I agree, all the hallmarks of adapter flare. However I've never seen an adapter that's completely immune (just some lenses).
A simple way to check before you flock (to identify the "bad" surfaces) is to put the adapter on the lens and point the lens at a lamp, then move the lamp in and out of view while looking at the back of the adapter. You should see reflections on the inner wall of the adapter and can flock those spots. The ring closest to the adapter flange is typically the prime spot. Lenses with wide coverage are especially bad (for example T/S lenses or medium format).
mcbroomf wrote:
I agree, all the hallmarks of adapter flare. However I've never seen an adapter that's completely immune (just some lenses).
A simple way to check before you flock (to identify the "bad" surfaces) is to put the adapter on the lens and point the lens at a lamp, then move the lamp in and out of view while looking at the back of the adapter. You should see reflections on the inner wall of the adapter and can flock those spots. The ring closest to the adapter flange is typically the prime spot. Lenses with wide coverage are especially bad (for example T/S lenses or medium format).
Flock Light Trap Material Super Flat Black / Cameras / Telescopes (Temporarily out of stock where I got mine on ebay.co.uk, from milly120786)
Description: Super flat black flock is a light adsorbing flocking material which has been made with cameras and telescopes in mind, by helping to reduce stray light which effects contrast. This material has many uses but is specifically used in Large Format and Medium Format photography as well as reducing flare in telescopes it is used as a light seal material. Another use is in re-lining boxes to help protect accessories and valuable items. This sale is for one self adhesive piece which measures 210mm x 300mm and is 0.6mm in thickness. £6.25
timballic wrote:
Flock Light Trap Material Super Flat Black / Cameras / Telescopes (Temporarily out of stock where I got mine on ebay.co.uk, from milly120786)
Description: Super flat black flock is a light adsorbing flocking material which has been made with cameras and telescopes in mind, by helping to reduce stray light which effects contrast. This material has many uses but is specifically used in Large Format and Medium Format photography as well as reducing flare in telescopes it is used as a light seal material. Another use is in re-lining boxes to help protect accessories and valuable items. This sale is for one self adhesive piece which measures 210mm x 300mm and is 0.6mm in thickness. £6.25...Show more →
NB. Caveat! The Flocking material is like a very short fibre dense black velvet, and consequently it sheds fine fibres from every cut edge. Need to be aware to clean thoroughly before putting it near your sensor!!
I wouldn't have believed the difference the flocking has made, if I hadn't seen for myself!
Repeat of above, this time including the FE 28-70. All shot @50mm F8
VA Pixco MD-NEX Adapter. I simply made a tube of the flocking material (self-adhesive) and attached it to the narrow part of the tube, so that it stopped 1mm short of the rear of the lens.
C/Y 35-70 Adapter also flocked as above. Only a hint of flare now compared with before the flocking.
Rokkor MD 35-70mm with above adapter. MD now very similar flare characteristics to the C/Y, with possibly less veiling?.
Sony FE 28-70. I remembered this time! Much warmer lens, but look at the distortion, and this is at 50mm!!
For colour accuracy, I'd say the truth is somewhere in-between.
I'm bidding on another Zuiko 35-70/3.6 at the moment.
This is just one of many tests I perform.
Hopefully I'll be able to report on the full trio, Zuiko 3.6, Rokkor MD 3.5 and C/Y 35-70/3.4 in comparison. I already know that my copy of the MD is "Leica standard". I tried others, this one excellent. (As I did to get a "perfect" C/Y copy.)
The Zuiko 35-70/3.6 comparison, will have to wait! I received the second copy this morning...full of internal haze, (see below), and worse than the one I returned. This lens is obviously prone to it. As this copy is otherwise very good and the price wasn't high, I'm going to fork out for a professional clean, but it will be several weeks before I get it back.
$35 is lower than I've seen any go on ebay here, most are over £50 ($80) and several nearly £100 ($150) and those are the auction prices, not what people are asking for with buy-it-now prices! I wish!
Problem with the one I have now, is that it is so good apart from the haze! (Nice "problem"!) Perfectly centred and sharp. I do so hope it doesn't get ruined by being cleaned, as my Tamron 17-50 was by Tamron! They just couldn't set it up again without it being terribly de-centred!
I'll use the Olympus service centre, Luton Cameras, as they did an excellent job on my Zuiko 100/2, but this is a zoom, and obviously more complex!
EDIT: Just had a part refund on this one, so my buying price is now lower than yours, but mine needs a clean, which will cost me, with postage, about £70
For interest, what Serial number is yours? I've seen them from 200... to 249....., mine is 220..... It doesn't seem to be date related, and no date codes on any I've seen, but assuming the numbers run in sequence, it gives relative age. Which of course is no indication of condition or performance, but just possibly of different coatings in that time?
timballic wrote:
For interest, what Serial number is yours? I've seen them from 200... to 249....., mine is 220..... It doesn't seem to be date related, and no date codes on any I've seen, but assuming the numbers run in sequence, it gives relative age. Which of course is no indication of condition or performance, but just possibly of different coatings in that time?
The serial number on my OM lens is 204551. What does that tell you?
BTW, I was able to buy an MD 35-70/3.5 today. I'm going to compare the copies I have of the MD and OM lenses. It will be unscientific, but I'll update with my findings.
Hey folks, first post. Figured I'd come to the experts with my issue.
Just picked up my first MD lens for my a7r - a Minolta MD 35-70mm f3.5 macro. Read a lot of good things about it before purchasing. When mounted, I saw right away an issue at 35mm - smearing, vignetting (not a big deal, I shoot b&W), and pretty bad distortion.
Had a chance to shoot a brick wall today and here are the results. NOT for the faint of heart.
My issue is, i don't know whether to try another adapter - I have the Fotasy MD-NEX which has gotten good reviews on Amz - or whether this is obviously a bad lens. The adapter seems to mount solidly.
The first two photos are at 35mm; f3.5 & f11.
The third photo is shot at 50mm f11. Better, but till showing smearing and distortion. Not up to the 35-70mm standards.
sedohr wrote:
Hey folks, first post. Figured I'd come to the experts with my issue.
Just picked up my first MD lens for my a7r - a Minolta MD 35-70mm f3.5 macro. Read a lot of good things about it before purchasing. When mounted, I saw right away an issue at 35mm - smearing, vignetting (not a big deal, I shoot b&W), and pretty bad distortion.
Had a chance to shoot a brick wall today and here are the results. NOT for the faint of heart.
My issue is, i don't know whether to try another adapter - I have the Fotasy MD-NEX which has gotten good reviews on Amz - or whether this is obviously a bad lens. The adapter seems to mount solidly.
The first two photos are at 35mm; f3.5 & f11.
The third photo is shot at 50mm f11. Better, but till showing smearing and distortion. Not up to the 35-70mm standards.
Ouch, that looks pretty bad. Do you have another MD lens to test? That should tell you whether it's the adapter or the lens.
Looking at how the 35mm f/3.5 shot is "universally" smeared around the edges, though, it appears to be a lens thing. You're also using an A7r, which I know is a bit more harsh than the A7 when it comes to wider angles and corners, but that looks out of the ordinary.
I'll try to find some time tomorrow and do a sequence of my own for comparison, though I have the A7 and not the A7r.
What was your approximate focus distance from the wall?
Hey folks, first post. Figured I'd come to the experts with my issue.
Just picked up my first MD lens for my a7r - a Minolta MD 35-70mm f3.5 macro. Read a lot of good things about it before purchasing. When mounted, I saw right away an issue at 35mm - smearing, vignetting (not a big deal, I shoot b&W), and pretty bad distortion.
Had a chance to shoot a brick wall today and here are the results. NOT for the faint of heart.
My issue is, i don't know whether to try another adapter - I have the Fotasy MD-NEX which has gotten good reviews on Amz - or whether this is obviously a bad lens. The adapter seems to mount solidly.
The first two photos are at 35mm; f3.5 & f11.
The third photo is shot at 50mm f11. Better, but till showing smearing and distortion. Not up to the 35-70mm standards.
Thanks for the assist. I have another MD 35-70mm macro lens coming as well as a different brand adapter. Adapter will be here today and lens not until end of the week I'm guessing.
Your images certainly coincide with what others have shown with their 35-70mm shots, but it's nice to get somewhat of an apples to apples comparison. I'll throw on the other FD-NEX adapter I'll be getting today just to confirm it's not an adapter issue.
I realize the 7 is a little more lenient of wide angles than the 7r, but certainly not to the extent of what we're seeing in our two sets of shots.
Ironically, the eBay seller is standing by his "no returns" policy despite me sending quite a detailed request to him with sample photos. I guess some people feel they can sell junk and as long as they claim "no returns" they are protected. I don't think eBay will agree with that line of thinking come the 26th when the 3-day waiting period expires and they will step in on the return request. Your photos will help the cause.
Hopefully the 2nd copy of the lens I have coming will be more up to this lens' standard.
but mine needs a clean, which will cost me, with postage, about £70 
