Image quality for me. There is a difference between the Leica/Zeiss glass that I use and the equivalent Canon that I gave up that I find hard to elucidate yet is undeniably there and is highly addictive once you've seen it for yourself.
- IQ on the wide end
- high quality, small, slow, wide primes
- a nice 50 1.2 that keeps me from paying $1050 more for the Canon
- a fun way to look for different looks.
The downside is the availability of medium price, high quality, easy to order adapters. One company has a high price 'pro' version they guarantee to be in spec. WTF is that? How about all the adapters meeting spec?
The other downside (for me) is, at times, buying too much quantity instead of buying a leica or zeiss.
P.S. you should see the Hasselblad Planar CF 80/2.8 that I'm trying to graft onto a Pentacon 6 to EOS tilt adapter - it'll be great (if it stays on the adapter).
cogitech wrote:
Decent adapters on a 5D with an Ee-S screen solves all three of those issues.
Yes, simple in theory but quite a challenge in practice. I've been trying out a split image screen with mixed results, so for $35.00 I'll also give the ee-s a try.
Getting a decent adapter however seems to be a case of pot luck. So far my luck has been:
- 1 good M42 adapter
- 1 good Nikon adapter
- 1 OM with extreme lateral movement
- 1 fotodiox C/Y with no infinity focus although advertised as good for infinity focus
- 1 af-confirm C/Y with extreme back-focus (yes I know, people will say that this is not possible)
- 2 af-confirm chips, when placed on manual adapter also produce back-focused images
I have a happypagehk af-confirm C/Y and a cheapo chinese C/Y on the way. Hopefully this will get me to "decent" adapter nirvana!
As a side note, I have observed a strange pattern: all my af-confirm adapters/chips backfocus badly but all my af lenses seem to be working fine. In the case of back focusing adapters/chips, back focusing occurs regardless of whether I focus from near to far, or far to near.
Here's an extract from an email response from a vendor after I sent him back-focused images of a test chart:
"It is back focus and it is very painful to have this result. Frankly speaking, I never have that problem before."
ldminoc wrote:
As a side note, I have observed a strange pattern: all my af-confirm adapters/chips backfocus badly but all my af lenses seem to be working fine. In the case of back focusing adapters/chips, back focusing occurs regardless of whether I focus from near to far, or far to near.
Here's an extract from an email response from a vendor after I sent him back-focused images of a test chart:
"It is back focus and it is very painful to have this result. Frankly speaking, I never have that problem before."
Having used the "B" flat matte fresnel screen on the Nikon F for 40+ years I find the 10D screen fairly easy to focus...the 40D should be even better, from what I read...
TWO versions of my 135/2.8 nikkor FRONT focused, but with the chip/LED confirmation I am able to focus on point, exactly at the point when the LED goes OUT as I rotate them to infinity.
The 85/200/300 focus just fine...the 24 focuses WAAAAY past infinity, the best point of focus seems to be at 5-7' @ 5.6...that gets everything in focus from 7' to inf....
My only real concern is that one model doesn't sufficiently lock on the lens, but the seller (fleabay) wrote to say that another one is on the way as a replacement...fingers crossed...
P.S. you should see the Hasselblad Planar CF 80/2.8 that I'm trying to graft onto a Pentacon 6 to EOS tilt adapter - it'll be great (if it stays on the adapter).
Bring it on!
I hope to have time to test my most recent lens this weekend. Yet another 28mm.
I might even get to finally go through those 28mm (Zeiss/Zuiko) shots that I never got around to. Been promising those to Tariq for way too long now.
Whatever the reason(s) why we choose alternative lenses, I say cheers to you all! And, I really appreciate anyone who takes the time to try different stuff out and post their thoughts/results.
ldminoc wrote:
Yes, simple in theory but quite a challenge in practice. I've been trying out a split image screen with mixed results, so for $35.00 I'll also give the ee-s a try.
Getting a decent adapter however seems to be a case of pot luck. So far my luck has been:
- 1 good M42 adapter
- 1 good Nikon adapter
- 1 OM with extreme lateral movement
- 1 fotodiox C/Y with no infinity focus although advertised as good for infinity focus
- 1 af-confirm C/Y with extreme back-focus (yes I know, people will say that this is not possible)
- 2 af-confirm chips, when placed on manual adapter also produce back-focused images
I have a happypagehk af-confirm C/Y and a cheapo chinese C/Y on the way. Hopefully this will get me to "decent" adapter nirvana!
As a side note, I have observed a strange pattern: all my af-confirm adapters/chips backfocus badly but all my af lenses seem to be working fine. In the case of back focusing adapters/chips, back focusing occurs regardless of whether I focus from near to far, or far to near.
Here's an extract from an email response from a vendor after I sent him back-focused images of a test chart:
"It is back focus and it is very painful to have this result. Frankly speaking, I never have that problem before."...Show more →
Well, for me it is that simple, in practice.
1) I don't bother with AF-confirm chips.
2) As long as the adapter goes to infinity or beyond, I'm happy. This is quite easy to find unless you are talking C/Y mount (but even that is not such a big deal).
3) Lateral movement can always be fixed by tweaking the adapter flanges. Even most of the cheapos are designed for that. I can post a photo of what I mean, if you need me too.
If you can't get infinity on a C/Y, it might be the lens that is out of calibration. I had a CZ21 that got infinity focus with a cheap, fat, Chinese adapter. The lens was obviously out of whack, but worked perfectly with that adapter. Maybe yours is out of whack the other way, and you need an extra thin adapter. The CZ21 is worth the effort. Only you can decide if your C/Y mount lens is worth the effort too.
Most importantly; a) don't get discouraged and b) have fun trying all this stuff. Once it all gets figured out, practice, practice, practice. It worked for me.
3) Lateral movement can always be fixed by tweaking the adapter flanges. Even most of the cheapos are designed for that. I can post a photo of what I mean, if you need me too.
Yes, please...my adapters aren't the tightest and I'd love to see how you've dealt with it...thanks for sharing...
For me it comes down to what kinds of shots I'm wanting to get in then end. I have AF and L glass for when I need it, but the 55mm 1.8 smc supertak in m42 that I have gets a certain look wide open of its own. I have used it for lifestyle shoots and portrait shots as well (in the pro arena) without too many issues as to hitting focus. I wouldn't really use a MF lens for pro sports work (don't do it anyways) but when I'm shooting with natural light and need a low depth of field headshot, I tend to MF whether I'm using canon or alternative options to have more control anyways. I did a shoot on friday where I alternated between my 24-70 and the 55mm tak and it was perfect to give the client alternating looks, for different uses and having different tonalities helps open up different possibilities.
For me it comes down to what kinds of shots I'm wanting to get in then end. I have AF and L glass for when I need it, but the 55mm 1.8 smc supertak in m42 that I have gets a certain look wide open of its own. I have used it for lifestyle shoots and portrait shots as well (in the pro arena) without too many issues as to hitting focus. I wouldn't really use a MF lens for pro sports work (don't do it anyways) but when I'm shooting with natural light and need a low depth of field headshot, I tend to MF whether I'm using canon or alternative options to have more control anyways. I did a shoot on friday where I alternated between my 24-70 and the 55mm tak and it was perfect to give the client alternating looks, for different uses and having different tonalities helps open up different possibilities.
An excellent display of two things; the character of the old glass and the "uber-contrast" of the new. Many may prefer the look of the first, but I *much* prefer the second.
dcmiller wrote:
- IQ on the wide end
- high quality, small, slow, wide primes
- a nice 50 1.2 that keeps me from paying $1050 more for the Canon
- a fun way to look for different looks.
The other downside (for me) is, at times, buying too much quantity instead of buying a leica or zeiss.
I am extremely happy with Canon lenses above 50mm
Don't feel bad, I just bought a bunch of Russian glass! Sometimes, I really enjoy walking around with my 5D and a bunch of small primes, its like going back to my roots or something
Yeah, they needed shots of him as a producer AND as an artist and I was trying to show the difference visually as they're used in different contexts. He makes some incredible soul music...
As far as contrast goes, the pentax actually has a bit MORE contrast but the shot with the modern glass was lit with a honeycomb grid on a strobe albeit at f2.8 and the older glass shot at f1.8 with window light which leads to a "softer" look-a bit more classic. They each have their place.
Nice use of lighting to achieve the different looks. I mistakenly assumed the softer effect of the second could be attributed to the lens, as I get similar results from my STak 50/1.4 in nearly any lighting.
Well, less is in focus, therefore softer, but what is in focus is really sharp, for being at 1.8 of course. If you see this at 100%, the beard hairs are incredibly in focus as well as the eye. The main reason to use it in this case is tonality and getting the background to block up into shapes, even though it's just right behind the subject...
cogitech wrote:
3) Lateral movement can always be fixed by tweaking the adapter flanges. Even most of the cheapos are designed for that. I can post a photo of what I mean, if you need me too.
If you can't get infinity on a C/Y, it might be the lens that is out of calibration. I had a CZ21 that got infinity focus with a cheap, fat, Chinese adapter. The lens was obviously out of whack, but worked perfectly with that adapter. Maybe yours is out of whack the other way, and you need an extra thin adapter. The CZ21 is worth the effort. Only you can decide if your C/Y mount lens is worth the effort too.
Most importantly; a) don't get discouraged and b) have fun trying all this stuff. Once it all gets figured out, practice, practice, practice. It worked for me....Show more →
Duhh, of course; I was too focused on experimenting and testing lenses to even think about adjusting the adapter. Thanks to your reminder, I adjusted the flange separation to reduce the lateral movement to insignificance.
Thanks for the encouragement; I do have to admit that I have been somewhat frustrated with the lack of success so far, but no way am I about to give up!
