Jump to content

Minolta and Revuenon


Aldowski
 Share

Recommended Posts

Few days ago, I bought  Minolta MD W.ROKKOR 28mm 2.8 (version with 49mm thread) and Revuenon AUTO REVUENON MC 50mm 1.7 (thread 49mm).

I would not compare it to modern lenses now. During few days, I was able to see (late afternoon; sunset time, and middle of the day), some great capabilities of those. At low(er) light, results are still good, details are visible clearly. Of course, at "full" daylight; sunny day; all looks very clear, sharp, detailed,

Minolta's minimum focus distance is ~1feet.

Revuenon photos are with nicely defined details as well. Took photos of autumn leaves (using both lenses, and Canon FD 50mm 1.8), rosehips at forest, great colors and details.

Both lenses are well built, strong, got them in very good shape. 

At gallery here I put just few photos taken by Revuenon, with A7II (photos created just for testing lenses). The only thing required prior to start shooting is to set Steadyshot to proper numbers at Sony camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bought the Helios 44M 2 58, very good shape, took it to forest late afternoon.

As expected, photos are sharp, detailed, colors well defined (did not play a lot with aperture, used just F4); bokeh nice.

Heavy lens, just metal and glass. Made around 100 photos,

Just put 2 photos to gallery here (lens with adapter on Sony A7II).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh oh, Your LBA (Lens Buying Addiction) is in full bloom now.😀  Gee, I thought I was bad but I don't believe I ever bought 2 or 3 lenses all at once.  How many 50mm-ish (40-60mm) lenses do you have?  Is there a particular reason why most of your recent acquisitions are in the normal focal length range?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, I put 4 photos to gallery here, using Helios 44M. New ones, I went outside, very nice weather, sunny, inviting.

Made a bit more than 100 photos total, saw the strengths of the Helios 44M (with power of Biotar optics math inside). Using Graduated ND 8, sometimes incredibly helpful, to avoid vertical light balance issues (yes, I know that many are against the GND use). F4, F5.6, F8 used.

Yes, lenses might be similar or same FL, but the character, nature of those, it's different. I got same question few times recently, why to buy other ones, if already have the native, Sony, AF, FE 50mm 1.8?

The Minolta 28mm 2.8 one is different, it is reasonably fast, angle of view visible to the sensor is good, as related to it's FL. 

And, the 44M is providing some difference (when compared to Canon FD 50mm 1.8 or Revuenon mentioned here). Adding some vividness, photos are nicely detailed as well. It's telling image stories different, own way.

Of course, not saying any of those lenses is the best one ever, greatest of all time, or so. It's just good to make photos with them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tadwil said:

I don't believe I ever bought 2 or 3 lenses all at once.  How many 50mm-ish (40-60mm) lenses do you have?  Is there a particular reason why most of your recent acquisitions are in the normal focal length range?

One reason I have several lenses of the same focal length is SPEED.  For example, I have a great Rokkor-X 28mm f2.0 -- which is large and heavy, but FAST for low-light situations, and a Rokkor-X 28mm f2.8 which is half the size and weight for normal situations -- and considering it only cost me $20, it was an offer I couldn't refuse.

Maybe you should check out a camera Swap Meet some day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2021 at 4:35 AM, XKAES said:

One reason I have several lenses of the same focal length is SPEED.  For example, I have a great Rokkor-X 28mm f2.0 -- which is large and heavy, but FAST for low-light situations, and a Rokkor-X 28mm f2.8 which is half the size and weight for normal situations -- and considering it only cost me $20, it was an offer I couldn't refuse.

Maybe you should check out a camera Swap Meet some day.

 No thank you, I already have a sizable collection of lenses and I certainly do not need anymore.   Mostly PK/A, PK/M, a few M42 and a fair number of Tamron Adaptall-2 and Adaptall-2 SP lenses.  As you can imagine, my LBA was quite severe and though I think I have a bit more self-control now but I still drool over (covet) some vintage MF lenses.  The Powers-That-Be would get real upset if she sees another lens coming through the mail, so the drooling continues...😀

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tokina AF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.6 Macro, saw it yesterday when buying some stuff in tech shop; checked visually, rings, optics, bought it. It's Nikon mount and I already had one (this one not in use yet) adapter to the E-mount.

Already tested it on the A3000; of course, as the A3000 is not having IBIS, and the lens widest aperture is not optimal for some low light, I made few photos with bigger ISO numbers and shutter speed higher than 1/100. I'll try it soon at the A7II as well. So far, details and colors are looking nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • I mostly see posterization artifacts, which are the result of lossy compressed RAW files (or bad jpeg conversion). Unfortunately, the A6400 doesn't offer uncompressed or lossless compressed RAW. The noise might indeed result from the smaller sensor than what you're used to. If you're not shooting at max aperture, you could try shooting at wider aperture and lower ISO. When you're not shooting at max aperture, fullframe versus APS-C shouldn't matter much in terms of ISO-performance combined with depth of field: at the same ISO and aperture value, fullframe offers better noise performance but with a narrower depth of field. This can be offset by choosing a larger aperture and lower ISO on the APS-C camera. If you want a fullframe camera the size of an A6400, try the A7C(ii).
    • ..unfortunately, the lighting was correct. The shot required deeper shadows. The K1 ff didnt have these banding issues [yes, I know the sensor is larger]. The film shots had details in the same light. The sony files, both the jpg and raw, had this banding/noise - with NO retouch or post adjustments [straight out of the camera]. the camera was purchased new a few years ago and I am trying to determine if there is something wrong, or the settings are wrong, or the camera just cant handle this kind of lighting [studio + softbox]. No shadow detail is one thing... banding/noise in the shadows is unacceptable. Does sony have a body this size that is FF ? Im wondering if that would make a difference..  dw
    • The root causes for banding are uneven lighting, incorrect exposure settings, or compression artefacts or certain kinds of artificial lighting, especially LED lights. Also the lens used plays a role, I have noticed it more with my sharpest lenses, looks like they outresolve the sensor when I have a uniform blue sky. There is more than one solution, and ultimately post-processing, but the root cause has to be identified first.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...