Who here uses vintage manual lens?

[ameerat42]

Geez! Attack of the Super Taks

Actually, when you run the calculator and do some divisions, like:

50mm/1.8 = 27.8mm --- IMO NWW calculating
50mm/1.7 = 29.4mm --- your present, standard glass
50mm/1.4 = 35.7mm --- about 40% more glass than your psg

So the Q is, what do you want it for?

A couple of answers came to mind, viz:
Let in more light. (Sub-Qs: is this an aim? How good is the IQ wide open?)
Better bokeh. (Sub-Q: will it be?)

Apart from this, my answer is, I dunno.

A?m.

[stanislasphotography]

from reading various reviews the lens is sharp so I am curious and want to get a copy to see how sharp the lens is. I didnt know the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 besides the obvious aperture size but now that you point out that there is more glass in the 1.4



question: what is IQ?

- - - Updated - - -

from reading various reviews the lens is sharp so I am curious and want to get a copy to see how sharp the lens is. I didnt know the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 besides the obvious aperture size but now that you point out that there is more glass in the 1.4



question: what is IQ?

[ameerat42]

In lens/camera/photography jargon it means image quality.

Yeah, the amount of extra glass is not quite double the area (actually ~40%), but if it had been an f/1, then it would be more than double.

[KevPride]

Suggest you also check out the following - usually has VG info on older lenses.

http://www.mflenses.com/

Pentax Forum also has write ups from members on most lenses that fit K/A & M42 lenses.

[jjphoto]

I don't mind the odd alt lens myself.



Try these forums for info re alt gear.

Fred Miranda Alternative Lens Forum; http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 (this is probably the most active 'alt' forum for high performance lenses)

GetDPI.com, The Alternative Forum; http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/alternative-forum/

Macro/micro photography Forum; http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/

Manual Focus Forum; http://forum.manualfocus.org/

[Rattus79]

Does any one here have any experience with the brand Soligor? and their wide angle lens?

I've had 2 in my time now.

I have the 100mm 2.8 (M42 Version)
and have previously had a 400 mm 5.6 (I sold this one)

The 100 2.8 is lovley and sharp edge to edge with a 1.5 crop factor. The 400 was a big bit of kit and wasn't bad, but didn't get infinity focus with my adaptor/body combination so I got rid of it.

I dont' know about their WA's though.

Google the lens with with the keyword review.

[umajo]

my macro lens is 25 years old and is the best glass

[ameerat42]

...
and have previously had a 400 mm 5.6 (I sold this one)
...

Not really but I couldn't resist adding:
I very, very previously had a Soligor mirror lens 500/8. (I was very, very glad when this one got destroyed in a flood.)
Am.

[Rattus79]

Not really but I couldn't resist adding:
I very, very previously had a Soligor mirror lens 500/8. (I was very, very glad when this one got destroyed in a flood.)
Am.

I can imagine!! I'm still yet to find mention on the net of another 100 2.8 by them though. The 85 1.5 is the catch of the bunch though.

[GTV6FLETCH]

my macro lens is 25 years old and is the best glass

hey,what lens is it exactly you have,I am looking for some old MF macro lenses.

[The Man from Mona]

crop factor??

I'm as confused as Am is.

What's this crop factor?

And I'm curious as to what makes the focus rings "fantastic" too?

Focus rings are focus rings, and unless it turns through more than 360° they're all pretty much the same to use(except for the really dinky kit lens type focusing ring).

They're both P67 lenses so there is a crop factor associated with using a "Full Frame" camera. It's not quite a 2x crop, maybe a 1.8x.

There is a lot of difference between focus rings imo. These ones are just nice to use. They have a really long throw for precise focusing and the metal feels nice in the hand.

[jjphoto]

They're both P67 lenses so there is a crop factor associated with using a "Full Frame" camera. It's not quite a 2x crop, maybe a 1.8x.
...

There is NO crop factor when using medium format lenses on FF (35mm) cameras with adapters. A 105mm lens on a Pentax 67 is still a 105mm lens when attached to any other body, and it behaves like any other 105mm lens. I use Mamiya medium format glass on Canon FF bodies all the time so I'm not guessing or theorising about that either.

What you're referring to is the field or angle of view that the lens gives for any given format. A 105mm lens on 6x7 gives a field of view which is considered to be about 'normal/standard' and that lens that gives the same field of view as a 50mm lens on a 35mm body. However when you attach a 105mm lens on a 35mm body it will behave EXACTLY like a 105mm lens (clearly) and give you the field of view than any 105mm lens would (ie telephoto).

[The Man from Mona]

What you're referring to is the field or angle of view that the lens gives for any given format. A 105mm lens on 6x7 gives a field of view which is considered to be about 'normal/standard' and that lens that gives the same field of view as a 50mm lens on a 35mm body. However when you attach a 105mm lens on a 35mm body it will behave EXACTLY like a 105mm lens (clearly) and give you the field of view than any 105mm lens would (ie telephoto).

Congrats you've just described what a crop factor is.

[Cage]

I have a very nice Pentax 'K' series 50mm f1.2 which is currently on sale.

In a way I hope it doesn't sell because I'm thinking of getting a Fotodiox adapter and using it on the D600.

[ameerat42]

Congrats you've just described what a crop factor is.

Sheep! Ewe are right, ...Man...
Gore sakes! It just goes ter show whatta loose-fitting linguistic world we cohabit.

I suppose when we all wear semantic overshoes and try swimming in them...

Anyway, since the other term that has some cogency to this sub-topic of the original Vintage Lens thread is "focal length multiplier" (Sure! according to Wikipedia.), why did you not introduce such as it before,
and so foster less word waywardness in the foregoing?

Note that all aspects of the discussion were generally correct. You can have to any reference format for a given lens and accuse the lens of having a crop factor or not.

Well, that's possibly been put to bed - and it's only 9:27 am...
...Am?

[arthurking83]

Congrats you've just described what a crop factor is.

So if you mount a 55,75 or 105 mm lens from any other manufacturer(for argument's sake lets just say Canon), do the Pentax lenses still display this crop factor when compared to the Canon lenses?

[The Man from Mona]

So if you mount a 55,75 or 105 mm lens from any other manufacturer(for argument's sake lets just say Canon), do the Pentax lenses still display this crop factor when compared to the Canon lenses?

They act as any medium format lens would on a 35mm camera: a significant portion of the glass isn't used and instead a smaller, central, portion is used by the film/sensor. Same as a crop factor from 35 down to APSC.

- - - Updated - - -

You can have to any reference format for a given lens and accuse the lens of having a crop factor or not.

Ok as far os overwriting goes you're taking the cake. This sentence at least appears to make sense. The rest is largely superfluous without communicating meaning.

[mongo]

from reading various reviews the lens is sharp so I am curious and want to get a copy to see how sharp the lens is. I didnt know the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 besides the obvious aperture size but now that you point out that there is more glass in the 1.4



question: what is IQ?

- - - Updated - - -

from reading various reviews the lens is sharp so I am curious and want to get a copy to see how sharp the lens is. I didnt know the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 besides the obvious aperture size but now that you point out that there is more glass in the 1.4



question: what is IQ?

Mrs Mongo has an older Pentax A 50mm 1.4 - superlative lens, beautiful quality and results and a pleasure to use. Mongo understands that the Pentax 85mm 1.4 is possibly the best 85 mm ever made. Unfortunately, Mongo does not own one at this time.

[ameerat42]

Ok as far os overwriting goes you're taking the cake. This sentence at least appears to make sense. The rest is largely superfluous without communicating meaning.

Sorry Rodney. Raillery it is. Welcome to the forum.
Am.

[arthurking83]

They act as any medium format lens would on a 35mm camera: a significant portion of the glass isn't used and instead a smaller, central, portion is used by the film/sensor. Same as a crop factor from 35 down to APSC.

.......

Yes! But do they looked like they're more cropped in any way relative to the other manufacturer's similar focal length lens?
That is, does the 55mm Canon lens look like it's less cropped than the 55mm MF Pentax lens does, by way of comparison?
Or do they look similarly 55mm-ish in rendering and FOV?

Most folks purchase full frame lenses(eg. 24-70/2.8's or 70-200/2.8's) for their APS-C cameras, and I've never heard or red of complaints of the crop factor when the discussion is about the lenses.

This is a format issue, not a lens issue, or am I missing something?

And in almost all instances of these full frame(35mm) lenses being used on APS-C cameras, the advantage is that of the better portion of the lens forming the image onto the sensor(ie. higher quality edge rendering) .. so this annoyance makes even less sense(at least to me).

So, just to summarize with an attempt to make some sense of an issue you find annoying:

A 55mm lens is going to render a 55mm focal length image onto the sensor, irrespective of whether it's a MF based lens, a 35mm format lens or even an APS-C format lens ... the 55mm lens is still a 55mm lens, and will form an image onto the sensor plane equally, as long as the image is able to cover the sensor area entirely.
(note that some supposedly APS-C only lenses still have the ability to form an image onto the full 35mm frame, even tho they are APS-C designated lenses).
A lens that is designed for a larger format than the 35mm sensor size, will project an image onto the 35mm sensor from the central portion of the glass, which is generally considered to be the higher quality portion of the lens, resulting in more clarity, detail and usually less vignetting(when used wide open at least) ....


and this is annoying?

There are a few 35mm format lenses that can project an image circle that is also larger than the actual 135 format .. so in essence some (mainly older) 35mm format lenses are actually wasted, or cropped as well.
We know this from testing with tilting and shifting, and seeing how far a lens can be pushed or to what extent it begins to vignette on the sensor.

This ability is usually seen as a benefit by most users(that I have read from others and experienced for myself), not an annoyance!
I suppose there's a first time for everything.


For the purpose of solving your issue tho, wouldn't a Pentax 645D be a more appropriate camera to own?