Some adapted lens thoughts

[kevistopheles]

I use my NEX with adapted lenses (almost exclusively). In doing that I have tried a number of adapted lenses so far and have found that each has their strengths and weaknesses I do like some more than others. My current favorites are the Konica Hexanon 24/2.8 and Vivitar 28/2 Close Focus (MD mount). They both close focus to about eight inches, have terrific sharpness and lovely bokeh (the Hexanon a bit better on both counts). I like the action on the Vivtar a bit more as the aperture ring on the Hexanon (all of my Hexanons in fact) seems more difficult than it needs to be.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7821069864/" title="Two Inch Fangs! by dixeyk, on Flickr">

   ---            

"1024" height="680" alt="Two Inch Fangs!"></a>
Vivitar 28/2 Close Focus

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7565355084/" title="The White Queen and the Red Lady by dixeyk, on Flickr">

   ---            

"1024" height="680" alt="The White Queen and the Red Lady"></a>
Hexanon 24/2.8

Next up is the Olympus Pen-F 38/1.8. It's a very compact lens and attached the NEX it really is pretty close to being pocketable. It has lovely color and while it isn't quite as sharp as the Vivitar or Hexanon it's still quite nice and the front mounted aperture ring makes for a very easy to use legacy lens.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7580435360/" title="Sisters by dixeyk, on Flickr">

   ---            

"1024" height="703" alt="Sisters"></a>
Pen-F 38/1.8

The lenses I use the least are my Konica 50/1.4, Super Takumar 50/1.4 and Helios 44M. They're all good lenses but I don't find myself grabbing for them that often. I have gotten spoiled by the close focus ability of the Hexanon 24, Vivtar 28 and Pen-F 38 so the more "normal" close focus distance of these lenses feels like it's about a mile long. Of these three I would say the Super Takumar is my favorite by a nose. It's not quite as sharp as the Hexanon (although close) but is has the most wonderful feel in hand and the best build quality of lenses at this price.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7903617776/" title="Summertime by dixeyk, on Flickr">

   ---            

"1024" height="680" alt="Summertime"></a>
Super Takumar 50/1.4

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7903589742/" title="Velocipede by dixeyk, on Flickr">

   ---            

"1024" height="680" alt="Velocipede"></a>
Super Takumar 50/1.4

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixeyk/7632564072/" title="Oil Can by dixeyk, on Flickr">

   ---            

"1024" height="680" alt="Oil Can"></a>
Konica 50/1.4

 

[oylo]

Nice pictures. I´m looking for a very good 24mm. May be the Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar, but ..... Du you have pictures of the same object taken with the Hex and the Viv?

 

[quezra]

Those pictures are amazing!

I have two questions:
Do you have to crop often (or go monochrome) because of bad effects like fringing at the edges?
What 30-35mm would you recommend, and what would be a good adaptor/mount that can take a variety of manual primes?

 

[nianys]

Dixeyk your posts are pulling me deeper and deeper into bankruptcy by the day, lol !

I basically ordered the 5N (still to be delivered, I'm getting edgy) for 2 reasons : I wanted easier manual focus ability, and I longed for better DOF control over m4/3. This has been beaten over to death and yes i'm aware the DOF control advantage of APS-C over m4/3 is SLIGHT, but I'm an ex FF shooter and despite being slight, it IS there. As far as I go, the slightest bit of extra blur I can squeeze out of a system does matter to me. It might not be relevant to others, but I DO see it.
That being said, I'm starting to think about a legacy lens selection. I have 2 FD's at the moment, which I have mixed feeling about (at least on m4/3). The 135/2.5 is very nice, performs fairly well, has very interesting subject isolation proprties due basically to its length. It's big long and heavy and not super easy to focus (I hope focus peaking will help with that). I grabbed it fairly cheap and it's in beautoful condition, so I should be able to resell it for a small profit if needed.
The 50/1.8, OTOH, seems like a bit of a dog on m4/3. Maybe it's just very tricky to get crtitical focus, but I haven't been impressed by any of its optical qualities wide open, and that's where I shoot my fast primes.
So I'm sort of torn between several options. Break the bank and get a Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 or 1.7 ? Or get a Nikon AI 50/2 ?
I also have an OM 50/1.8 on the way, and have been lusting on the 85/2. There are also some fast 135 Oms that look way smaller than the FD. I'm reading good things about the OMs, they have excellent size and the prices, while not dirt cheap, are in my range. Yet I'm a little wary (please no flame) of the Olympus "enthusiasm" in general, can those lenses really compete with the Zeiss ??
On a totally different level, i've just received the SEL18-55 and was pleasantly surprised by it's length and girth. You read comments on the NEX system and you'd think that a mammoth lens ! But when you put it side to side with the Panny 14-45 (great little lens), it's the exact same size (ok, like 1mm shorter and fatter). So it's more the NEX's super slim waist that make it look bigger than its actual size. Considering the SEL50 is the same size, it's not gonna be much bigger than a legacy lens + adapter...
Ah, choices, choices...

 

[kevistopheles]

Those pictures are amazing!

I have two questions:
Do you have to crop often (or go monochrome) because of bad effects like fringing at the edges?
What 30-35mm would you recommend, and what would be a good adaptor/mount that can take a variety of manual primes?

When I crop or go monochrome it's usually because I am going for a certain look. Instead of shooting in BW I tend to shoot in color and use Silver Efex Pro 2. I have use that few times to hide a problem with the image but in each case it was some flaring by the lens. for instance the shot of the girl at sunset had some flaring at the lower right edge. Of course I knew it would when I shot it as I was facing right into the sun (and had left my hood at home) so I wouldn't say that it was really an issue with the lens.

Ini the 30-35 range...do you mean taking the NEX 1.5x crop factor into account? If so, I'd say the Nikkor 24/2.8, Olympus OM 24/2.8 or Hexanon 24/2.8. They're affordable and give you 36/2.8 on the NEX. The Olympus is particualrly nice as it is very compact. If you're looking for a 35mm lens...I'd say pretty much everyone made a really respectable 35. I also like the Konica 40/1.8 (although a bit soft wide open) and the Pen-F 38/1.8 and 40/1.4 but I realize those might be a bit long.

 

[kevistopheles]

Nice pictures. I´m looking for a very good 24mm. May be the Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar, but ..... Du you have pictures of the same object taken with the Hex and the Viv?

No, but I could set that up. Let me see what I can do.

 

[kevistopheles]

Dixeyk your posts are pulling me deeper and deeper into bankruptcy by the day, lol !

I basically ordered the 5N (still to be delivered, I'm getting edgy) for 2 reasons : I wanted easier manual focus ability, and I longed for better DOF control over m4/3. This has been beaten over to death and yes i'm aware the DOF control advantage of APS-C over m4/3 is SLIGHT, but I'm an ex FF shooter and despite being slight, it IS there. As far as I go, the slightest bit of extra blur I can squeeze out of a system does matter to me. It might not be relevant to others, but I DO see it.
That being said, I'm starting to think about a legacy lens selection. I have 2 FD's at the moment, which I have mixed feeling about (at least on m4/3). The 135/2.5 is very nice, performs fairly well, has very interesting subject isolation proprties due basically to its length. It's big long and heavy and not super easy to focus (I hope focus peaking will help with that). I grabbed it fairly cheap and it's in beautoful condition, so I should be able to resell it for a small profit if needed.
The 50/1.8, OTOH, seems like a bit of a dog on m4/3. Maybe it's just very tricky to get crtitical focus, but I haven't been impressed by any of its optical qualities wide open, and that's where I shoot my fast primes.
So I'm sort of torn between several options. Break the bank and get a Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 or 1.7 ? Or get a Nikon AI 50/2 ?
I also have an OM 50/1.8 on the way, and have been lusting on the 85/2. There are also some fast 135 Oms that look way smaller than the FD. I'm reading good things about the OMs, they have excellent size and the prices, while not dirt cheap, are in my range. Yet I'm a little wary (please no flame) of the Olympus "enthusiasm" in general, can those lenses really compete with the Zeiss ??
On a totally different level, i've just received the SEL18-55 and was pleasantly surprised by it's length and girth. You read comments on the NEX system and you'd think that a mammoth lens ! But when you put it side to side with the Panny 14-45 (great little lens), it's the exact same size (ok, like 1mm shorter and fatter). So it's more the NEX's super slim waist that make it look bigger than its actual size. Considering the SEL50 is the same size, it's not gonna be much bigger than a legacy lens + adapter...
Ah, choices, choices...

You know, folks tell me the same thing about how IQ on the NEX is only slightly better than m43 but I see it and to me it is significant enough to justify having two systems. As to legacy lens selections. I am finding that there's a lot of really nice lenses out there for not a lot of money so you can avoid the bread line a bit longer. I myself have neve been a huge fan of FD lenses. I like the the 50/1.4 (super sharp) And I will say that FD lenses are a good buy (by virtue of their being a lot of them put there) but I have always found myself more satisfied with other lenses. Which you choose depends on what you are looking for. In my experience for instance, Konicas tend to emphasize sharpness and Minoltas tend to emphasize bokeh. That's not to say that Konicas don't have nice bokeh...my 24/2.8 has lovely bokeh but for the most part Konicas are all about sharpness. Their 50/1.7 for instance almost too sharp. So, you just need to play around a bit with some lenses and see what you like the look of. Despite my preference for Konica lenses I think Olympus OM and Pen-F lenses are superb. The OM lenses are compact, well made and the nose mounted aperture ring makes them really nice to use. None of these lenses are Zeiss lenses but they aren't as speedy either. I think the best way to describe them is a really good value.

The Pen-F lenses are a bit pricier but they are really small and deliver excellent performance. I used to have a Pen-F 40/1.4 that I would say compared well to a Summicron 40/2. I still regret selling that lens. there are also Russian lenses like the Helios44 which is a clone of the Zeiss Biotar or the Jupiter-8 that is a Tessa's clone. They suffer from pretty spotty quality control but they are super cheap and if you get a good one they can be pretty spectacular.

Welcome to the madhouse.

 

[davect01]

Some great images and some great food for thought for those looking at getting some new lenses.

 

[quezra]

I wonder - for those using adapted 50s... how do they compare IQ-wise to Sony's SEL 50/1.8?

 

[davect01]

I wonder - for those using adapted 50s... how do they compare IQ-wise to Sony's SEL 50/1.8?

I have a 45mm 2.0 Rokkor that takes some great images. I have owned the Sony 50, so I don't have direct comparison, but it is my favorite fixed lens.
Minolta MD Rokkor-X 45mm f/2.0 at Teeeeejirrrrr

   ---            

   ---