind of situation was due to big temperature differences between my cold (modern, professional, metal-clad) lens and the indoor (warmer) environment. At the time, I worried that that my lens was just broken but it turned out to be just condensation which cleared up after an hour or two.

Mike

PS. I personally wonder whether trying to match an old 1960's/1970's lens to a 2012+ '36.3-megapixel professional-grade full-frame DSLR' is worth the hassle. You can buy used Nikon-matched 50mm lenses for about the same price as the Super- takum + adaptor. But maybe there's something special about this lens that I I'm not aware of. Maybe you use the same adaptor for multiple 'classic lenses'. Or maybe you enjoy the challenge.

Mike,

Actually there’s a whole trend (currently) with f@c3 b00k groups and everything- of people using all manner of vintage lenses on modern cameras. Not to mention the sheer quantity and availability of vintage lenses, many of which are celebrated still for their quality and capabilities-so why not?

Sure- you can probably “create” any effect you want either in camera or in PP- Using all modern equipment. But why go artificial when you can get the desired effect from scratch?

Besides that, doesn’t buying stuff to play with satisfy the G.A.S. itch?

Win win.

Tom

Actually there’s a whole trend (currently) with f@c3 b00k groups and everything- of people using all manner of vintage lenses on modern cameras.

But probably not on a Nikon DSLR. As our friend the OP has found out, adapting most other makes of lens to a Nikon (D)SLR body is problematic and limiting. A mirrorless body is a much better option if using old glassware is what floats your boat.

Then you might well find that many lenses that were raved about in the film era are simply a bit rubbish under close digital scrutiny.

Sure- you can probably “create” any effect you want either in camera or in PP- Using all modern equipment. But why go artificial when you can get the desired effect from scratch?

I'm really not getting this cult of ancient lens worship. Most lenses produced in the last 60 or 70 years are almost indistinguishable from one another; being Tessar, Planar or Biotar clones. The one's that stand out mainly do so for their faults, rather than their excellence. And, like, putting a plastic bag over your lens gives you a special 'look', with no digital manipulation required!

Actually Joe, my buddy @wadeschields uses vintage Russian lenses on his (somewhat) modern Canon DSLR with nice results.

I was considering buying a vintage lens a while back because I wanted a 50mm for my R3m rangefinder- and originally wasn’t thinking I’d spend 1000.00 (and more) to get one. Ended up buying a really nice 50 from Voigtlander- their f3.5 Heliar- based on one of their earliest lens designs, from the late 19th or early 29th century! (for way less than 1000.00 brand new) It’s one of FOUR superb 50mm lenses they have in their current line-up!

Im like, each to their own. I love seeing people using old stuff that is of course, perfectly usable.

Actually Joe, my buddy @wadeschields uses vintage Russian lenses on his (somewhat) modern Canon DSLR with nice results.

Yes, but Canon DSLRs have a shorter register (distance from lens-mount to sensor) than Nikon. So you can easily use Nikon lenses, or even many Pentax M42 lenses, on a Canon, but not the other way round. Which makes Nikon probably the worst choice for using other marques' lenses.

Yes, but Canon DSLRs have a shorter register (distance from lens-mount to sensor) than Nikon. So you can easily use Nikon lenses, or even many Pentax M42 lenses, on a Canon, but not the other way round. Which makes Nikon probably the worst choice for using other marques' lenses.

Canon FD bodies had much of the same capabilities to use both Nikon and Pentax M42 lenses, with the appropriate adapters. There was a Chinese enthusiast who periodically machined and sold on the big auction site an adapter for the FD line to use Leica R lenses (yes, I bought one) - but infinity focus was only achievable at f/8.

Hey, here is Leica "Glow" as it was called, from my very rare Swedish Army gold "Leica" with rosewood cover

Sometimes up close, the effect was more pleasing.

A common cause is something like grease deposited on the lens surface(s)

from my very rare Swedish Army gold "Leica" with rosewood cover

And I'm sure some former Soviet Union artisan was very proud of his creation.

Got any pictures of it?

I'll have to go out with the 55mm f/1.2 Nikkor S. C. one of these days. That's a glow monster as well.

Posted many times, but always pleased to do so again

Here, with the also very rare all black Contax II

It's mainly due to the cheap (and probably uncoated) lens in the adapter adding a shedload of spherical aberration.

 

If you stop the Pentax lens well down, the 'glow' might reduce or go away.

 

P.S. 'Lomography' and similar freaks would almost certainly pay handsomely for such an effect, if cunningly packaged and sold with sufficient hyperbole.

 

I recently picked up a simple meniscus lens in a brass iris mount. It was once sold as an arty effects lens - doubtless at several times what it was worth.

The name of that lens? 'Little Ars'. I kid you not!

Yes, rodeo_joe|1, I have come to the conclusion that the aspheric aberration you mention must be very typical of these adapters. Reducing the aperture did not reduce this light phenomenon either. Finally I left this Supertakumar 55mm just to use it on my Asahi Pentax SP and sometimes, on my Nikon only in shots where I shouldn't focus to infinity.

You should see any haze or fungus if you shine an LED torch through the lens with the aperture open. But yes, adaptors with optics to restore infinity focus do have poor reputations. Take out the optic and you have a semi macro lens.

Thank you, John Seaman, I will never use this kind of adapter again and finally I use this lens for portrait or semi-macro.

All good advice so far. I know nothing about using 'classic' lenses with DSLRs via adaptators. I read in this article that Nikon F-mount users (such as the D800) 'may struggle' to find suitable adaptors. The only time I've personally come across this kind of situation was due to big temperature differences between my cold (modern, professional, metal-clad) lens and the indoor (warmer) environment. At the time, I worried that that my lens was just broken but it turned out to be just condensation which cleared up after an hour or two.

 

Mike

 

PS. I personally wonder whether trying to match an old 1960's/1970's lens to a 2012+ '36.3-megapixel professional-grade full-frame DSLR' is worth the hassle. You can buy used Nikon-matched 50mm lenses for about the same price as the Super- takum + adaptor. But maybe there's something special about this lens that I I'm not aware of. Maybe you use the same adaptor for multiple 'classic lenses'. Or maybe you enjoy the challenge.

All good advice so far. I know nothing about using 'classic' lenses with DSLRs via adaptators. I read in this article that Nikon F-mount users (such as the D800) 'may struggle' to find suitable adaptors. The only time I've personally come across this kind of situation was due to big temperature differences between my cold (modern, professional, metal-clad) lens and the indoor (warmer) environment. At the time, I worried that that my lens was just broken but it turned out to be just condensation which cleared up after an hour or two.

 

Mike

 

PS. I personally wonder whether trying to match an old 1960's/1970's lens to a 2012+ '36.3-megapixel professional-grade full-frame DSLR' is worth the hassle. You can buy used Nikon-matched 50mm lenses for about the same price as the Super- takum + adaptor. But maybe there's something special about this lens that I I'm not aware of. Maybe you use the same adaptor for multiple 'classic lenses'. Or maybe you enjoy the challenge.

Very interesting your comments Mike, thank you, I finally bought my Nikon 50mm 1.4 D. Using the Supertakumar in my DSLR has been a sentimental challenge because it was from my father in the 60s and I finally returned it to take its place in his Asahi Pentax SP.

Very interesting your comments, thank you, I finally bought my Nikon 50mm 1.4 D. Using the Supertakumar in my DSLR has been a sentimental challenge because it was from my father in the 60s and I finally returned it to take its place in his Asahi Pentax SP.

Thank you all for your time and your comments. Here is a sample shots with my Nikon D800 and the Supertakumar 55mm using a simple M42-Nikon adapter.

Here is a sample shots with my Nikon D800 and the Supertakumar 55mm using a simple M42-Nikon adapter.

Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the 55mm f/2 Super-Takumar or f/1.8 Super-MC-Takumar (exact same lens, I believe).

However, its performance is practically indistinguishable from a Zeiss Jena Pancolar, an f/2 Nikkor H.C., or a Canon, Yashica, Chinon, Mamiya.... you name it, symmetrical 6 element Planar clone. Any difference between brands is likely attributable to the AR coating used, and how carefully the lens was put together.

Posted many times, but always pleased to do so again

 

Here, with the also very rare all black Contax II

[ATTACH=full]1336132[/ATTACH]

Beautiful cameras JDMvW !

Hey, here is Leica "Glow" as it was called, from my very rare Swedish Army gold "Leica" with rosewood cover

[ATTACH=full]1336110[/ATTACH]

Sometimes up close, the effect was more pleasing.

[ATTACH=full]1336111[/ATTACH]

A common cause is something like grease deposited on the lens surface(s)

So interesting the violet and magenta tones in this photos