I dont have A7r currently, but when I did, I used it with 55Fe and used it at full mode and at crop mode at other times. While some say using in crop mode is the same as cropping later, for me, it is much easier to frame in a crop mode to begin with. So I had 55 and 82mm in the same lens.
Bluffer wrote:
For me, focus throw is the big issue. Short throw equals difficult, long throw (like my Tair-11A) equals very easy to hit perfect focus.
Voigtlanders are MF lenses but (I'm told) the focus throw is very short.
The newer M mount Voigtlanders I have, such as the 35/1.2 II and 75/1.8 are 90˚ focus throw. The 35 is about 120˚ but the rangefinder coupled portion down to 70cm is only about 90˚.
rico wrote:
The current fashion is focus throw is short. I find this to be really unwelcomed, firstly because focus precision goes to hell and, secondly, because the DOF scales are compressed to uselessness. Makes older manual lenses even more attractive.
I think it can go both ways. It will also depend a lot on what you shoot. I find the modern ~90˚ focus throw on Leica's M lenses to be around the right speed for many follow focus situations. I just seems to feel natural. Trying to do the same with vintage long throw lenses is a lot more difficult. But I agree, that lenses like the 75 Lux and 50/1 Nocti are relatively easy to focus wide open. I also had lots of luck when I tried the ZM85/2, but very frustrated with the ZM85/4, which is short throw (IIRC) like the 90 Summarit, which I now use primarily with the EVF if I need precise focus.
BTW, regarding the comment about the Nikkor 105 focusing the wrong way - I agree. And the work around to this is finding the LTM version which was made to focus the Leica (right) way and not the Contax RF (wrong) way. The LTM is also very well dampened and has a 330˚ throw, unlike the very light feel of many Nikkor F mount lenses, as noted by Tariq.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Probably my favorite portrait lens at the moment. Beautiful rendering imo (not as accurate/ clinical as the 100's but it has a special quality that particularly suits portraits imo) and fully useable wide open at 1.8. 422g with Kindai/ Rayqual adapter as compared to 385g for the Minolta MD 100/2.5 and slightly shorter.
Nice shot and nice lenses.
Can I ask you if the RayQual adapters have light leaks?
So far all my China adapters have them, so I place a black elastic hair band around them.
The K85/1.8 is certainly a top 85mm lens to me.
Not too big like the f1.4, f1.2 85mm lenses, so its easier to bring along, especially for travels.
There are just so many options out there in this range.
I doubt there is a wrong one.
The FA77ltd comes high on my list though, AF (on a Pentax and not an orphan mount), small, easily available, sharp from f1.8.
For the length of focus throw I have mixed feelings.
I find the lenses with short throw react faster (kids; streets )
The ones with a longer throw is nicer to MF when doing it slowly on my own time.
Can I ask you if the RayQual adapters have light leaks?
So far all my China adapters have them, so I place a black elastic hair band around them.
Nice shots as well!
No, I have not seen any light leaks or other issues with the RayQual adapters I have. That said, I have not noticed light leaks with the Fotasy or Fotga Chinese adapters I have either.
Nice Shot Beni. The Pentax M 85 f/2 is a fairly small lens even with the adapter. It is almost the same size (1 mm smaller diameter, and 2 mm longer) with the adapter as the Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8. It weighs just 250g without the adapter so would be slightly heavier than the 55, but still pretty close.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Nice Shot Beni. The Pentax M 85 f/2 is a fairly small lens even with the adapter. It is almost the same size (1 mm smaller diameter, and 2 mm longer) with the adapter as the Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8. It weighs just 250g without the adapter so would be slightly heavier than the 55, but still pretty close.
We should keep quiet about the old Pentax secret gems, there'll be none left on the shelves.
Bluffer wrote:
We should keep quiet about the old Pentax secret gems, there'll be none left on the shelves.
Well if it helps the Pentax M 85 f/2 is one of a trio of old manual focus slr lenses that are fairly small (all about the size of the Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8 with an adapter) and have very nice performance. The other two in the trio are the Olympus OM 85 f/2 that I mentioned in my earlier post. It weighs 260g without the adapter and has a volume of 216900 cubic mm, so just a tiny bit bigger than the Pentax M (which weighs 250g without the adapter, although the Pentax has a greater volume of 221900 cubic mm). One advantage of the Oly over the other three is that it has a floating element, so may be a bit better for closer shooting. The third in the trio is the Minolta MD Rokkor 85 f/2, weighing in at 280g without the adapter and with a volume of 254100 cubic mm. It is perhaps the sharpest of the three but a little bigger. All three have their merits. One drawback of the Minolta and the Pentax M is that they both have a six blade aperture and show some hexagons in flare sometimes and in the bokeh sometimes. The Olympus has the advantage of an 8 blade aperture and the floating element, but I like its bokeh the least of the three, but others might have other preferences about the bokeh.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
But, but...Pentax or Minolta color over Olympus!
yeah, i really didn't care for the look of the OM 85/2 i had and it was the latest version with no defects. i'm not totally sold on either the pentax or minolta either (though i generally love minoltas). i really like my jupiter-9 except for it's flare. it is a knock-off of the old contax 85/2 sonnar similar too the nikon ltm 85/2 but cheaper.
as far as color goes my ranking from best to worst is leica > minolta > zeiss > pentax > olympus > nikon > canon. this is for old slr glass only, modern olympus seems very good and nikon and canon i haven't shot enough with their AF lenses on modern cameras to have a strong opinion.
Certainly nice rendering on the Jupiter Derek! I sort of said that about Olympus tongue-in-cheek though all of the older Olympus glass I have used does seem to exhibit muted color. Everything I have seen posted from the Olympus 90 Macro though leads me to believe that lens may be an exception.
Generally agree with your color preferences. Mine would go...
Leica>Minolta>Zeiss/Pentax (sort of a tie for me)>Nikkor (some of the Nikkors have really nice color in my experience. The recent 24/2.8 Ais I picked up surprised me in this respect)>Canon FD>Olympus. It's easy to come across a Pentax. Minolta. etc. that is occasionally superior to Leica color imo and so would rank this as just a vague trend, not set in stone as far as my preference goes.
Aug 06, 2014 at 01:51 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I basically agree with both you, Tariq and Derrick (sebboh), on the ratings of colours mine would be Leica/Minolta/PannyLeica/Zeiss/Olympus m43rds/Pentax/Nikon/Olympus OM/Canon, not sure where Fuji fits in but I generally like what I have seen posted around here, but have never used it myself.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Certainly nice rendering on the Jupiter Derek! I sort of said that about Olympus tongue-in-cheek though all of the older Olympus glass I have used does seem to exhibit muted color. Everything I have seen posted from the Olympus 90 Macro though leads me to believe that lens may be an exception.
Generally agree with your color preferences. Mine would go...
Leica>Minolta>Zeiss/Pentax (sort of a tie for me)>Nikkor (some of the Nikkors have really nice color in my experience. The recent 24/2.8 Ais I picked up surprised me in this respect)>Canon FD>Olympus. It's easy to come across a Pentax. Minolta. etc. that is occasionally superior to Leica color imo and so would rank this as just a vague trend, not set in stone as far as my preference goes....Show more →
definitely agree that there are lenses that buck the trend. wrt to OM 90 macro it definitely seems to have better colors than the average OM lenses from my 10 minutes of use. BUT, i used it right after using a CV 125/2.5 on the same subjects and color from the cv looked much cleaner and brighter to me.
jhinkey wrote:
My 90/3.5 CV SL-II doe me quite well for portraits, though it can be a little long for some people.
I like mine too, and it is a pretty small lens. It weighs just 330g plus the adapter and has a volume with the adapter of 282100 cubic mm (at least in EOS mount). You might expect it to be smaller, but the lens is pretty fat but not too long, so that is why the volume is a bit more than even some of the f/2 and f/1.8 lens. Still it is a great performer and nicely compact. This is a cross post with the Voigtlander thread but here is a recent portrait of my son with the lens, f/3.5 is a quite nice aperture at 90mm for portraits.
