jcolwell wrote:
I wasn't lucky, I m\odified the lens so that it diodn't hit the mirror. Same as wkith the Pentax K-mount lenses that I use. Some people shave the mirror, I shave the lenses.
I think he's talking about the rear element of the lens, not the lever, hitting the mirror when focused to infinity. On a different post somebody was saying that they had to remove the rear filter of their Zenitar lens to clear the mirror on 5D while I have no problem with that on my 5D.
Personally, i think the best routes are teh Olympus if you can find/afford it, and then the Pentax or Nikon after that. The Voigtlander is great (FANTASTIC optics!), but it is much larger and heavier than the others. The Pentax is still very good, and can be had for VERY cheap if you shop around. The Nikon is also very good, and is available in silver, if that's your cup of tea.
I would advise against the Zeiss, as more often than not it will "foul" the 5D's mirror. Everything i've read/seen about this indicates it is the rear element, and not an aperture lever. True, you could try it and later sell the lens for most of what you paid, but why bother when there are other great solutions?
I have the Olympus OM 40mm f2.0 and it does not have any issues with the mirror. The shots posted above are a true testament of what this lens is capable of. I doubt if there is anything better when it comes to 40-45mm pancakes.
Now if it was a 30mm pancake or a 21mm pancake with the same quality, I would have liked it even more.
Silentlight wrote:
I think he's talking about the rear element of the lens, not the lever, hitting the mirror when focused to infinity. On a different post somebody was saying that they had to remove the rear filter of their Zenitar lens to clear the mirror on 5D while I have no problem with that on my 5D.
I wonder how many of these are adapter related.
No, the problem with the Contax Carl Zeiss Tessar 45/2.8 and 5D mirror is the aperture control lever and lever shield that contact the mirror. It doesn't happen with all Contax Zeiss lenses, but it does with others. For example, my Distagon 28/2.8 doesn't hit the mirror, nor does my Planar 85/1.4, but the Tessar 45/2.8 and Distagon 35/2.8 both contact the mirror, so I clipped their levers - no worries now. Some ultra wide lenses do have a rear element clearance problem, but not the Contax wides and normals.
brainiac wrote:
WARNING - DON'T BUY, THIS ISN'T GOOD ADVICE! Typically the 45mm Tessar will foul your mirror if you use it with an adaptor that allows infinity focus.
I would recommend trying the Nikon version which is pretty much indistinguishable, optically, and less likely to foul your mirror. It also has a very clever inverse lens hood which retains it's pancake status.
The Oly 40 f2 is my chosen weapon though because of size, f2, focal length, sharpness, contrast bokeh, you name it. Here's a picture of Andrew with it ;-)
Silentlight wrote:
The lighting in your portraits look good. I am curious how you lighted them.
Andrew is lit by terrible pub tungsten. You can see how the old lady was lit in the first picture of her. The light source is a very dim tungsten bulb.
brainiac wrote:
Andrew is lit by terrible pub tungsten. You can see how the old lady was lit in the first picture of her. The light source is a very dim tungsten bulb.
That's it?!! Shadows were soft, so I thought there must had been a fill light somewhere.
It is 33mm long fully extended and about 27mm long at infinity (not much bigger than the Zuiko 40/2, which is 25mm). It weighs only 135g, which is 5g lighter than the Zuiko.
The best part? It is dirt cheap, it is easily adaptable and it performs quite well. I'll post some images of the lens and some sample shots this evening.
(The "accident" was a too-good-to-be-true Craig's List sale of a lot of 3 lenses; the Tamron SP 350/5.6 mirror, Nikkor 105/2.5 AiS, and the 50/1.8. I really couldn't believe the price they were asking. Easily the best deal I have ever found. By far. I tested them last evening briefly and they are all keepers.)
Looking at the specs, there seems to be at least 3 version of them: The first version was longer (2.5" = 61mm) but focused to 1.5'. Second version is 1" (25mm - about what you've described), and focuses only to 2'. If it says E on it, then it's the cheap version with same optics as the more expensive one, but lighter (135g), and I think it has a black aperture ring.
I just still can't get over the fact that they let these lenses go for the cost of a 1/4 ounce of pot. I'm pretty sure that's what the folks were going to do with the money, too
Silentlight wrote:
Looking at the specs, there seems to be at least 3 version of them: The first version was longer (2.5" = 61mm) but focused to 1.5'. Second version is 1" (25mm - about what you've described), and focuses only to 2'. If it says E on it, then it's the cheap version with same optics as the more expensive one, but lighter (135g), and I think it has a black aperture ring.
There's actually around 5 different versions of the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
The first is the late AI version that replaced the excellent 50mm f2, this is the largest MF version. It was also made in AI-S form, but is the rarest of the lot. It's generally considered the best performer.
All the rest use essentially the same optical formula.
The first version of the 'Pancake' is the Series E version. It's single-coated and uses a plastic barrel. There are two cosmetic variations, the all-black original and the second version with the metal ring which looks like any other AI-S lens, but the internals are identical.
Then there's the two AI-S versions of the second optical design, the first is identical to the second-version Series E except for a metal barrel, metering prong and multi-coating. The last AI-S version has minor cosmetic changes and focuses closer than the 2nd AI-S version or the Series E.
The first AF version is physically huge, but optically identical to the common MF versions. Given its large size and poor hard plastic focus ring it's the least desirable.
The AF-N version is a complete redesign of the barrel, with the same optics. It's marginally longer than the Series E version.
The AF-D version is the AF-N version updated with the Distance Encoder for AF-D spec, but no other changes. It's noted for somewhat variable QC but a good example is as good as any other version of the compact design.
