Lenses

[noone]

While adapting and trying different lenses is fun, MF lenses generally don't have anything readily available and reasonably affordable that I would prefer over better FF lenses like Canon FD (especially L's) and some of the better Nikkors and others.     Even after using a focal reducer.      There ARE some super fast MF lenses I would love to try but I doubt I will ever see any in real life or ever be able to afford them (mostly made for aerial photography) and most others just are not going to be different (even with a focal reducer) to what can be readily found for FF.     I do have a couple of Mamiya lenses for my old Polaroid that I would LIKE to try but they are slow.   That they have their own shutters is what makes them interesting to me though not something I can use.

 

[Mattias Burling]

These are HD frame grabs with the Mamiya 80mm and 55mm + Medium Format Speedbooster. My current favorite lens to use is the 150mm f3.5. The crop factor ends up at x0.7.

Still working out the shipping details but it looks like I will test it on the MAVO soon.

[pauli]

Panasonic Leica DG VARIO-SUMMILUX 10-25mm f/1.7 ASPH

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-leica-dg-vario-summilux-10-25mm-f-1-7-asph-hands-on-33371

- manual clutch on focus ring

- clickless aperture ring 

- ca. 13cm long 650g

[mercer]

Testing out some “sinister” B&W from the Canon 28mm 1.8.

[thebrothersthre3]

That last shot?

[mercer]

3 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

That last shot?

Thanks man, I’ve been meaning to tell you how much I loved the B&W video you posted last week... loved the obtuse angles!

[Nikkor]

Please don't hate me for this but is the film about cruising spots? ?

 

 

[mercer]

37 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

Please don't hate me for this but is the film about cruising spots? ?

Holy crap... those fuckers stole my plot...

Haha. I hope my movie gets into Sundance like there’s did. 

Stranger on the Shore is actually the name of a song from the 60s but it is a mystery. So unless that movie is about ghost cruising, I think I should be good. Btw, my movie is not about cruising at all. 

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Stranger on the Shore is actually the name of a song from the 60s  

Here's a fun fact that connects Stranger On The Shore and lens tests...

Gene Cernan included the Acker Bilk version of it on a cassette tape that he took to listen to on a work trip in 1969.

When he went on a similar work trip three years later he left his camera at his destination when he returned home because he wanted to see what effect solar cosmic radiation would have on the lens but he expressed regrets about it later because in the end no co-workers ever went back to pick it up for him.

Its a pity really as it was quite a decent lens, although I'm sure we could find a Samyang that would match its performance quite closely even without the radiation damage.

 

[mercer]

@BTM_Pix cool story... see there’s depth to my filmmaking...

Since you were a recording engineer, can you get me the rights to the song? Acker Bilk was British right?

So you probably know/knew him.

Speaking of, I’ve almost bought the Samyang 85mm about 3 times since your test... but I’m resisting. 

[BTM_Pix]

19 minutes ago, mercer said:

@BTM_Pix cool story... see there is a lot of depth to my filmmaking...

Since you were a recording engineer, can you get me the rights to the song? Acker Bilk was British right?

So you probably know/knew him. 

Uncle Acker you mean?

Yeah, he said its fine.

As long as you get the PRS to agree as well  

https://www.prsformusic.com/licences/using-production-music/films-and-trailers

[BTM_Pix]

4 hours ago, mercer said:

Speaking of, I’ve almost bought the Samyang 85mm about 3 times since your test... but I’m resisting. 

Whereas I've been hunting for a cheap copy of their 135mm and think I might have found one.

There will be a scant amount of resisting going on.

[mercer]

8 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Whereas I've been hunting for a cheap copy of their 135mm and think I might have found one.

There will be a scant amount of resisting going on.

That looks like a great lens, but I haven’t seen one cheaper than $500. 

[BTM_Pix]

This one is a cine version that looks to be in decent condition and with some haggling I'm hoping to get it for £200ish.

Which is, what, $68 at the current exchange rates? 

[buggz]

21 hours ago, noone said:

While adapting and trying different lenses is fun, MF lenses generally don't have anything readily available and reasonably affordable that I would prefer over better FF lenses like Canon FD (especially L's) and some of the better Nikkors and others.     Even after using a focal reducer.      There ARE some super fast MF lenses I would love to try but I doubt I will ever see any in real life or ever be able to afford them (mostly made for aerial photography) and most others just are not going to be different (even with a focal reducer) to what can be readily found for FF.     I do have a couple of Mamiya lenses for my old Polaroid that I would LIKE to try but they are slow.   That they have their own shutters is what makes them interesting to me though not something I can use.

 

Well, I am a long time stills guy, so I differ from your opinion.

I LOVE ALL of my MF lens, I have even tried LF lenses on smaller bodies.  I have experimented with a lot of different things, even using a back for my ol' Sinar F2, it's fun.

I have had great success with the Mamiya MF lenses, 35, 55, 80/1.9, 120mm/f4 Macro.  I even have the great 145mm Soft Focus.

I love all of them, and with my tilt/shift Mirex adapter, makes even more interesting combinations.

On 3/17/2019 at 5:17 PM, BTM_Pix said:

I haven't got a GH5 or a 0.67XL so I can't give you a definitive answer.

I have got a GX85 and a 0.71x though so I went outside to do a quick comparison with some white walls for you.

Top is the 10-18mm @10mm and the bottom is the Sigma 18-35mm @18mm 

As you an see, there is some vignetting on the Canon and I just adjust for this by zooming in a fraction as I'll still get the extra FOV, the light gathering and the sharpening but it can be put on a dumb adapter as well to avoid any vignetting.

And the vignetting that is there is more than the Sigma.

Hopefully you can extrapolate from that for your own system based on how you know the Sigma performs with your 0.67XL

Bottom line is if the Sigma vignettes on it then the Canon will too and a little bit more.

Hope that helps.

 

Thanks for this information.

I will give up on APC UW zooms, as I already have two good ones.  I will go with FF UW zooms.

[mercer]

6 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

This one is a cine version that looks to be in decent condition and with some haggling I'm hoping to get it for £200ish.

Which is, what, $68 at the current exchange rates? 

Is it? Dang, do you guys still follow a gold standard.

That is a great price. 

[noone]

1 hour ago, buggz said:

Well, I am a long time stills guy, so I differ from your opinion.

I LOVE ALL of my MF lens, I have even tried LF lenses on smaller bodies.

I have had great success with the Mamiya MF lenses, 35, 55, 80/1.9, 120mm.  I even have the great 145mm Soft Focus.

I love all of them, and with the tilt/shift Mirex adapter, makes even more interesting combinations.

 

Didn't say don't do it.     Again, it IS fun and you can find lenses you like for sure, I am sure some will prefer the look they get but that isn't BECAUSE they are medium format lenses but rather because they like those particular lenses.     My point is that if you want a fast lens for instance, you have MUCH greater choice using FF lenses than you do using MF lenses (and even with a focal reducer).    Tilt shift adapters ARE a valid reason for some people and some uses with MF and LF lenses on FF (as they are using FF lenses on APSC and M43).    Still, nothing compares to a real tilt shift lens (I guess I have been spoilt by my Canon 17 TS-E and previous 24 3.5 L TS-E  ii).    Those Mamiya lenses of yours are not going to give something that isn't readily available with FF lenses (with or without a focal reducer) other than some tilt/shift (when using the FF lenses on a FF camera) though there are plenty of different TS lenses available now.      It is simply there are far more lenses available for FF than larger formats and larger format exotic lenses have even more exotic prices than anything.      For what it is worth I am now too poor to experiment much further but I have tried adapting just about anything.    IE, many different lenses even on a Pentax Q (like a Canon FD 85 1.2 on a Q or 300 2.8 on a Q), or mounting Nikon lenses bare on Pentax cameras (do that at your own risk but if careful it does work for older lenses).   

[Mattias Burling]

Imo there is so much more to a lens than aperture.

[noone]

Of course there is Mattias.     I just don't think you can say a lens is better (or worse) because it is made for one particular format.     Some people will like using MF lenses on smaller formats but not BECAUSE they are MF lenses.   I am getting to the point with all the hundreds of lenses I have owned over a few decades I could happily get by with just four to six or so.  That would include a Canon 17 f4 TS-E, Sigma 150 2.8 (Canon mount) an ancient 300 2.8 manual focus lens adaptall (interchangeable mount) with the rest being less important but maybe used more often.     There are actually some others I want to keep (FD 24 1.4 L for instance and Sony FE 55 1.8 but I can not use those right now).     Adapting lenses WAS/IS fun (at least for me) but I have reached the point I am happy with the lenses I have (if not the cameras since my A7s died).

[leslie]

10 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

This one is a cine version that looks to be in decent condition and with some haggling I'm hoping to get it for £200ish.

Which is, what, $68 at the current exchange rates? 

exchange rate... what exchange rate.... its pure extortion from this side of the ocean. bought some plastic  folding crates from england sunday night for a project not sure how the postage jumped from 30 pounds to 50 pound after the sale finished but by the time currency was converted i owed $140 austrailan . not sure what happened. but i hadn't paid after twelve hours so they cancelled the order and told ebay that i had requested a cancellation, which isnt true. What is true is i didnt have the money till pay day but i was willing to pay as i did buy the items but wouldn't have been very  happy. i thought you had 3 or 4 days to pay after an auction ? 12 hours seems abit short. i'll be visiting ebay shortly to see if i have negative feedback or something