LBA ... The Terrible Side-Effect of My T2i

[RoosterMcCauley]

LBA.

It can destroy lives. Ruin marriages. Microwave baby seals. And it can put you on the street.

Upside?
You will be able to chronicle all of these evils in a variety of unique ways.

What is LBA? LENS BUYING ADDICTION. And now, as a result of my recent T2i acquisition, and furthermore my EOS-M42 mount adapter... I have it. Primarily, Pentax users carry this affliction... But with the adapters so cheap and easy to come by... WE ARE ALL AT RISK.

Answer the following questions on your own... I will let you in on my responses, so perhaps you won't feel so alone.

1. Have you ever searched eBay for the words "Super Takumar" and filtered it for those auctions that are only "Buy It Now"? YES
2. Do you compulsively look into the used lens section at camera shops or KEH for anything that could remotely fit on a Pentax camera? Even though you already have the focal range of 15mm to 300mm covered with your present lenses? YES and NO. 15mm? WHY DO I FEEL AS THOUGH I NEED THIS?
3. If someone says they have a 50mm Pentax lens, do you question them further to find out exactly which version it is, and depending on the answer, do you get smug or jealous? YES.
4. Have you purchased more than 3 of the Limited lenses? WHY, ARE YOU SELLING THEM AT AN AFFORDABLE PRICE?
5. Have you ever put your lenses in a display case? I CANNOT AFFORD A DISPLAY CASE. THAT IS VALUABLE LENS MONEY!
6. Have you ever hidden receipts because "no one else needs to know how much I paid for it"...? YES. I AM SORRY.
7. Have you ever felt pride in getting a lens for under market value and set that as your new "threshold to break"? For example, you pick up an SMC-M 28mm lens for $15 bucks, and now you're on the look out for grabbing anything for under $15 that could qualify as "a better deal"...? YES.
8. Have you ever drawn up a short list for which lenses to bring on a trip and then thrown in some extras "just in case"...? I NEED ALL OF THEM. ALL THE TIME.
9. Have you ever stalked a lens on the internet, by researching it tirelessly for days by looking for sample shots, qualified reviews, tests, etc., and this lens pre-dates the internet? YES.
10. Did you pre-order a DA* lens and get giddy just thinking about its arrival this summer? NO. I'm still too new for that.

This is to say nothing of my Olympus OM Zuiko obsession, which, fortunately, is a bit more affordable.

So how many of you have shown signs of LBA?

[redfalcon]

Yo! Right here! :)

I already had a few EOS lenses, because I've been shooting stills with a 20D for years.

But with the new camera now, oh yeah.

[RoosterMcCauley]

Those damned SuperTaks are a gateway drug.

Here's what I've got so far:

Super Takumar 28mm f/3.5 ($40)
Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 ($70)
Olympus OM Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 ($65)
Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 ($30)
Olympus OM Zuiko 85mm f/2 ($100)
Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 ($25)
Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 ($20)
Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 ($110)
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f/2.4 ($75)

And I'm waiting on the SuperTak 85/1.9... I lost a bid on Ebay and didn't fight it... Yet... I'm trying not to fight it... Those go for a couple hundred easy, though.

I will say this: I didn't really need to get the same focal lengths in the SuperTaks and the Zuikos, that was just the LBA driving me.

But even though I've gone wild... That's like 10 lenses for $535.

HOLY HELL I HAVE SPENT 535 DOLLARS.

Anyway, just rolling Zuikos, I could've gotten my Wide Angle, the 50mm, and the Medium Telephoto for under 200 bucks. Not a bad deal, and definitely not a bad set of lenses.

[redfalcon]

For 10 lenses, that's not bad at all.

I'm really wanting to try out a Takumar lens. Heard nothing but good things.

[Daniel Rutter]

I only have one lens for my SLR (which isn't a T2i) and that is the lens it came with.

AND... its the only lens I need.

Why do you need 10 Lens?

[Ian-T]

LOL on this thread. I've probably looked at all those mentioned lenses 10 times over...but my impulses faired a little better..ha.

[cgbier]

Why do you need 10 Lens?
Ask this question on the dpreview forum and you'll get banned for flaming and trolling :hv20-smilie79:

[Daniel Rutter]

Heh... well, it IS a viable question... I can understand having a standard, and a wide screen lens... maybe a telephoto as well... but 10 lens?
Overkill...

[I C]

I can understand having a standard, and a wide screen lens... maybe a telephoto as well... but 10 lens?
Overkill...

???

Do you mean wide-angle lens?

Having multiple lenses of the same focal range IS pretty silly though, unless they are at differing apertures/quality or something. I'm not sure what the draw is there.

@ Rooster, just be glad you don't have the L series addiction. I now have:
16-35mm f2.8 II = $1200
100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS = $1200
24-105 f4 IS = $900
50mm f1.4 = $300

Of course, I'm pretty much broke at this point. But a happy broke. Here's the kicker, that 16-35 has almost paid for itself because of the shots it can get. People look at it and are just stunned. Same with the 100-400. Went to shoot video at the zoo and could get extremely close to the animals with that 400mm length.

[RoosterMcCauley]

Daniel:
Since I've framed everything I've said on this thread by referring to my purchasing habits as an addiction, I'm hard pressed to figure the word "overkill" is a contrarian position. We are in agreement on that point.
(Remember the all capital letter cry out to my depleting wallet?)

At the same time, I have to say that questioning the basic necessity of more than one lens is a little disingenuous. Of course there are reasons to have multiple lenses. I have gone overboard, but I'm not displeased with the value I'm pulling in, madness though it may be.

To get specific, and go beyond the simple "wide angle, medium, medium telephoto, longer telephoto" rationale, I bought each of these lenses because of the specific visual qualities they bring. (Maybe not for the Vivitars... Those were just cheap and I wanted to test them out.)

There is a difference between Super Takumar and Olympus Zuiko. The SuperTaks are often dreamier, more three dimensional, and give really nice bokeh. As for the Zuikos, they're sharp (though the Taks are too), often faster than you'd think (I can use my 28mm f3.5 functionally at light levels I found surprising), contrasty, and clean.

If you'd like, I can shoot a rather boring test video for you, in which I shoot the same thing multiple times, changing only the lenses. I would actually be very interested to do that, just for my own studying, actually.

Would that interest you as well?

...

I C :

Yeah, I know... I'm a fetishist and a completist. I can live with it. I just dig these old lenses, man.

[Daniel Rutter]

Make it interesting, I'll watch it

And yes, I did mean Wide ANGLE... I'm heavily sleep deprived, and I can't focus properly... forgive my lack of concentration for what I'm typing..

[Gillvane]

Daniel:
Since I've framed everything I've said on this thread by referring to my purchasing habits as an addiction, I'm hard pressed to figure the word "overkill" is a contrarian position. We are in agreement on that point.
(Remember the all capital letter cry out to my depleting wallet?)

At the same time, I have to say that questioning the basic necessity of more than one lens is a little disingenuous. Of course there are reasons to have multiple lenses. I have gone overboard, but I'm not displeased with the value I'm pulling in, madness though it may be.

To get specific, and go beyond the simple "wide angle, medium, medium telephoto, longer telephoto" rationale, I bought each of these lenses because of the specific visual qualities they bring. (Maybe not for the Vivitars... Those were just cheap and I wanted to test them out.)

There is a difference between Super Takumar and Olympus Zuiko. The SuperTaks are often dreamier, more three dimensional, and give really nice bokeh. As for the Zuikos, they're sharp (though the Taks are too), often faster than you'd think (I can use my 28mm f3.5 functionally at light levels I found surprising), contrasty, and clean.

If you'd like, I can shoot a rather boring test video for you, in which I shoot the same thing multiple times, changing only the lenses. I would actually be very interested to do that, just for my own studying, actually.

Would that interest you as well?

...

I C :

Yeah, I know... I'm a fetishist and a completist. I can live with it. I just dig these old lenses, man.

I like that idea. But, make sure the shots are long enough. Often people do these and the shots are so quick I don't have time to really look and compare without watching it over several times to really see the differences.

You could use a not so boring subject. Get some girls in different colored bikinis.

Red would be good to see how the T2i handles it, and some bikinis with crazy patterns to check out moire and aliasing.

For bokeh, you can put one girl in a bikini behind another one, and rack focus.

[rhervag]

if you've got the 50mm f1.4 supertak, get the SMC and the S-M-C too... then you're the perfect addict !

[antman]

yes I too am a lens freak. Who dosen't love good glass?

[koolpenguin89]

Get some girls in different colored bikinis.

Red would be good to see how the T2i handles it, and some bikinis with crazy patterns to check out moire and aliasing.

For bokeh, you can put one girl in a bikini behind another one, and rack focus.

Also, to make the test truly scientific, their should be at least one girl with no bikini at all...you know...to act as a control for your variables.......







....boobs.

Dylan

[rhervag]

You could use a not so boring subject. Get some girls in different colored bikinis.

Red would be good to see how the T2i handles it, and some bikinis with crazy patterns to check out moire and aliasing.

For bokeh, you can put one girl in a bikini behind another one, and rack focus.

hahah i'm sure that would be soooo much more informative than the typical charts & cat tests we've been swallowing so far.
oh... and make sure you don't forget the slomo :)))
i fact it shouldn't be so hard : beauties seem to be attracted to nice glass like it is diamond.
i discovered my porst 135mm f1.8 was a real babe magnet somehow since i published a few shots from the local scene...

[Gillvane]

hahah i'm sure that would be soooo much more informative than the typical charts & cat tests we've been swallowing so far.
oh... and make sure you don't forget the slomo :)))
i fact it shouldn't be so hard : beauties seem to be attracted to nice glass like it is diamond.
i discovered my porst 135mm f1.8 was a real babe magnet somehow since i published a few shots from the local scene...

Plenty of attractive young ladies want to have their picture taken.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/

[Yugosaki]

I got the LBA here. A little worse since I run a Pentax K-7 (cheap ebay m42 and pk mount lenses, anyone?)

So far I'm doing alright.

-18-55 kit lens $60 (I bought it separate from the camera, it was cheaper)
-50mm f1.4 super takumar ($80)
-28mm f2.8 soligor ($30)
-50mm f1.8 praktica ($6)
-50mm f2.4 praktica ($10)

total: $186

I use the tak for nearly everything. The prakticas i have from when i was using a canon rebel. The 1.8 praktica is now almost never used and as such it's being given to my sister along with my Canon Rebel XS. The 2.4 praktica is a pancake, so while it doesn't get infinity focus on the k-7 and needed a lot of work to fit, i'm keeping it. Trying to get a 135mm f2.8 right now (20 hours left, getting down to the wire...)

I don't go into the extreme telephoto or macro, because I don't do much with either range, and the lenses are generally expensive (even used).

I would like to get a fisheye though...

[Kin Lau]

LBA is only one part of GAS - Gear Acqusition Syndrome. The trouble is that GAS is not just limited to lenses, you're got camera bodies, accessories, lights/flashes, tripods etc.

You know you're in trouble when you start using a spreadsheet to keep track of it.

ps. I use separate tabs for camera bodies, lenses, filters.. the lens tab has over 200 lines.

[RoosterMcCauley]

Okay, no girls. But Han Solo, Jesus, and Mouthwash!

This is the first of these I'll do, and I have to say, it's reallllly unscientific and incomplete, and nowhere near what I'd planned, but I have a lot going on the next few days, so this will have to do for now to give a general view.

Definitely there's a bigger difference in the 50mm's than the 28s.
Much more yellowing (though I don't have one of the significantly yellowed Taks, luckily) in the SuperTak 50. But I also notice a lot more sharpness in the Olympus 50. On a much, much smaller scale, I think the same can be said about the 28 comparison.

Also, as I've said numerous times, the Zuiko is faster than its aperture would imply. I'm taking in what seems to be a lot more light with the 50mm than the SuperTak, even though they're both at 2.8.

Anyway, I dunno... Here's the first sortakindatest:

Canon T2i Super Takumar / Olympus OM Zuiko Comparison on Vimeo
(still converting as of 1245PM CST... Be up soon)

[saint seiya]

dude thnx for posting these vids. I have a 50mm f1.8 and a 28mm f3.5 zuiko om lenses and this gives me an idea of what to expect when i get the camera soon hopefully. What adapter are you using?

[RoosterMcCauley]

I'm using an OM-EOS adapter that I got on Ebay for like 15 bucks.
I could've gotten it cheaper, but I wanted to order from America. (Just to keep the shipping faster.)

[Ian-T]

Okay, no girls. But Han Solo, Jesus, and Mouthwash!My Vimeo Response:

Strange but in the first clip the Tak looks sharper because it seems a little contrastier. But the strange thing is in the second clip they both have the same sort of brightness (less yellowy on the Tak). The even stranger thing is that the background blur on the second clip shows the Tak’s blur just slightly more. It’s as if it is actually opened up further than what it shows you on the aperture ring (which might explain why it seems ever so brighter at that stop than the Olympus).

Oh…and I can tell you were using fluorescent lights. Waves everywhere..lol.

Edit: I watched the downloaded version by the way.

Edit 2: If they were opened up equally in both shots then the differences in brightness levels on the second clip should have been about the same as the firswt (I would think....right?).

[RoosterMcCauley]

One would assume the brightness levels would have been the same. I am not above considering there to have been a user error, but I did rigorously check all settings prior to recording.

It was confusing to me as well.

Also, you should know that I was not using flourescents, but rather the tungsten lights that were available in my bathroom (where I apparently feel it best to conduct all tests, inexplicably).

As for the waves, I have been getting those a lot more lately since using the custom neutral setting. And the Tak's bokeh typically has a slight wiggle to it, for some reason. At least, that's what I've noticed up to this point.

[cgbier]

Heh... well, it IS a viable question... I can understand having a standard, and a wide screen lens... maybe a telephoto as well... but 10 lens?
Overkill...
No, it is a valid question. In my prime lens days, a 35/50/105mm lens was all I had. With my AF cameras came 20-35/35-70/80-200 pus a TC. Never saw a need for more.
On my Olympus e-1, the 14-54 is my bread and butter lens. It does about 75% of my work.
The only FL range I ever had double was a 150 soft focus and a 140 (or was it the other way around) for my Mamiya RB.

What the folks on dpreview seem to forget that "pros" have nice glass, but this glass has to be amortized somehow. Therefore, they only buy what they really need. And the fancy "pros" who write those reviews for Adorama or magazines get their glass mostly for free (either as loaners or "write a positive review and you can keep it").

[Ian-T]

Also, you should know that I was not using flourescents, but rather the tungsten lights that were available in my bathroom (where I apparently feel it best to conduct all tests, inexplicably).
Really? I've been seeing a few folks in the last few days complaining about this on their new T2. Some of us dismissed it as a flo issue.

[RoosterMcCauley]

Just went back and checked... You were right, Ian. One of the globe bulbs in my bathroom was a flourescent. Just one out of four. I didn't realize.

[Bif]

My Vimeo Response:

It’s as if it is actually opened up further than what it shows you on the aperture ring (which might explain why it seems ever so brighter at that stop than the Olympus).


Working with physically controlled apertures here (aperture ring on lens), one might not be as "accurately calibrated" and there could actually be a physical difference in lens openings.



Oh…and I can tell you were using fluorescent lights. Waves everywhere..lol.



I watched it on vimeo several times and could see no "waves" or "banding" of any kind. Using a 21.6 inch Samsung monitor driven by an Nvidia 8800GT card.

Now if he could get that Han Solo to do a bit of acting....

[Gillvane]

Okay, no girls. But Han Solo, Jesus, and Mouthwash!



Why is Han pointing that gun at Jesus? Is Jesus going to turn the mouthwash into wine?

Han looks smug. Does he know Jesus is the son of God, or will this come as a surprise?

I can't wait for the sequel. Perhaps some of these questions will be further explored. I can only hope this series does not devolve into another Lost, and that the writer actually knows where he's going with this.

Also, I could see no waves, even when I squinted, and I squinted several times.

[rhervag]

LBA is only one part of GAS - Gear Acqusition Syndrome. The trouble is that GAS is not just limited to lenses, you're got camera bodies, accessories, lights/flashes, tripods etc.
You know you're in trouble when you start using a spreadsheet to keep track of it.
ps. I use separate tabs for camera bodies, lenses, filters.. the lens tab has over 200 lines.


haha yes indeed you've got to keep things organised when shooting on location too to know in which case part of the luggage is stored that prime you're after for the next shot...

[-Rogue5-]

Are there any wider/fast lenses like this super taks and stuff? 20/24/28/30mm at f1.8 to f2-ish is what I'm looking for.

-Rogue5-

[Sagefox]

sigma 30mm 1.4 is king for high quality wider low light.

[debuys]

Why is Han pointing that gun at Jesus? Is Jesus going to turn the mouthwash into wine?

Han looks smug. Does he know Jesus is the son of God, or will this come as a surprise?

I can't wait for the sequel. Perhaps some of these questions will be further explored. I can only hope this series does not devolve into another Lost, and that the writer actually knows where he's going with this.

Also, I could see no waves, even when I squinted, and I squinted several times.

It's a statue, an effigy and in no way accurately represents the Lamb of God. Chances are he was uglier, dirtier, stinkier, and far less fair skinned. Hans Solo on the other hand is accurate enough for a fictional character. Ask the creator (George Lucas).

Before you write off Christ's miracles as myth at least spend the time to properly frame your analog. Try reading. Most of the gospels are shorter than a typical "Cliffs Notes"

I think by waves he's referring to the pulsing of the florescent light. If you have flourephobia like me it's obvious.

[rhervag]

sigma 30mm 1.4 is king for high quality wider low light.

unfortunately, 30mm is not too wide on the cropped sensor of 7D/T2i

[vince]

I got a Pentax Super Takomar 55 1.8 with an adapter and was wondering how I would set my camera. Do I just go to manual and set what? The aperture settings are on the lens, so what about the setting on the camera? What about the focusing? I also have an Canon Zoom 70-210 4.0 how do I set that one up. Can the autofocus be done by the camera?

[Bif]

Vince:

You go into manual mode and set the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens, the camera will NOT show you the aperture in the viewfinder because the adapted manual lens has no way to communicate with camera.

Set the shutter speed on the camera using the command dial near the shutter release, the T2i may also require you to press another button possible the AV button (I no longer have my T1i so cannot confirm this).

Then set your ISO to AUTO or to a manual setting that gives you what you want in the way of brightness. On the 7D I typically use AUTO to see what ISO the cam wants to use, then switch to that manually and from there adjust up or down for the exposure effect I want. I believe the T2i is supposed to work the same way.

If you are set to do video in full auto mode, select the aperture with the aperture ring on the lens and the camera will take it from there and will pick shutter and ISO to give what it considers good exposure.

Focus will be strictly manual with adapted lenses. But then you should really be using manual focus even with Canon EF/EF-S lenses. In video mode the contrast detection autofocus is slow, can tend to "hunt", and often may not be accurate. You can do better manually (unless you want the mirror flipping down then up for the faster autofocus).

[Janke]

Also don't forget the 5x and 10x enlargement button - helps enormously in focusing exactly.

I have a lovely 1970s Fujinon 50 mm f 1.4 lens, and it's a breeze to focus at 10x!

[Ian-T]

Also don't forget the 5x and 10x enlargement button - helps enormously in focusing exactly.
Yes...that helps tremendously. I use it all of the time with my manual lenses.

[krewcial]

You don't need more than 3, max 4 lenses.

I just got my T2i today.
Inherited a Mamiya/Sekor 50mm 1.4 (from my granddad's Pentax days), found a Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm 2.8 online for $40 and just got a Vivitar 35mm 2.8 with UV filter for $20. That's more than enough to cover all grounds.

Only other lens I might image needing is a +200mm lens for when I shoot surfers from the beach.

For 99% of the people here a zoom lens will be all they ever use. And if you stick to prime lenses, more than 4 different ones is just silly.

[rhervag]

For 99% of the people here a zoom lens will be all they ever use. And if you stick to prime lenses, more than 4 different ones is just silly.

LOL why would you buy a DSLR for video then aside from easier dof control ?
the lens is the single most important factor into shaping light before it hits the sensor. it will transfer its character to the image recorded for better or worse.
each ones set different moods like hues on a painter's palette and can completely alter the look of a shot.
not taking advantage of that is a bit restrictive imho
the 4 matched prime sets ala 24 50 85 135 or 24 35 50 85 or 35 50 85 105 is fine for most narrative work but is going to be looking generic imagewise...
let's disagree on this one, there must be a reason why i'd carry 4 different 50s in my backpack these days...

[krewcial]

all I'm saying is that most of the people on THIS forum are used to using the stock lens on their HV series and barely use manual focus.

for the few that use the MFR from Irv or have used DOF adapters before it's a different story.

but let's be honest, most of the footage that is posted on this forum shows little knowledge of lenses or creativity imagewise.

[rhervag]

alright, i misinterpreted your writing.
having grownup watching my dad's collecting good glass and patiently taking landscapes and macro pictures outdoors has certainly biased my opinion about imagemaking.
it certainly influenced my own path towards video to follow his step but somehow enhance his vision with pictures that breathe...
we'll see how this forum evolves as more of us jump into the dslr bandwagon.
it sometimes feels awkward posting such camera footage and discussing specific workarounds here. i hope this community survives the shift in hardware from its members when so many are dropping their camcorders / adapters to fund new gear and relocate elsewhere to discuss their issues...

[AndreCallot]

Has anyone had experience using both the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and the Canon 35mm 2.0 lenses for video? I have a few questions:

Is the Sigma's f1.4 functional for video sync sound footage, or is the DOF too shallow for narrative uses?
Which one is sharper at f2?
Are the two lenses significantly different in terms of vignetting, contrast, or other factors?
Which lens has sturdier construction?

While the Canon lens has been around long enough that there are many older ones on ebay for around half the cost of the Sigma, the Sigma is harder to find used. Is it worth the extra $200 to get the Sigma, if I end up shooting dialogue close-ups at a f2 with the Sigma because the DOF is too shallow at 1.4?

[rhervag]

most common lenses (unless of great design) have their sweet spot about two clicks away from wide open.
so i would not mind shooting at f2-f2.8 on a f1.4 lens knowing it would perform better for contrast and sharpness and that would surely be easier to handle.
1.4 is quite shallow anyways so the slightest moves would throw part of your talent into the blur.
not that i would shoot close-ups with a 30 or 35mm lens either as that is prone to exaggerate facial features. even on a cropped sensor, that's a job better done with a 85-105-135 fullframe equiv imho
this allows to backoff a little and get comfortable shooting dialogue instead of being too intrusive.

[Kin Lau]

I have both, and the Sigma 30/1.4 is better all around except for vignetting and coverage - the EF 35/2 cover the full 35mm frame.

The Sigma has _much_ better build - the EF35/2 doesn't have a very good build at all.

I busted the AF on my EF35/2, so it's MF only now. Both are reasonably sharp.

BTW, focusing at 2m or 6ft, the 30/1.4 @ f1.4 has 23.3cm DOF, and the 35/2 @ f2 has 24.5cm, a difference of only 1cm.

[cornreaper]

I've started my lens acquisition process....the Canon Nifty-Fifty and I just picked up a SMC Tak 1:4/200 from a guy on Kijiji for $45 (which is about oh, $44.99 USD). I didn't realize just how solid these Takumars are....if I ever have an intruder, this lens will bring the pain. The Canon on the other hand feels like it will disintegrate if I blink too hard.

Now there was just one other thing I needed....oh right, A CAMERA.

[saint seiya]

i got my t2i today and shot this with my 28mm zuiko om lense, goddamn this lense is so clean and sharp , i love it.

http://vimeo.com/10471120

[Janke]

i got my t2i today and shot this with my 28mm zuiko om lense

Next, you need a steadicam... :hv20-smilie84:

[No Handle]

This thread has got a lot of good ideas for oddball lenses that look good. I think I found one that is oddball and kind of obscure, and I like it even though it only cost 25 bucks. It's a heavy lens, and searching on it brought me little. Anyone ever used this off-brand before?

Makinon MC Zoom 1:35 f=28-80mm

http://www.hv20.com/picture.php?albumid=80&pictureid=482

Anyway, half of this comment is just to revive this thread with all the lens ideas. I've had a pretty good experience with a random buy, and even though I can't tell my chromatic abberation from my barrel distortion, I'd definitely recommend it as a cheap gamble.

[HDJedi]

For the LBA's....not only are you looking at the future bodies..(5DMkIIIs, etc) but you're checking the latest rumors on lenses. Including the next gen 70-200L f2.8. ;)

[jet]

What a load of aragant nonsense saying most of the videos shown here show little knowledge of lenses or image creativity imagewise,true for some as some are first time users hoping for advise, BUT i have seen a far greater percent of lovely looking footage and films :hv20-smilie64:

[Hal Smith]

i discovered my porst 135mm f1.8 was a real babe magnet somehow ...

Are you saying size matters? ;-)

[Gillvane]

Are you saying size matters? ;-)

Hey baby. Come on over to my place and let me show you my big lens. Yea, that works every time.

[Janke]

So etchings are out-of-fashion nowadays? ;)

[rhervag]

here it is...
7749
its impressive 82mm front element looks like a giant eye.
it is quite tiring to handle but the resulting pictures make it an instant favourite for portrait work.
wide open it gives a very natural organic and slight diffusion effect that is awesome on young females. just the perfect skin softner but still enough sharpness to make beautiful crisp eyelashes. very hamilton-esque if that means anything...

[redfalcon]

So etchings are out-of-fashion nowadays? ;)

:hv20-smilie87:

[krewcial]

What a load of aragant nonsense saying most of the videos shown here show little knowledge of lenses or image creativity imagewise,true for some as some are first time users hoping for advise, BUT i have seen a far greater percent of lovely looking footage and films :hv20-smilie64:

ever visited the footage forum ? or checked the test footage in a DOF-related post ?

[jet]

ever visited the footage forum ? or checked the test footage in a DOF-related post ?


Daily

[krewcial]

Daily

Well, then either we're looking at different things or we have different standards.

[Ian-T]

I just picked up this Pentax 135mm f2.5 Takumar (PK mount). $50 + 14 shipping from Europe.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/data/46/Pentax_Takumar-M_135mm.jpg




I got it even after checkin the lens review HERE (http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Pentax-Takumar-135mm-F2.5-Bayonet-Lens.html). I love the sharp and contrast(y) images this lens produces. I didn’t know what to expect especially because of the mixed reviews but I have since learned something new from one of those reviews. There are two variants of this lens. One is made in Taiwan and the other in Japan. Turns out the original Japanese version of this lens is the better of the two. Some of the complaints about the Taiwanese version are soft images and lack of contrast especially due to flares etc. The lens does not say SMC or Super-Multi-Coated (which would be ideal)…but contrary to what some believe the lens is definitely coated….just not multi coated.

I lucked out and got the Japanese version (the Taiwanese version would say “Made in Taiwan” on it). So far, when shooting outdoors, I’ve had no problem with flare and my images are looking very sharp...especially when you hit f4 and above. F 2.5 goes a little soft but not crazy soft. The lens is long and weighty but not too heavy (especially in comparison to my Canon lens…18-55 AF...which feels light and cheap in comparison). The focus ring is huge. Some folks say it takes too long to focus…but I like the way it feels (very smooth) and don’t see a drastic difference from any other lens with a decent focus ring. It also has a built in shade which you can pull out when shooting (can come in very handy outdoors)

Takumar also has a highly regarded SMC 135mm F.3.5 that is supposed to be very good (multi coated etc. and sharp). I’ve read at least one reviewer state that he has both these lens and they are equal in performance….but this one is a bit faster. It’s great for portrait shots also.

[redfalcon]

Nice, Ian. :)

[jet]

Well, then either we're looking at different things or we have different standards.

you sound as good as Peter Spielberg,a lot but obviously not all of the films shown there are are far from bad imo but you could show how its meant to done,

[jet]

you sound as good as Peter Spielberg,a lot but obviously not all of the films shown there are are far from bad imo but you could show how its meant to done,

yes its stephen i was half asleep.

[No Handle]

"a lot but obviously not all of the films shown there are are far from bad imo but you could show how its meant to done"

I tend to agree with krewical on this one, he speaks his mind and won't sugar coat things. But this isn't really the thread for a meta discussion on the quality of footage posted in the footage section...

Back on topic.

I picked up my first Zeiss lens at a pawnshop about a month ago for 25 bucks, it has a Praktika B mount, and haven't got around to doing anything with it except for making a very sketchy mount so that it can attach to the t2i. I'm assuming it's a decent lens for the price, but, like I said, been too busy to test it.

CARL ZEISS JENA P 1:2.8 f=28mm MC

http://www.hv20.com/picture.php?albumid=80&pictureid=483

I had a K mount and an additional metal ring from who knows where. I glued the metal ring to the lens w/gorilla glue, then sandwiched a fitting piece of hard plastic between the k mount and the lens+ring to lessen the chance of shear, glued them together.

http://www.hv20.com/picture.php?albumid=80&pictureid=484

I'm pretty sure I should have measured or paid attention to focal distance when doing this because the only usable focus I can achieve is between 2 inches and 7 inches. I guess it will be alright for macro shots, wondering if I should try to remount and get a farther focus with it...

http://www.hv20.com/picture.php?albumid=80&pictureid=485

Anyone have any experience using one of these Jenas?

[Ian-T]

Update on post #60:
Well, I had a chance to play with this lens a bit more in the sunlight and it’s true what some say about it getting a bit washed out in direct light. I expected this based on reviews but I got the real picture when handling it for myself. But this effect is basically true for all lens …it’s just that multi-coated lens might hold the image together a little better. Despite that I’m glad I got this lens because it’s fast (not super fast), crisp and punchy.

@No Handle....I was looking at that lens a while back on Ebay. When you do get a chance let us know how it handles...<<< ok...I know.. that was corney.

[krewcial]

Anyone have any experience using one of these Jenas?

I have a Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm f/2.8. Perfectly happy with it. Don't have any footage to share yet, but for 25 bucks you got yourself a great lens. I paid twice as much for mine.

[No Handle]

I have a Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm f/2.8. Perfectly happy with it.


I'm curious to know what your range of focus on it is? Can you focus on a subject up to a foot away, two feet? I'm pretty sure I made an error when mounting it that limits the area I can get into focus (7 inches maximum)... did you make an adapter or purchase one?


Sorry for all the questions.

[Janke]

If you can't get infinity focus, the lens is too far away from the sensor.

An adapter needs to have a very precise thickness for correct focusing.

For instance, a M42 Pentax screw mount lens needs to seat only 1.5 mm (approx. 1/16") from the EOS mount, so that adapter must be very thin. A T-mount lens needs a thicker adapter, almost 3/8" thick. Other mounts need their own.

So just glueing some mounts together probably won't get what you need...

Some lenses (which were much closer to the film in the original camera) cannot be attached with a mechanical adapter only, but need a corrective lens (basically a weak tele-converter) in the adapter.

PS: Please note that "Carl Zeiss Jena" is the East German factory, that provided amateur-quality lenses for Prakticas and Exactas. It's not the same (nor is the quality) as the West German factory that makes the famous pro movie lenses...

[No Handle]

If you can't get infinity focus, the lens is too far away from the sensor.

An adapter needs to have a very precise thickness for correct focusing.


I suspected this was the problem, thanks for clarifying it, although you've just dashed my dreams of having a super awesome lens with the inconvenient info about East vs. West Zeiss lenses. :)

[rhervag]

PS: Please note that "Carl Zeiss Jena" is the East German factory, that provided amateur-quality lenses for Prakticas and Exactas. It's not the same (nor is the quality) as the West German factory that makes the famous pro movie lenses...

the DDR Carl Zeiss quality was not that amateurish quality for that time imho
try the flektogon 35mm f2.4 on fullframe before spreading such gross opinion upon newbies : it still rocks by today's standards.
there are tons of such gems from the eastern block and when the soviet took control of such facilities after WW2, they made copycats that are very interesting too.

[Janke]

I've used both east and west Zeiss glass myself, so it's no "gross opinion".

The fact is that there is a huge difference between, say, a Zeiss Jena Praktica or Exacta lens, if compared to "western" Zeiss lenses for the Arriflex, for instance.

My comment was to stress this difference. Sure, many of the Jena lenses are good (some even better than their Japanese counterparts), but they don't measure up to professional 35mm movie standards - which was my point.

[rhervag]

alright then i wouldn't worry much about that as the weak point is the 7D/T2i resolution binning responsible for the aliasing/moiré issues.
a sure fact is you do not need super high quality expensive glass for video. as barry green said "video is the great equalizer". everything goes really. a ten buck 3rd party lens can give good results smoother than canon own sharpest L glass on problematic background elements such as fences, grids and embroidery.
for instance while photographers were whinning about FD lenses being unusable for megapixel stills because of the adapter corrective optics, you'll find its sharp enough for videomode from f2.8 and makes a nice option at the common f4-f5.6 aperture. perfect with a follow focus.
i suggest to get a different set of lenses for video than what you'd use to take stills...

[krewcial]

did you make an adapter or purchase one?


I'd have to check the distance I can focus on, but as far as I remember, I have the full focus range with this lens.

Mine is a M42 lens, I bought 2 M42 to Canon EOS adapters on ebay (for $4), these work fine with all my M42 lenses.

[krewcial]

a sure fact is you do not need super high quality expensive glass for video.

Cosign, one of my favourite lenses is a scratched 55mm f/1.4 Mamiya Sekor. You can't see the scratches on the footage, the glass gives a great tint to all footage and it looks sharper, crisper and better than everything I used to shoot with my Handy35 + FD 50mm f/1.4.

For pictures it's a whole different story, I know people into photography who spend way more on their lenses than on their body. But for video you can get yourself a nice collection of lenses that will cover most applications for $200.

[Dr. Benway]

LBA.

It can destroy lives...

Rooster, have you considered this?

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_200-500_2_8_ex_dg_review_test_hands_on.htm

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551435-REG/Sigma_597101_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

Or, if you can find an adaptor, this might be tempting too:

http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/r_system/lenses/3808.html

[Dr. Benway]

For the LBA's....not only are you looking at the future bodies..(5DMkIIIs, etc) but you're checking the latest rumors on lenses. Including the next gen 70-200L f2.8. ;)

Martin reviews that here:

http://blog.martinbaileyphotography.com/2010/03/24/podcast-235-canon-ef-70-200f2-8l-is-ii-usm-review/

Looks great!

[redfalcon]

Well, the LBA has hit me again.

Bought a Super Takumar 50mm for $20. Really don't even need it, just WANTED IT!!!!

:hv20-smilie87:

I need help!