perry_cas

<p>James i am assuming the focus issue isn't going to affect me as i am using it on a mirror less.<br>

Now i know Ken Rockwell enjoys a 'mixed' rep but he claims the Elmar wasn't much improved on by the tele and the Apo telyt, but i am a novice in this area an know next to nothing about these lenses having never even handled one - let alone owned one. I have seen the Elmar selling form 150 (Buy now) to realistically, 200+<br>

From what i can pick up it seems that you might be right tho and the canon and the elmar don't have a lot separating them. The M mount would have been nice to maintain instead of having to have another adapter tho as I have a 90mm Leitz Rokkor, but for the price the Canon looks attractive. </p>

<p>I am at fault here James, its the Lietz Wetzlar Elmar 135/ F4 (1960-65) that I am really talking about - not the tele.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Thanks JDM, out of curiosity which soviet con tax rf's Brands? I have tried a few 135's at this point, i have a mirror less camera a fuji xpro 1. It can be hard to focus with some lenses manually. I do know someone using the Elmarit and can focus it, but i am curious about the canon having a vague memory of its being of great quality. </p>

<p>I have been shopping lately for the latter, but just came across some good prices on the former. Was wondering if this is a line of thought that should be followed? Or how do the canons compare to the Elmarit? I am not finding much info on them and know very little of early rf canons. </p>

<p>there was a K lense that l was interested in, but at that cost i dropped the idea of the pentax and bought a leitz-minolta Rokkor. thanks for your help its always nice to chatter about gear, i dont know anyone in the real world who has an interest in cameras so it all tends to be done here.</p>

 

<p>Douglas, I think the A and the M were the two i had in mind. I guess you meant 'legendary'. I'll think about the Macros. It want really about the cost but the function i was concerned for. </p>

<p>I winder if anyone would like to express any opinions on this lens. The reviews i have seen are ok but I still dont feel very informed. It is to go on an Xpro1 where it will be a 150mm. Edge to edge sharpness would be nice, contrast and colours i am also interested in. I recently bought another K mount lens so am interested in the convenience of the mount. I a aware there are a few different models, but am assuming the glass is similar. </p>

<p>thanks guys, I have the fuji 60mm macro which isnt bad but i also have a pentax 50mmf4. The 100mm pentax particularly interested me as I have 135/25 K and would be nice to stick with one adapter. I had thought about the Zuiko also, so your comment is interesting Stefan</p>

<p>I have an E series 100mm Nikon lens which I have had for a while on an m43 and now on my xpro. Its OK, tho sharpness and contrast are a bit iffy. I am wondering if i might do better. The SMC PENTAX M 100MM 2.8in looks attractive as does the MEYER OPTIK GÖRLITZ ORESTOR 100MM 2.8. I have read reviews various, but dont feel i am getting any closer to anything like an informed decision. Any one got any experience of comparisons with any of these?</p>

<p>Thanks All I settled on the 6 element K series pentax.<br>

And finding adapters has been interesting as i looked at a variety of lenses and then for the adapters. It seemed easier to find one on Amazon and then use the info to search on ebay where there would then be multiples. Ebay just seems so precise sometimes its a bit annoying.<br>

Its been an interesting exercise and am now looking with suspicion at that E series 100mm Nikon I have. the 100 (150) Focal length is going to get more use than the (200).<br>

thanks again for the input. </p>

<p>interesting. I spent a month in Rajasthan 3 years ago and was harassed at a number of 'State Archaeological sites' not for my cameras, (5d & '56 Crown Graphic) but for the tripod!. No signs anywhere to note this (except the Taj) but when i set up several times i was run at by men with sticks, yelling 'No tripod, No tripod'. One needed to be circumspect.</p>

<p>Mount this isnt an issue for me really. Actually have a few m42 lenses already, on the Zeiss it might actually be a problem as the whole barrel turns. But really, I dont care about the mount. As for tripods I shoot religiously with a tripod where i possibly can. This length at 1.5crop will be a 200mm, using the fuji focus peaking hand-held? Man, you have to try it to know!<br>

But thanks Alex for the info.<br>

Perry</p>

<p>Not sure where i should be posting this but as i know little about the tak and nothing about the Zeiss.... I know there is a 6 element 2.5 tak that is reputed to be v good. Still not sure how much better it is than the standard SMC 2.5, but then i started looking at the Zeiss Sonnar T* 135/2.8 wonder anyone in here knows anything about these two? I will be putting it on an Xpro1 for the 1.5 crop result of 200mm. I know the Zeiss is heavier, this length, It will be on a tripod. Primarily i am after SHARP!, but any other comments might be useful</p>

<p>thanks for this Ivo. I didnt do my Homework when i bought the jupiter. Its not that sharp and as i use it on a 1.5 crop i want the reach of 200mm it gives, useless as a portrait lens. I think i will hold out and spend the extra on the 6 element.</p>

<p>gee Todd I see why you like the 3.5. For $40 it was a good buy. I will post some tests of the Jupiter for 'comparison'.</p>

<p>Actually, it seems to be pretty hard to make a "bad" 135mm lens. the 135 was i read somewhere a Zeiss and i think it might have been Jena design the tak the canon the jupiter, Nikon ? all made off the same design, but clearly they are not all the same. I was really talking about the m42 mount, those screw thread Taks were ( read somewhere else) all hand ground, or at least lots were at some point. I know that the screw mount lenses that i had from my first camera the Pentax S2 with clip on light meter were so sharp they were scarey. At the time.</p>

 

<p>I have a fuji xpro1 and have been using a jupiter 135/3.5 as a tele. I bought it cheaply as its not a focal length i use often. Its 'not bad'. Some decades ago i had the taKumar 135 2.5 which I remember as a pretty wonderful lens. I am wondering if anyone might care to comment on a comparison of the 2 as i am wondering if it might give me better results??? </p>

<p>thanks for this chaps, food for thought. I tend to use a camera fairly slowly and usually only in M. I have to admit i have been using my cameras in recent times, as in modern, in much the same way i used my... Nikkormat. But i have been thinking lately that maybe there is useful stuff here.....<br>

Thanks again.<br>

Perry</p>

<p>This has taken me ages to summon the courage to ask as i feel it is probably so basic. I have an xpro1. It has a compensation dial on it. I have never used one before. I assume that its function is purely for use in AE to sort of emulate what you do if you were just shooting in M. Namely exposing with the cameras light meter. Which always made me wonder why have one on a camera positioned as a semi pro with traditional controls? But maybe i am missing something?</p>

<p>I was out shooting xpro1 against Pany G3 - using a nikon 100mm E series. When i got home and was comparing the jpgs in Pshop I noticed that at 100% they appear to be the same magnification. I was a bit surprised as the 4/3 system doubles so it should be a 200mm - but that Fuji sensor should only be 1.6. Have i missed something embarrassingly obvious? </p>

<p>thanks for this v helpful. the canon and the nikon are my best options, small, flat Excellent! can live in my bag i wont know its there. The x20 is too good and too expensive for my usage. I also think it takes up too much room I had a speedlite for my 5d bought it new used it exactly 3 times in 3 years. <br>

Thanks again all</p>

<p>I have an Xpro1. NO flash. I do use a bit of fill from time to time so am looking for a really small flash - any suggestions?</p>

<p>Wonder if any one has any. In the past i used Sterlingtek but they dont seem to make fuji replacements</p>

<p>It folds down and works as a sort of waist level viewfinder. Company has an odd name. I saw this gadget and thought i had bookmarked the company site, they had a few other things that i was interested in like an adhesive hand grip that stuck on to the front o f the body of an xpro1. I have been trolling thru my history and just cant find it. Does this ring any bells to anyone?</p>

<p>thanks all for the good information. I think in terms of my original question i have come to understand that some folks out there have a philosophy behind spend money on gear that isn't mine and i just was not aware of. </p>