I know for a fact that some of you have some pretty exotic stuff out there. Just for fun ... What's the most "exotic" lens (or camera) that you own? Pictures welcome, too !
Your most "exotic" lens ?
- Thread starter JumboShrimp
- Start date
seeing i'm the first to reply...and before people start throwing huge white canons around.. 
)
my most exotic would be a sigma 70-210 f/2.8 modified to work with the newer digital bodies (70D)
the focus is not the fastest and it's not as sharp wide open as a 70-200 from canon but in good light with a fast enough shutter it gives good results
second one would be also a sigma: 400mm 5.6 (no APO/HSM, also modified for new digital bodies). again, not the fastest or the sharpest but in the right conditions i believe it would give good results (didn't get to try it in proper lighting yet)
maybe it's worth mentioning that both these lenses were around 150 euros each)
)my most exotic would be a sigma 70-210 f/2.8 modified to work with the newer digital bodies (70D)
the focus is not the fastest and it's not as sharp wide open as a 70-200 from canon but in good light with a fast enough shutter it gives good results
second one would be also a sigma: 400mm 5.6 (no APO/HSM, also modified for new digital bodies). again, not the fastest or the sharpest but in the right conditions i believe it would give good results (didn't get to try it in proper lighting yet)
maybe it's worth mentioning that both these lenses were around 150 euros each
)
Upvote
0
andrei1989 said:seeing i'm the first to reply...and before people start throwing huge white canons around..
Haha, same here. I'm too cheap to have anything too expensive (and therefore truly exotic).
From a big lens standpoint I got the Tamron 150-600.
From a nicer, more high end lens viewpoint I got a Sigma 35mm Art and a Canon 135mm f/2L.
So nothing too ridiculous or crazy.
Upvote
0
Depending on what the criteria for exotic is, the answer may differ as expensive and exotic are necessarily synonymous. As far as exotic goes, it would either have to be a Contax N Zeiss 50/1.4 modded by conurus (tied to metabones) to EF mount retaining AF on Canon bodies, or my Zenitar ME-1 in m42 screw mount which is a 50/1.7 with a two-bladed aperture as they are both odd and/or not very common. Most expensive would be a big white (200/2), but I'm certain there are plenty of those roaming around so I wouldn't necessarily consider it as exotic as the two others mentioned above.
Upvote
0
Right now I am in the middle of assessing a Kilfitt (Zoomar) 250mm F/1.3 lens circa 1970. The lens is very much a restoration project. I have managed to adapt this lens to the Canon EF mount and taken a few photos with it. This particular serial number did not have an adjustable aperture (as far as I can tell) - it is just a wide open f/1.3. Initial testing is showing a large amount of chromatic aberration and coma suggesting that it may have been disassembled and reassembled incorrectly in the past. Go ahead and Google this lens and you'll find almost nothing about it. It is a very rare lens, the highest serial number I have seen is 0009!
Attachments
Upvote
0
Hummm. Does an EOS 10D qualify for being exotic these days ?JumboShrimp said:
For lenses, there areou only two of my lenses that are even near-exotic: TS-E 90mm and 300/2.8(II).
Upvote
0
An original ef 50mm f1.8 metal mount, with the first year of EOS date stamp. It came supplied with my Dad's EOS 650. My 400mm f2.8 LIS...is still pretty exotic to most, maybe my TSe 17L or my 8-15L fisheye. All exotic for their rarity and capability.
Upvote
0
Zawodny wins by a mile!
My "exotic" is a Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 1:1 macro, Canon EF mount. Not old, not very rare. My really old lenses are M42, AIS Nikkor, and FD mount lenses, the Nikkors and FD mount lenses given / abandoned to me. I am pretty sure that the Canon AE1's nifty 50 is one with trace radioactivity (these often have strong yellowing, clearable with exposure to UV light). The few FD lenses are useless to me, since I don't shoot mirrorless. I have some moderately uncommon Mamiya-Sekor brand M42 mount lenses. (Mamiya eventually dropped 35mm to concentrate on its MF line, and Sekor concentrated on light meters (Sekonic, still in business).
My "exotic" is a Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 1:1 macro, Canon EF mount. Not old, not very rare. My really old lenses are M42, AIS Nikkor, and FD mount lenses, the Nikkors and FD mount lenses given / abandoned to me. I am pretty sure that the Canon AE1's nifty 50 is one with trace radioactivity (these often have strong yellowing, clearable with exposure to UV light). The few FD lenses are useless to me, since I don't shoot mirrorless. I have some moderately uncommon Mamiya-Sekor brand M42 mount lenses. (Mamiya eventually dropped 35mm to concentrate on its MF line, and Sekor concentrated on light meters (Sekonic, still in business).
Upvote
0
NancyP said:
You could just pick up an old FD mount body for cheap money and have some fun with your FD lenses... of course then you would have to use film. We don't need to cover the pros and cons of film here, that debate rages in other forums.
Upvote
0
NancyP said:
Five or so years ago when I was shooting Nikon, I was offered an F-mount version of the Voigtlander 125mm 2.5 APO for not much more than $1000 from memory. Boy, do I regret not going through with that one - they're a very special lens.
d.
Upvote
0
It's not very exciting compared to others, but I guess the MP-E. I have a big white, but it can still take regular pictures, whereas the MP-E can *only* do 1:1 up to 5:1 macro. I've owned loads of random old lenses, many from the film era, but they were mostly what was common and cheap back then. I had a Canon 28-80mm lens from the early 90s which doesn't seem all that common, and still have a ~25 year old EF 35-70mm zoom with a metal mount otherwise.
Upvote
0
JMZawodny
Your third picture clearly shows an aperture ring. It could be jammed, but it was designed to go to f32.
Your third picture clearly shows an aperture ring. It could be jammed, but it was designed to go to f32.
Upvote
0
Mine would be the Macrophoto Lens FD 35mm f2.8, it was the precursor to the MP-E65 as with the bellows it has a magnification ratio of 1.96X-5.84X. I used to use it for small product photography, principally close ups of watch faces.
Here is a link: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdmacro/2035macro.htm
Here is a link: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdmacro/2035macro.htm
Attachments
Upvote
0
I don't think any of mine are 'exotic' but some have unique attribites among Canon's current lens lineup...
- Physically longest 'in use' lens (600/4L IS II with hood)
- Largest physical aperture diameter (600/4L IS II)
- Physically shortest lens (tie between 40/2.8 and M22/2)
- Highest native magnification (MP-E 65mm)
- Widest tilt-shift lens (TS-E 17L)
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:I don't think any of mine are 'exotic' but some have unique attribites among Canon's current lens lineup...
- Physically longest 'in use' lens (600/4L IS II with hood)
- Largest physical aperture diameter (600/4L IS II)
- Physically shortest lens (tie between 40/2.8 and M22/2)
- Highest native magnification (MP-E 65mm)
- Widest tilt-shift lens (TS-E 17L)
The exotic part is how diversified your collecting is 8)
Upvote
0
Lens: Zeiss F-Distagon 16 mm C/Y with Haoda adapter for Canon-EOS. It is a full-frame/rectangular fisheye (180 degree diagonal), made in Germany. Auto-exposure does not work with those lenses, aperture has to be pre-set, so it is setting to M, shoot one, then adjust. I bought it new for my old Contax RTSIII. Not a frequently used lens, but is fun on occasions. Zeiss does not offer it at present in the modern mounts/versions.
Exotic camera is a Zeiss Axiocam HRc. It is a microscope camera with peltier cooled sensor, but only a measly 13 MP. Still more than enough for taking microscope images.
http://www.zeiss.com/microscopy/en_us/products/microscope-cameras/axiocam-hr-.html#introduction
Not too many of those around, and particularly not owned by private persons.
Exotic camera is a Zeiss Axiocam HRc. It is a microscope camera with peltier cooled sensor, but only a measly 13 MP. Still more than enough for taking microscope images.
http://www.zeiss.com/microscopy/en_us/products/microscope-cameras/axiocam-hr-.html#introduction
Not too many of those around, and particularly not owned by private persons.
Upvote
0
Zeidora said:
I had 6 of them in my prior lab, along with a couple HRm cameras for fluorescence and some of the little ICc cubes for simple documentation. But definitely not personally owned, nor the Zeiss scopes to which they were attached.
However, I do have a Zeiss Stemi DV4 8-32x stereomicrocsope at home (picks up where the MP-E 65 leaves off), and with the 2.5x eyepiece adapter I can mount my 1D X on it for a 20-80x zoom lens – and I guess that qualifies as an exotic lens!
Upvote
0
