Lynn Palmer Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7. Try not to shoot with the lens wide open. You've also got plenty of leeway for downsizing images with the big a7 files. Minolta lenses have a pleasing colour balance, I think you will find. It's a good lens for the price. Better than mortgaging the farm for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynn Palmer Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7. Try not to shoot with the lens wide open. You've also got plenty of leeway for downsizing images with the big a7 files. Minolta lenses have a pleasing colour balance, I think you will find. It's a good lens for the price. Better than mortgaging the farm for now. No farm left to mortgage! Besides, stock doesn't warrant an investment in $2500 lenses. The birds will have to go unshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 A question about exposure. I'm noticing that photos taken with a legacy manual focus lens on my NEX-6 are sometimes a bit overexposed. Is this common? Any tips on getting accurate exposure with these old lenses? I am rarely entirely happy with the default exposure produced by the NEX, and particularly so using heritage glass. If anything, my old lenses tend to produce rather underexposed results. I have, on occasion, dialed in over 1 stop of compensation, and it can happen either way. If there is time I always take a look at the exposed histogram and modify the exposure to suit. I find that, as a general rule that is very much made to be broken, that a 1/3 stop over is about right for my particular older lenses. Putting this into context, the NEX is far more accurate than my old Canon 450D, where my guesses at the exposure were generally more accurate than the camera's efforts - when using heritage glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 A question about exposure. I'm noticing that photos taken with a legacy manual focus lens on my NEX-6 are sometimes a bit overexposed. Is this common? Any tips on getting accurate exposure with these old lenses? I am rarely entirely happy with the default exposure produced by the NEX, and particularly so using heritage glass. If anything, my old lenses tend to produce rather underexposed results. I have, on occasion, dialed in over 1 stop of compensation, and it can happen either way. If there is time I always take a look at the exposed histogram and modify the exposure to suit. I find that, as a general rule that is very much made to be broken, that a 1/3 stop over is about right for my particular older lenses. Putting this into context, the NEX is far more accurate than my old Canon 450D, where my guesses at the exposure were generally more accurate than the camera's efforts - when using heritage glass. You know what, I meant "underexposed" rather than "overexposed." Shall have to experiment and remember to check the histograms more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7. Lynn, I came across this article in my surfing. Don't know if you've read it. No long lenses are mentioned, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Robinson Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Days after buying my first digital camera body (Nikon D100) I took it to Italy with my old manual lenses to get picture for the Blue Guide to Southern Italy. It worked fine and the pictures (some of them at least) were used in the book. I still use an old shift lens for a Mamiya 645 occasionally with a home-made mount (part of a Nikon extension tuse stuck to a mount from a useless Mamiya converter). It's a bit more hit and miss but at least you can see the results immediately and adjust as necessary. I wouldn't recommend it for sport or wildlife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynn Palmer Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7. Lynn, I came across this article in my surfing. Don't know if you've read it. No long lenses are mentioned, though. Thank you John, interesting article but it left me wishing he would test his other long lenses as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7. Lynn, I came across this article in my surfing. Don't know if you've read it. No long lenses are mentioned, though. Thank you John, interesting article but it left me wishing he would test his other long lenses as well. No doubt, the a7's FF sensor is very demanding on long zooms, etc., which might explain the shortage of tests out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I've used old Leica Lenses no problem....they're incredible in fact. I've used old Pentax lenses on Pentax film cameras. Worked great! I used Canon FD lenses on a Fotodiox adapter to Fuji - the results were incredibly awful. My suspicion is the adapter ads space between things where space was not originally intended which causes issues. I hope your experience is better than mine was. The Canon FD lenses worked fine on a Canon AE-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 That is why I went NIKON in 1989. I have NIKKOR's from the 70's that I still use on current NIKON DSLR's with no problem at all. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I used Canon FD lenses on a Fotodiox adapter to Fuji - the results were incredibly awful. My suspicion is the adapter ads space between things where space was not originally intended which causes issues. I hope your experience is better than mine was. The Canon FD lenses worked fine on a Canon AE-1 As i explained there is an optical component in the adapter to correct the difference in FFD. One is dependent on the quality of that. it's effectively a teleconverter- they are very variable- so the focal length is increased as well. The AE-1 has an FD mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 There was no "optical component" in the Fotodiox Adapter I purchased. http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Fujifilm-Fuijifilm-Arca-Swiss-Mounting/dp/B00D9BL1XC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1421764025&sr=8-4&keywords=Fotodiox+Canon+to+Fuji It was simply a tube....Canon FD mount on one side and Fuji X Mount on the other.....could have been considered an "extension tube" for all intents and purposes. It was an aweful waste of time. I'm just glad I was able to get my money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 There was no "optical component" in the Fotodiox Adapter I purchased. http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Fujifilm-Fuijifilm-Arca-Swiss-Mounting/dp/B00D9BL1XC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1421764025&sr=8-4&keywords=Fotodiox+Canon+to+Fuji It was simply a tube....Canon FD mount on one side and Fuji X Mount on the other.....could have been considered an "extension tube" for all intents and purposes. It was an aweful waste of time. I'm just glad I was able to get my money back. The one I plan on ordering comes with glass, although I am not putting big hopes on the focus except for infinity. If that works, then I will be happy. I am searching around before I commit to one, but only those with the glass are supposed to help with the focal adjustment due to the space created by the mount. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyn Llun Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 That is why I went NIKON in 1989. I have NIKKOR's from the 70's that I still use on current NIKON DSLR's with no problem at all. Chuck Yes. As I said in my original post on this thread, it's the reason I have stuck with Leica for way over fifty years. I can still use my oldest screw lenses on my new digi M's and they are still superb. Friends and colleagues gasped with horror way, (way) back when I was buying my first Leica stuff at the amount I was spending. (Made me gasp too). As I am still using that stuff though I think I got the best deal. I write a little bit about this on my blog, link below, entry for 26/04/2014. I don't have any use for all my Nikon stuff any more so I sold this. Folks bit my hand off for all my good prime lenses, presumably for the same reason as Chuck mentions. All excellent and useable due to Nikon's compatibility policy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 There was no "optical component" in the Fotodiox Adapter I purchased. http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Fujifilm-Fuijifilm-Arca-Swiss-Mounting/dp/B00D9BL1XC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1421764025&sr=8-4&keywords=Fotodiox+Canon+to+Fuji It was simply a tube....Canon FD mount on one side and Fuji X Mount on the other.....could have been considered an "extension tube" for all intents and purposes. It was an aweful waste of time. I'm just glad I was able to get my money back. My mistake. The original post was about the EOS which has a longer FFD and needs a lens. THe Fuji-X is shorter so doesn't. Can't see what the quality problem would be caused by. As you say it's just tubing. Must have thrown off all the corrections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 There was no "optical component" in the Fotodiox Adapter I purchased. http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Fujifilm-Fuijifilm-Arca-Swiss-Mounting/dp/B00D9BL1XC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1421764025&sr=8-4&keywords=Fotodiox+Canon+to+Fuji It was simply a tube....Canon FD mount on one side and Fuji X Mount on the other.....could have been considered an "extension tube" for all intents and purposes. It was an aweful waste of time. I'm just glad I was able to get my money back. The inexpensive "made in China" adapters for the Sony mirrorless cameras are also just metal tubes with no glass. Fortunately, they seem to work fine, at least the one I purchased ($9.95) for Minolta MD/MC lenses does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 They don't need or have glass if they're fitting a longer FFD lens to a shorter. Except for C-mount, everything has a longer FFD than NEX, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The $9.95 adapter I bought online doesn't look much different from this one. How can they charge so much for a metal tube? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I could see merit in paying extra for a precision piece of kit that used harder, longer wearing, material, but a user is saying that lenses are focusing beyond infinity with this product. I interpret this as meaning that it is not possible to reliably use the distance scale on the lens. I have cheap adapters that allow me to do this, and would expect a quality product to have sufficiently tight tolerances to enable this to be the case. Can't see any good reason to spend the considerable extra cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I could see merit in paying extra for a precision piece of kit that used harder, longer wearing, material, but a user is saying that lenses are focusing beyond infinity with this product. I interpret this as meaning that it is not possible to reliably use the distance scale on the lens. I have cheap adapters that allow me to do this, and would expect a quality product to have sufficiently tight tolerances to enable this to be the case. Can't see any good reason to spend the considerable extra cash. After doing some tests recently, I've discovered that the inexpensive NEX-Minolta MD/MC adapter that I bought from Rainbowimaging does focus slightly past infinity. It is easy enough to compensate for this, but it means that the distance scale is off. Not a big deal in the scheme of things. However, if I had paid 200 bucks for this metal tube, I might have felt differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkS Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 A question about exposure. I'm noticing that photos taken with a legacy manual focus lens on my NEX-6 are sometimes a bit overexposed. Is this common? Any tips on getting accurate exposure with these old lenses? Maybe try an old hand held light meter. It might be the coatings on the older lenses are throwing off the camera meter. Just guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 A question about exposure. I'm noticing that photos taken with a legacy manual focus lens on my NEX-6 are sometimes a bit overexposed. Is this common? Any tips on getting accurate exposure with these old lenses? Maybe try an old hand held light meter. It might be the coatings on the older lenses are throwing off the camera meter. Just guessing. Thanks. Good idea, but I sold my handheld light meters a number of years ago. I actually meant "underexposed" rather than "overexposed." I've started setting the exposure compensation to plus one-third stop when using legacy MF lenses. This helps a lot. You're right, the coatings look very different. Images are much warmer than my Sony lenses, more "filmy" looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike R Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 If anyone has a Pentax smc 28 3.5 (NOT the M 28 2.8) at a reasonable price (located in europe) I might be a shopper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 If anyone has a Pentax smc 28 3.5 (NOT the M 28 2.8) at a reasonable price (located in europe) I might be a shopper. MIke, There are at least two versions of the 28mm SMC 3.5 that I am aware of, the older type without a letter but generally known as type K SMC and the more recent M 3.5 SMC. I have both, as well as the M 2.8. My feeling is that there is less distortion and CA with the older K lens, but, for infinity shooting, the more recent M 2.8 provides sharper edges. I don't particularly rate the M 3.5, although it is better than the standard Sony zoom on the NEX.. Edit - The usual caveat applies, these are old lenses, so, in addition to sample variation, we have the ravages of time to consider! Sorry, not selling at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.