There is definitely a loss of contrast at and beyond MFD but it gracefully takes a tone curve adjust to bring it back. Sharpness is still very much there at f/2.8 and beyond. At f/1.7 to f/2 there's the spherical aberration but its definitely not bad when used in conjunction with the thin DoF at such apertures. It can very pretty and abstract.
bluetsunami wrote:
Here is the 50/1.7 with a set of Fotodiox tubes. Pleasantly surprised at its performance this close...
There is definitely a loss of contrast at and beyond MFD but it gracefully takes a tone curve adjust to bring it back. Sharpness is still very much there at f/2.8 and beyond. At f/1.7 to f/2 there's the spherical aberration but its definitely not bad when used in conjunction with the thin DoF at such apertures. It can very pretty and abstract.
Looks good (except I don't like the bokeh in #1). Much better than the diverse shots taken with the lens reversed that someone posted; those showed a lot of yellow/blue CA outside the centre and unimpressive sharpness.
AhamB wrote:
Looks good (except I don't like the bokeh in #1). Much better than the diverse shots taken with the lens reversed that someone posted; those showed a lot of yellow/blue CA outside the centre and unimpressive sharpness.
The Bokeh in #1 was stopped down to f/2 I believe. From what I've experienced the bokeh gets a little more under control at f/2.8 and beyond.
Time to get this thread some more love. Don't tell me everyones upgraded to the Z series already? I don't think I'll ever let go of my Planar 100/2 unless maybe for the MP ZE
I really need to get this lens. As much as I like my Nikkor 28/2 AI your C/Y 28/2 seems to render similarly to my 50/1.7 in regards to very fine detail. My Nikkor just doesn't pick that up although it has a great tonal rendition.
That aside, love the inclusive composition in the bench photo and the colors in the flower photo are lovely and perfect focus.
Here are two more Macro photos with the 50/1.7. Just around 14mm worth of tubes really turns this lens into a workhorse. You can even rotate the focus ring to manipulate the magnification a good bit with that amount of tubes too.
sebboh wrote:
sweet! i've always wondered about that lens. how's the CA on it?
the hollywood looks quite nice.
Thanks... I must say the 300/4 doesn't like white subjects much. However the inside of the front element is kinda dirty, so I wonder if a good cleaning would help a lot. It is a beast though, good thing it has a built it tripod mount. This one *might* go back, not totally sure yet.
bluetsunami wrote:
I really need to get this lens. As much as I like my Nikkor 28/2 AI your C/Y 28/2 seems to render similarly to my 50/1.7 in regards to very fine detail. My Nikkor just doesn't pick that up although it has a great tonal rendition.
That aside, love the inclusive composition in the bench photo and the colors in the flower photo are lovely and perfect focus.
Here are two more Macro photos with the 50/1.7. Just around 14mm worth of tubes really turns this lens into a workhorse. You can even rotate the focus ring to manipulate the magnification a good bit with that amount of tubes too.
Thanks, and nice work with the 50/1.7. I like the 28/2's close focus capabilities, so it seems like a keeper... For the immediate future anyways.
kiddik wrote:
I have to ask! Why is the 28/2 called "Hollywood"? It makes me want one!
@helimat: Nice photos! How do you like the C/Y 300/4? Usable as a long-distance landscape lens?
Thanks. I believe it was nicknamed the 'Hollywood' due to it's use in cinema applications. Long distance landscape is what I bought the 300/4 for, and it seems like it should work well if I can figure out how to reduce the CA... Or avoid whites.
My Contax 80-200/4 arrived a couple of weeks ago, and my Leitax/Nikon adapter with Dandelion chip just arrived. I managed to get the adapter on the lens, although it was not really trivial for a newbie like myself, since it was quite a bit more complex than the example on the page, with a couple of gotchas. Anyway, it is on there, programmed as a 140mm f/4 (I will never buy a lens like that, which is why I chose this). Both 80mm and 200mm I might get (80/1.4 Leica and 200/4 Micro, respectively), so just to keep things simple, I chose (80+200)/2 = 140 Here is a photo (sorry about the crappy iPhone 3GS shot):
However the inside of the front element is kinda dirty, so I wonder if a good cleaning would help a lot. It is a beast though, good thing it has a built it tripod mount. This one *might* go back, not totally sure yet.
I believe it was nicknamed the 'Hollywood' due to it's use in cinema applications. Long distance landscape is what I bought the 300/4 for, and it seems like it should work well if I can figure out how to reduce the CA... Or avoid whites.