Jump to content

nomad

Members
  • Content Count

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by nomad

  1. I assume it's not a Contax bayonet, but a Contarex, like this one I found on Ebay. I'm not sure it's worth it, it's pretty expensive. An adapter for the widespread M39 screw mount version of the Jupiter 9 would be far cheaper. Many other Soviet lenses came in M39 or M42, sometimes even with an adapter ring between the two.
  2. While this is a beautiful lens, it's definitely not the sharpest 85mm, at least not wide open. The smaller, lighter and cheaper 85mm f2 by Minolta is much sharper.
  3. I like that lens a lot too for hiking. smaller and lighter than the 135mm f2.8, but still plenty sharp. But you didn't seem to notice that it has an integrated sunshield: just pull at the outer metal tube in front of the focus ring.
  4. I had the Contax-G specific Techart adapter together with the 45 and 90mm. It's quite precise under good light, but is noisy and slow compared to any native lens and fails under low light. Don't get me wrong, it's a impressive feat to adapt this to a camera of today, but the focusing mechanism is a few decades old. Even being a Zeiss Contax fan, sold the whole lot and went for native lenses. They are so fast and quiet, I didn't regret it at all.
  5. You got me excited about Affinity for the iPad, didn‘t even know about it. Fore transfer I‘ll try my WD Passport Wireless, which is my backup device in the field and can connect to the iPad. Will keep you posted!
  6. Depends on your style. For me, normal to mild tele is not so bad. Some versions offer macro too.
  7. The 35-70 mm by Minolta I mentioned has an impressive construction to keep the aperture constant: it tracks the zoom mechanically and slightly opens the aperture when zooming in. Impressive, and still smooth after 40 years. Will any electronic solution last that long?
  8. Apart from some rare Kodak arial lenses, which you should not store under your bed, none of the old radioactive lenses are a threat to your health. Their radiation is not even passing your skin, you'd need to grind and inhale or eat them to be at any risk. And, believe me, I'm very concerned about radiation, I checked my food with a Geiger counter after Chernobyl melted down and I'm very concerned about eating fish or seaweed now, when I'm in the far east or US west coast. But if you want to avoid them completely, go for the razor sharp Minolta Rokkor PG 50mm f1.4 (a tad more pricey) or the older 55mm f1.7 with beautiful bokeh, which can be found really cheap. Another option would be the 35-70mm zoom, which is slower, but as good as a prime and very versatile on a crop sensor, going from normal via portrait to mild tele.
  9. There's a fundamental difference between rangefinder wide lenses and retrofocus wides. The latter were designed to allow space for the mirror in SLRs, while rangefinder lenses get very close to the film (or sensor). Most of these have problems in the corners on digital sensors if their focal length is 28mm or less, like Zeiss Contax G series. Of course, being FF, the problem doesn't show on APS-C (maybe with very wide ones). A retrofocus wide like my Contax C/Y 18mm works very well, the legendary, but very expensive 21mm too.
  10. You need to tell the camera in the menu that you want to shoot "without" lens. But you'll be disappointed with an adapter with glass inside (if it's not a SpeedBooster by Metabones).
  11. Adobe is taking your work hostage, that's so annoying. I don't bother when a subscription model doesn't give me new features if I stop paying, that's only fair. But I hate a model where I can't open my old projects any more if I stop paying!
  12. I consider this a very nice lens on my A7R II. Very useful for filming too with constant aperture and parfocality.
  13. Relax and get a VPN service, most of them offer a free trial period. That way you can log in as if coming from another place (and that's why they have been cancelled by censors in China for Apple's store).
  14. IMHO it definitely helps to start with anything that can capture an image! Photography is first of all about the picture, not the technology. Even an iPhone is quite sophisticated compared to the cameras of early masters of photography. One should get an app that allows better adjustment of exposure instead of the standard app, but that's all. I use ProCamera and still enjoy photography with it, even if I own a Sony A7R and lots of vintage lenses. Photography with such a phone can be quite challenging, more than a camera with exchangeable lenses, since it's very wide. Image composition with such a wide angle and depth of field is difficult, but you can make great photos with it. Later, with the DSLR, you can learn about manual exposure, manual focus and the different characteristics of lenses.
  15. My MC PG 50mm f1.4 is sharp as a razor, but the bokeh is a bit busy. The 55mm f1.7 is a tad softer, but has the better bokeh. It's nice to have both, and the 55 should be cheap.
  16. I second that lens. There is an M42 version (Pentax Super Takumar) of that lens too. Might be easier to find and easily adaptable as well.
  17. In my experience that only happens with wide lenses made for viewfinder cameras, like e.g. the Biogons. Lenses made for SLRs with their long flange distance are fine on the A7.
  18. Ah, yes, forgot to mention the Olympus wides. Very small and light and excellent glass too!
  19. I can wholeheartedly recommend the Minolta MC W.Rokkor 28mm f2 or it's slower and cheaper counterpart in f2.8. If you want to go wider, there is a 24mm and even a 21mm for the classic SR mount by Minolta. Another fantastic line of lenses (but a bit more expensive) are Zeiss Contax C/Y lenses, there is both a 28mm f2 (nicknamed Hollywood for good reason) and the far cheaper 2.8. But their 25mm is not that great and the excellent 21mm too pricey.
  20. That's the one I have for Zeiss Contax C/Y. No complaints.
  21. My Minolta 500 f8 is a fine lens, but only really useable for very long distances up to the moon. OTOH, my 250 f5.6 is a very handy lens, not much bigger than an ordinary 50mm, but I hardly get my hands on it any more since my wife loves it's very special bokeh so much. Well, she's a graphics designer…
  22. Most of the cheaper adapters will have more play and some don't really match the correct flange distance. So, your distance marks may be off and parfocal zooms won't stay parfocal. The worst thing to happen is a tiny angle between the front and back surface which will make your picture less sharp on one side. These points get worse with shorter focal lengths. There is a reason why some folks still buy the top-of-the-line ones. That said, after dumping a few bad ones, I'm quite happy with my cheapo adapters.
  23. It seems K&F are just a bit careful regarding tolerances. The newer metal mounts of the Mark II series are a tighter than the early E-mounts which were half plastic. Nevertheless I use a K&F Contax C/Y adapter on my A7R II without any problems. I would be surprised if the ones for Minolta don't fit. All the cheap Chinese adapters have higher tolerances than expensive Novoflex or MTF Services (from Britain). But you can buy a few of them and trash the ones that don't fit and still save lots of money. Among the better ones are K&F, Kiwi, Fotga and Fotodiox.
  24. Isn't that Minolta PF Rokkor a 55mm f1.7 ? Or are there two versions?
×
×
  • Create New...