I have this lens and it's been terrific as well. It seems really good at taking close-ups with blurring out the background. Here are some photos I put on FM recently, but they're the last three photos on this post.
Big comparison: Loxia 21, C/Y 2.8 35 AEJ, C/Y 1.7 50 AEJ, Auto Yashinon 2 5cm, C/Y 1.4 85 AEG, C/Y 3.5 100 AEJ, C/Y 2.8 135 AE, C/Y 2.8 180 MMJ. All at f4 100 ASA! Camera Sony A7. Format jpg directly from camera. Loxia and C/Y 35 in the morning. Allothers in the afternoon!!!
The 28/2.8 is a great little lens - I'd look at adding it to the mix.
Although there are a lot of great performers and some great values, some of the C/Ys, particularly wide and/or fast, get really pricey. One of the reasons that I went with a 21 Distagon in the "Classic" F-mount is because it can easily be found for significantly less than the C/Y version. Ditto with the 35/1.4.
This is a scene I use to test for acuity and infinity focus. The lens was mounted on a cheap C/Y-LM adapter, and then another cheap LM to Sony E mount adapter.
This is a crop to about 60% width of the original.
Black Mountain Tower, 11.3 km distant, on a 38 deg C. day
I've been on a bit of an IR bender lately and am surprised by how well my C/Y lenses are performing. So far, every lens I've tried has been at least acceptable in terms of hot spots and flare -- specifically, the 25/f2.8, 28/f2.8, 35/f2.8, and 50/f1.7 (all MM versions) -- and as soon as my step-up and step-down adapters arrive, I'll be testing the rest of them as well.
Here are a few samples, all of which were taken with the 50/f1.7 @ f8 with a 720 nm filter:
The second one in particular is awesome. Make me think about converting another A7...
Audii-Dudii wrote:
I've been on a bit of an IR bender lately and am surprised by how well my C/Y lenses are performing. So far, every lens I've tried has been at least acceptable in terms of hot spots and flare -- specifically, the 25/f2.8, 28/f2.8, 35/f2.8, and 50/f1.7 (all MM versions) -- and as soon as my step-up and step-down adapters arrive, I'll be testing the rest of them as well.
Here are a few samples, all of which were taken with the 50/f1.7 @ f8 with a 720 nm filter:
Mathieu18 wrote:
The second one in particular is awesome. Make me think about converting another A7...
I know that feeling, as I have a pair of broken A7Rs and am now pondering whether I can make one good, working body by swapping parts around and then converting that to full-spectrum operation while I'm at it ... we'll see.
And thanks for the kind words, as I'm still new to working in/with IR photos. Sure, I've dabbled with it before, but I bet I've taken more IR photos since last Saturday than I have in the previous decade. Of course, practice makes perfect, eh?
Here's one I took this morning that I rather like:
BTW, I'm absolutely amazed by how well my handful of C/Y lenses are working with the modified NX500.
I have a 77mm Hoya R72 filter from a previous effort at working with IR using a non-converted camera, so I bought a 67-77 step-up and 86-77 step-down rings so I can use it my 18/f4 lens and 35-70/f3.4 and 80-200/f4 zooms.
They arrived this afternoon and to my surprise, all of these lenses work just fine, too, which is contrary to what I have read about them in various fora around the internet.
Which make me wonder if it isn't the lenses, but some special sauce Samsung used with the NX500's sensor that makes it less reflective than other sensors?
My next lens to test (after I buy another step-down ring) will be my Irix 15/f2.4, which has a reputation as being a poor performer for IR and if it also works well, this will strongly suggest that the NX500 is a key contributor to the success I've experienced thus far ... we'll see.
WhyFi wrote:
The 28/2.8 is a great little lens - I'd look at adding it to the mix.
Although there are a lot of great performers and some great values, some of the C/Ys, particularly wide and/or fast, get really pricey. One of the reasons that I went with a 21 Distagon in the "Classic" F-mount is because it can easily be found for significantly less than the C/Y version. Ditto with the 35/1.4.
The most surprising of my six CY lenses has got to be the 28/2.8 Distagon. Images are vivid, full of life and very 3D, here are a few in unhospitable (meaning: no choice) conditions. I also really like using it, great ergos.
Zanskar Range, India
restored protector chapel, 1000 years old, this is Palden Lhamo's worried horse, ISO 4000
philip_pj wrote:
The most surprising of my six CY lenses has got to be the 28/2.8 Distagon. Images are vivid, full of life and very 3D, here are a few in unhospitable (meaning: no choice) conditions. I also really like using it, great ergos.
As it happens, this lens is also a superlative performer when used for IR photography via a Hoya R72 filter on my DIY full-spectrum modified Samsung NX500 ... no hot-spots of any significance, no smeared corners, very little ghosting or flare (when used with a proper lens hood, anyway), plus it's small and light enough that it contributes greatly toward making this particular combo easy to carry for hours at a time and use successfully handheld.
And as if all that wasn't enough, good, clean used ones can be purchased today for not very much money, too! (IIRC, I paid a whopping $225 for mine sometime during the fall of 2017)
Here are a few recent photos I've taken with mine while walking my dog around the neighborhood:
Plus a five-panel stitch made by first stacking and median-blending seven identical exposures to create each panel in order to reduce noise / increase DR, so 35 files in total:
I absolutely love this lens in every way that is allowed by law!
P.S.: The Samsung NX500 is proving to be a pretty sweet performer as well, as its now four-year old, 28.2 MP, BSI sensor technology still compares quite favorably to the best APS-format sensors available today.
