The day after the last FM forum meeting in Berlin I went to the fleamarket - as usual when I am in Berlin. I have purchased 6 old lenses. One of them I have never heard of but I liked the build quality and the look. I realized that it had a M39 mount, but a quick test on the Nex with a M adapter showed immediately, that the register distance was far to large for Leica. I bought it anyhow, as it was very cheap and in almost mint condition.
At home I found out that the register distance is 44mm, so I used a M39 to M42 adapter and a M42 to Nex adapter. Can't reach infinity but I will modify the adapter and I think that I can fix that.
Here are some samples from today, shot with the Staeble - Telexon 135mm f/3.8, last image is the lens, taken with a Jupiter-11, all with Nex-3.
Thank you all, yes I did some work on this picture, simply trying to match
what I saw there. DR of NEX-5N is really surprisingly good. No bending in the shadows,
you can even see sun beams coming from behind the right side of the mountain.
Are any of you guys who are shooting with Leica glass using R mount lenses? I just realized that Metabones offers an R mount adapter, as well as the M.
FlyPenFly wrote:
#1 resolution is brilliant sebboh, I didn't know the Minolta MD's were that good?
that lens is exquisite in the center 2/3 of the frame, particularly at close to medium range. it is one of my favorite lenses for color and bokeh, with very good microcontrast to boot.
some minolta manual focus lenses are exceptional just as all lens makers have some gems. i know i'm probably nearly alone on this on this forum, but for general shooting i prefer the rokkor look to the zeiss look. i also prefer the build of the MC and early MD lenses to any other brand except for some of the leica Rs. the earlier version of the 24/2.8 was actually made by minolta under leica R branding as well.
Jacob D wrote:
Are any of you guys who are shooting with Leica glass using R mount lenses? I just realized that Metabones offers an R mount adapter, as well as the M.
a number of people including snowboarder and morpheus are using the R 60/2.8 macro and i've used the R 350/4.8 on my NEX a bit. the long telephoto is a bit silly though on the NEX since i don't use a tripod.
My fault for not being more specific as I was thinking about lenses in the wide~ish to normal range. Long tele's are not really my thing.
I'm not familiar with the 60/2.8 macro although I did see the flower shots posted and the color rendering is impressive to say the least. I didn't realize it's only an R mount (or is it?).
When there's a choice, such as the 50 lux, or cron, is there any reason to spend the $$$$ for M mount when there are quite a few R mount to be had for much less? I know they are a little larger, but the size difference is not substantial, is it?
