February 28, 2015, 08:07:37 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ugly_bokeh

Pages: [1]
Lenses / Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« on: November 10, 2013, 04:25:42 PM »
It looks like an 82mm B+W XS-PRO filter runs just shy of $120.  With the original filter in pieces, a replacement would be needed, so I'm wondering...

How would the cost of replacing a front element compare to buying two of these 82mm filters?  (Anyone know what a front element would cost?)  Is it a wash?

Considering it a bit further...if the lens needs service for bent filter threads and/or misaligned groups (to put it back in perfect working order), what would that cost, and how would (case A) the cost of two filters plus service compare to (case B) service that included the replacement of the front element?

To date, I am happy to say I have no experience with such things.  (Dropped filters, hoods, and caps are another story altogether....)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Takumars, Anyone?
« on: October 22, 2013, 10:24:25 AM »
my interest is peaking with this talk of vintage glass and i am wondering if any of you can provide advice on the brand of adapters you are using to convert these lenses to the Eos system.

i have looked at fotodiox and they appear to be quality products but they dont seem to include AF confirmation. so far it seems like most of the adapters i see with AF confirmation are coming from China (i just dont trust ordering a product from China so i'd like to stay in the US or europe)

another question i have is that its appears there are no issues with mirror clipping on APS cameras but i will be wanting to use this on the 5D series cameras so do all the adapters run the same risk of mirror clipping or do some prevent this better than others. or is it simply a crap shoot as it seems (from what i have read) that there are variances from body to body in mirror clearance.

final question, is it better to get an adapter without glass in it and deal with potential mirror clipping or does an adapter like the fotodiox have quality enough glass in it that IQ of the original lens will be preserved?

appreciate any insight and direct experiences any of you might have concerning above questions.

The Fotodiox adapters have treated me well and I have their Nikon F->EF, C/Y->EF, and M42->EF.  People seem to think they are made in the U.S., but I don't know that to be true.  (I doubt it, actually.)

Generally, I steer clear of the super-cheap versions (I have a few M42->EF that aren't Fotodiox), but others have obviously not hesitated.

So far, I have not used an adapter with an element.  The consensus seems to be that you are better off avoiding that option, but it probably depends on how you plan to use the lens(es).  If you are after characterstics not related to optimum sharpness, I would definitely try one.  (I probably will try one, eventually, but there are so many adapter/lens combinations to consider without folding in such...elements.)

At some point, I stumbled on the 5D compatibility list of M42 lenses below and it has come in quite handy.

Canon General / Re: Benefits of a mirrorless FF?
« on: October 21, 2013, 12:28:41 PM »
One of the most appealing aspects of the full-frame mirrorless (as far as I have read, anyhow) is that you can essentially use any manual full-frame lens ever produced, SLR or rangefinder, via adapter... 

This seems like the classic example of "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should."

Are there really that many people out there clamoring to use old FD mount lenses, especially with a modern full frame sensor that will emphasize every flaw in those old lenses?

Is there a really a mass market for manual focus lenses? After using manual focus lenses for decades, I can guarantee you I have no nostalgia for manual lenses. 

And what incentive would Canon have to produce a body that gives new life to the secondary market of used FD lenses?

Sorry if my comment sounded like I was talking about the market in general.  I meant that this is an appealing aspect of full-frame mirrorless to me.

After using them for decades, I don't mind manual focus lenses (I even prefer them, at times), and I hope there isn't a mass market for the old stuff.  In fact, I wish people were less interested in it...especially C/Y Zeiss.

I don't think I ever used any FD lenses.  M42 on the other hand....

Canon General / Re: Benefits of a mirrorless FF?
« on: October 21, 2013, 10:58:29 AM »
I'm just wondering as to what exactly are the benefits of a mirrorless FF?

One of the most appealing aspects of the full-frame mirrorless (as far as I have read, anyhow) is that you can essentially use any manual full-frame lens ever produced, SLR or rangefinder, via adapter.  (Admittedly, you can do this on APS-C as well, but now your hyperfocal marks would all be accurate!)

There won't be any mirror clearance issues with the SLR lenses (like there can be when using such lenses on a DSLR), and there shouldn't be any problems with the various pins, levers, etc., protruding from the backs of those old lenses (due the greater flange distance).

With an EVF, you'd be seeing true DOF without having to swap a focus screen and/or work in Liveview.

Also, these lenses wouldn't suffer from the recently-discussed vignetting/sensor proximity issue that might be a problem for wide or ultra-wide native-mount lenses.

To be sure, a lot of old lenses aren't worth mounting, and others might have problems with color shift and such, but even so....

As a bonus, you could still use all your EF lenses...with EXIF data, aperture control, and autofocus.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Takumars, Anyone?
« on: October 10, 2013, 12:31:21 PM »
The Helios produces the most unique bokeh of any lens I have used and is also very sharp wide open.  It is also quite versatile, because stopped down it has less "character" and just becomes a sharp prime.  Color rendering has a Zeiss quality.  Considering I got mine for $25 shipped from Russia, it is also an amazing value.  It is an awesome portrait lens.

I was asking myself why the Helios 44-2 was your favorite, so I tried getting more information.
I saw some photos with magnificent vortex-like bokeh and can barely believe a f/2 lens can produce it.

If you like the look of the Helios lenses, you might also like the Carl Zeiss Biotars.  I think there is something of a chicken vs the egg debate about the Helios and the Biotar (what I have read makes me think that the Zeiss came first), but they are definitely related and have similar looks.

My apologies to the OP for prolonging the Helios sidebar....

Some time ago, I've been told by an alleged pro photog that real photogs don't crop, or at least only do minor angle correction. I am wondering if this is true, or it is an old-school fairy tale from the analog age that falls into the category "real photogs don't use auto iso and only shoot in full m".

...the alleged pro photog I'm ranting about in this thread told me not only that real photogs never crop, but also that of course he never needs to do it.

I wonder how he handles alternative aspect ratios...maybe he just re-sizes to fit?  That could be interesting....

Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 22, 2013, 05:34:06 PM »
Thats what im reading too. But what has me leaning towards the Canon is of course the "Canon" name.. Sometimes 3rd party lens scare me for the future. You know Canon is stingy with their technology. so im not sure if a 3rd party lens will become obsolete 2 camera bodies from now. The only way i would jump in on a 3rd party is if it was that much better!! but from what im reading it neck and neck and to me the future wins out all the time. im just looking with real world advise from someone who actually shot both lens and can give me a honest critique on both.

If you are worried about obsolescence from the standpoint of body compatibility, I think the firmware for that Sigma lens can be updated, which hopefully prevents such an issue.

In addition to the article above, Roger Cicala at Lensrentals has written (at least) a couple other relevant pieces regarding 35mm lenses specifically.

When I was shopping for a 35mm lens (shortly before the article at that third link was published), I went with the f/2 Zeiss and have no regrets.  Since that time, though, the f/1.4 Zeiss was released and so was the f/1.4 Sigma.  Buying right now, the decision would definitely be more difficult....

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Hand strap recommendation
« on: March 24, 2012, 01:25:42 PM »
I've been happy with the Hakuba hand strap, but I can't say how it compares to Canon's or any of the others already mentioned, as I liked it enough from the start to forego additional shopping.

(Unlike some other straps, it allows for attachment without a grip, though I have not used it this way and can see how it might be less than convenient.)

I have been using two of these on a gripped body for a few years and vastly prefer the hand straps to a neck strap (especially the Canon neck strap, advertising brand and model). They keep the camera in my hand and I am quite comfortable carrying it for long periods of time.  Admittedly, I seldom use any lens over 135mm....

Pages: [1]