kevistopheles
TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Today was a big day. For the first time since I started this adapted lens odyssey (with my Olympus E500 seven years ago) I actually came across a great deal on an absolutely mint lens and I did not buy it. More importantly I never even considered buying it. I looked at it, thought "wow that's a great price" and then went right to "that's gonna be a score for SOMEONE ELSE!". As hard as it is to believe I think I have found a set of adapted lenses that work really well for me. I'm happy with the way they feel, work, images they give me and only really have one need in terms of focal length...WA which isn't affordably served by legacy glass.
I have learned a lot in seven years. I learned that I don't like long minimum focus distances. I like to work close in and lenses that can do that are a real bonus. Because the NEX body is so small I tend to use the lens itself as a grab point so tiny lenses aren't a particular draw for me. The Pen-F is an exception and the IQ is why I bought it not the small size (frankly I wish it was a bit bigger). I shoot a lot at f4 or f5.6 so fats lenses aren't a must for me. I have a couple but find that lenses like the 24/2.8 are fast enough for most of what I do. If I REALLY want shallow DOF or need to shoot in low light the 50/1.4 is there. I learned that at least half of why I prefer the lenses I do is tactile. I like they way they feel in the hand and operate. A lot of the lenses I tried were good. I found the differences between Konica, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Pentax etc. to be a lot smaller than fans of each might care to admit. I favor Minolta but my Super Takumar 50/1.4 and Canon 50/1.4 were also very VERY good in their own right. I can't even say the Minolta is better...all I can say definitively is that I prefer it. Part of my preference are things that is totally unconnected to optical quality. I thought the Canon FD stuff was kinda homely and my father-in-law thinks the sun rises and sets on Canon. That right there was enough to make me pass. Konica favors a somewhat stiff aperture ring and I like them looser. The thorium elements in the Super Takumar 50/1.4 is slightly radioactive and while i KNOW there is no health risk I'm a 10 year cancer survivor so I passed on the Super Takumars (and why I don't have a Minolta MC 28/2.5 either). My point is much of the reason I have what I have has nothing to do with the lens' ability to make images. That also means that what I like is nothing more than my personal preferences and has more in common with why I like blue jeans and leather jackets than anything even remotely photographic in nature.
So what did I end up with?
Minolta Rokkor-SI MC 24/2.8
This lens is amazingly heavy and deceptively nice. It's sharp, has very nice OOF areas and I can see why Leica might have sold it as an R lens as well. The biggest negative about the lens is that it doesn't peak as well as some lenses. That said, every time I use it I am reminded why I keep it. I like the MC version because the build quality is...robust to say the least.
Vivitar 28/2 Close Focus (Komine made)
Too Close to the Fire by dixeyk, on Flickr
Intent by dixeyk, on Flickr
This is a great lens that in many ways challenges the Rokkor 24. It close focuses better, is smaller, lighter and sometimes has issues with flare but for under $100 I doubt there is a better bargain out there...although I have heard the 28/2.8 Close focus is also quite good and half that price.
Olympus Pen-F 38/1.8
Murciélago by dixeyk, on Flickr
It's small, sharp wide open and amazingly sharp. It's bokeh can get a bit busy depending on the background but a real sweet lens.
Minolta Rokkor MC 50/1.4
Sheltered by dixeyk, on Flickr
All Hallows Eve by dixeyk, on Flickr
My favorite fast 50 ever. It feels good, it's heavy enough that it sits comfortably in the hand and stopped down to f2 it is amazingly sharp. I've heard the later MD version is even better. I find that hard to believe.
Minolta Rokkor MC 100/2.5
Mick Who? by dixeyk, on Flickr
Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 macro
The Herald of the Ice Queen by dixeyk, on Flickr
Sock by dixeyk, on Flickr
Games by dixeyk, on Flickr
Versatile, 3.5 throughout the zoom range, 1:4 and 1:7 macro settings (okay more like close-up) as sharp as a prime between 35-50 and not far off at 70.
I also have a Sigma 30/2.8 and I have considered picking up a Sigma 19 for a WA option given that they are so cheap.
I have learned a lot in seven years. I learned that I don't like long minimum focus distances. I like to work close in and lenses that can do that are a real bonus. Because the NEX body is so small I tend to use the lens itself as a grab point so tiny lenses aren't a particular draw for me. The Pen-F is an exception and the IQ is why I bought it not the small size (frankly I wish it was a bit bigger). I shoot a lot at f4 or f5.6 so fats lenses aren't a must for me. I have a couple but find that lenses like the 24/2.8 are fast enough for most of what I do. If I REALLY want shallow DOF or need to shoot in low light the 50/1.4 is there. I learned that at least half of why I prefer the lenses I do is tactile. I like they way they feel in the hand and operate. A lot of the lenses I tried were good. I found the differences between Konica, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Pentax etc. to be a lot smaller than fans of each might care to admit. I favor Minolta but my Super Takumar 50/1.4 and Canon 50/1.4 were also very VERY good in their own right. I can't even say the Minolta is better...all I can say definitively is that I prefer it. Part of my preference are things that is totally unconnected to optical quality. I thought the Canon FD stuff was kinda homely and my father-in-law thinks the sun rises and sets on Canon. That right there was enough to make me pass. Konica favors a somewhat stiff aperture ring and I like them looser. The thorium elements in the Super Takumar 50/1.4 is slightly radioactive and while i KNOW there is no health risk I'm a 10 year cancer survivor so I passed on the Super Takumars (and why I don't have a Minolta MC 28/2.5 either). My point is much of the reason I have what I have has nothing to do with the lens' ability to make images. That also means that what I like is nothing more than my personal preferences and has more in common with why I like blue jeans and leather jackets than anything even remotely photographic in nature.
So what did I end up with?
Minolta Rokkor-SI MC 24/2.8
This lens is amazingly heavy and deceptively nice. It's sharp, has very nice OOF areas and I can see why Leica might have sold it as an R lens as well. The biggest negative about the lens is that it doesn't peak as well as some lenses. That said, every time I use it I am reminded why I keep it. I like the MC version because the build quality is...robust to say the least.
Vivitar 28/2 Close Focus (Komine made)
---
Too Close to the Fire by dixeyk, on Flickr
---
Intent by dixeyk, on Flickr
This is a great lens that in many ways challenges the Rokkor 24. It close focuses better, is smaller, lighter and sometimes has issues with flare but for under $100 I doubt there is a better bargain out there...although I have heard the 28/2.8 Close focus is also quite good and half that price.
Olympus Pen-F 38/1.8
---
Murciélago by dixeyk, on Flickr
It's small, sharp wide open and amazingly sharp. It's bokeh can get a bit busy depending on the background but a real sweet lens.
Minolta Rokkor MC 50/1.4
---
Sheltered by dixeyk, on Flickr
---
All Hallows Eve by dixeyk, on Flickr
My favorite fast 50 ever. It feels good, it's heavy enough that it sits comfortably in the hand and stopped down to f2 it is amazingly sharp. I've heard the later MD version is even better. I find that hard to believe.
Minolta Rokkor MC 100/2.5
---
Mick Who? by dixeyk, on Flickr
Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 macro
---
The Herald of the Ice Queen by dixeyk, on Flickr
---
Sock by dixeyk, on Flickr
---
Games by dixeyk, on Flickr
Versatile, 3.5 throughout the zoom range, 1:4 and 1:7 macro settings (okay more like close-up) as sharp as a prime between 35-50 and not far off at 70.
I also have a Sigma 30/2.8 and I have considered picking up a Sigma 19 for a WA option given that they are so cheap.
