The M Club!

bbluesman · 03-21-2010, 11:28 PM

M 50 1.7

Marc Sabatella · 03-22-2010, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by abortabort

Anyone know what would cause this?

The world's lowest quality filter?

No idea what's going on here, but obviously, that's not normal.

keyser · 03-22-2010, 02:18 PM

The 100MM pics show quite high chromatic and circular aberations (sp?). My guess, other than a really bad filter, is one of the lens elements has become dislodged. Perhaps one of the elements is supposed to be cemented together and there is now a glass/air transition.

You might want to post that in the lens forum if you haven't already. I presume that stopping the lens down will remove a proportion of the effect?

tokyoso · 03-22-2010, 08:42 PM

Tammy 70-300 viewed thru the M50

tokyoso · 03-23-2010, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by abortabort

Anyone know what would cause this?

Depth-of-field adapter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just kidding

krb · 03-25-2010, 05:19 PM

Both shot on Kodak bw400cn film

SMC-M 50/1.7 @ f/1.7

SMC-M 28-50/3.5-4.5 @ f/16

yeatzee · 03-25-2010, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by bbluesman

M 50 1.7

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/4451919349_28e637c9b5_b.jpg

What aperture?

edit: and to add to the thread....

M 85mm at F/2 or F/2.8

Last edited by yeatzee; 03-25-2010 at 08:46 PM.

basso4735 · 03-25-2010, 09:03 PM

50 M 1.7 @ f16(I think) through a dirty window

kiwao · 03-25-2010, 09:35 PM

More from the 135mm. My daughter doing the Japanese thing, annoyingly, and some cropped images from my visit to the beach.

yeatzee · 03-26-2010, 10:30 PM

M 85mm @ F/2....

A fairly old *snapshot* when hanging out with friends....

Recercare · 03-27-2010, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by yeatzee

M 85mm @ F/2....

A fairly old *snapshot* when hanging out with friends....

Excellent. The 85mm F2 is great for portraits like this, much better than the DA 70mm F2.4 Ltd.

Kind regards
.lars

jsherman999 · 03-27-2010, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by yeatzee

M 85mm @ F/2....

...

A fairly old *snapshot* when hanging out with friends....

.

Be careful, Yeatz. If you start taking glowing, perfect portraits of pretty girls like that, she'll show her friends and then pretty soon you'll have a whole bunch of girls hanging out at your house trying to get you to take pictures of them.

It's going to suck. Just warning you.

jsherman999 · 03-27-2010, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by krb

Both shot on Kodak bw400cn film

SMC-M 50/1.7 @ f/1.7
...
SMC-M 28-50/3.5-4.5 @ f/16
...

Originally posted by basso4735

50 M 1.7 @ f16(I think) through a dirty window

...

Nice shots, guys, welcome!

Originally posted by kiwao

More from the 135mm. My daughter doing the Japanese thing, annoyingly, and some cropped images from my visit to the beach.

This are all great, the one above especially - 135 3.5 needs more shooters, IMO.

(BTW, what do you mean by "doing the Japanese thing"? That pose? Interesting...)

.

yeatzee · 03-27-2010, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Recercare

Excellent. The 85mm F2 is great for portraits like this, much better than the DA 70mm F2.4 Ltd.

Kind regards
.lars

I love this lens for portraits, especially up close and personal portraits. This lens is shot at or near its MFD constantly.

Better than the DA 70mm? Well I wouldn't know but im sure thats a great lens also

Originally posted by jsherman999

.

Be careful, Yeatz. If you start taking glowing, perfect portraits of pretty girls like that, she'll show her friends and then pretty soon you'll have a whole bunch of girls hanging out at your house trying to get you to take pictures of them.

It's going to suck. Just warning you.

Oh well, I need not worry because its not glowing nor perfect

She actually hates my pictures of her

BUT I can't say I'd mind having a bunch of girls hanging out here

I'd be fine with taking a couple of pictures also

Marc Sabatella · 03-27-2010, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

135 3.5 needs more shooters, IMO.

The odd thing is that aside from the 50's, it's usually about the cheapest "M" lens you can get, and about the easiest to find, too (these facts are of course related). Between that, the useful focal length, it's IQ, amazingly small size, built in hood, and enough magnification and a nice focus ring that should allow almost anyone to successfully focus it manually, it should really be in a lot of bags.

I know I talk every so often about wanting the M120/2.8, but really, it's probably more often that I'd prefer the extra reach of the 135 over the extra width (and half stop of aperture) of the 120. If price and availability were the same, maybe I'd feel differently. But as it is, I can never bring myself to pull the trigger on the 120. Meanwhile, my 135 keeps coming with with me and giving me shots like these:

03-21-2010, 11:28 PM	#1426
bbluesman Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,615	On Your Mark.. M 50 1.7

03-25-2010, 09:35 PM	#1434
kiwao Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: tokyo Posts: 83	135mm f3.5 More from the 135mm. My daughter doing the Japanese thing, annoyingly, and some cropped images from my visit to the beach.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The F Club!	jsherman999	Lens Clubs	1237	5 Days Ago 04:04 PM
D-FA WR Club	Rico	Lens Clubs	671	03-10-2024 03:17 AM
The A Club	jake.astig	Lens Clubs	3996	02-15-2024 11:51 AM
Ltd club, here I come	axl	Lens Clubs	21	12-12-2010 03:06 AM
In the club again	metroeloise	Post Your Photos!	4	10-20-2008 08:59 AM

03-22-2010, 10:45 AM	#1427
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by abortabort Anyone know what would cause this? The world's lowest quality filter? No idea what's going on here, but obviously, that's not normal.

03-22-2010, 02:18 PM	#1428
keyser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tsawwassen, BC Posts: 376	The 100MM pics show quite high chromatic and circular aberations (sp?). My guess, other than a really bad filter, is one of the lens elements has become dislodged. Perhaps one of the elements is supposed to be cemented together and there is now a glass/air transition. You might want to post that in the lens forum if you haven't already. I presume that stopping the lens down will remove a proportion of the effect?

03-22-2010, 08:42 PM	#1429
tokyoso Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tokyo Photos: Albums Posts: 723	Tammy 70-300 viewed thru the M50

03-23-2010, 06:11 AM	#1430
tokyoso Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tokyo Photos: Albums Posts: 723	Originally posted by abortabort Anyone know what would cause this? Depth-of-field adapter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia just kidding

03-25-2010, 05:19 PM	#1431
krb Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: N. Virginia Posts: 29	Both shot on Kodak bw400cn film SMC-M 50/1.7 @ f/1.7 SMC-M 28-50/3.5-4.5 @ f/16

03-25-2010, 08:36 PM	#1432
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by bbluesman M 50 1.7 http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/4451919349_28e637c9b5_b.jpg What aperture? edit: and to add to the thread.... M 85mm at F/2 or F/2.8 Last edited by yeatzee; 03-25-2010 at 08:46 PM.

03-25-2010, 09:03 PM	#1433
basso4735 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: MA Posts: 133	50 M 1.7 @ f16(I think) through a dirty window

03-26-2010, 10:30 PM	#1435
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	M 85mm @ F/2.... A fairly old snapshot when hanging out with friends....

03-27-2010, 03:29 AM	#1436
Recercare Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 359	Originally posted by yeatzee M 85mm @ F/2.... A fairly old snapshot when hanging out with friends.... Excellent. The 85mm F2 is great for portraits like this, much better than the DA 70mm F2.4 Ltd. Kind regards .lars

03-27-2010, 07:23 AM	#1437
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	Originally posted by yeatzee M 85mm @ F/2.... ... A fairly old snapshot when hanging out with friends.... . Be careful, Yeatz. If you start taking glowing, perfect portraits of pretty girls like that, she'll show her friends and then pretty soon you'll have a whole bunch of girls hanging out at your house trying to get you to take pictures of them. It's going to suck. Just warning you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2010, 07:27 AM	#1438
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	Originally posted by krb Both shot on Kodak bw400cn film SMC-M 50/1.7 @ f/1.7 ... SMC-M 28-50/3.5-4.5 @ f/16 ... Originally posted by basso4735 50 M 1.7 @ f16(I think) through a dirty window ... Nice shots, guys, welcome! Originally posted by kiwao More from the 135mm. My daughter doing the Japanese thing, annoyingly, and some cropped images from my visit to the beach. This are all great, the one above especially - 135 3.5 needs more shooters, IMO. (BTW, what do you mean by "doing the Japanese thing"? That pose? Interesting...) .

03-27-2010, 12:00 PM	#1439
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by Recercare Excellent. The 85mm F2 is great for portraits like this, much better than the DA 70mm F2.4 Ltd. Kind regards .lars I love this lens for portraits, especially up close and personal portraits. This lens is shot at or near its MFD constantly. Better than the DA 70mm? Well I wouldn't know but im sure thats a great lens also Originally posted by jsherman999 . Be careful, Yeatz. If you start taking glowing, perfect portraits of pretty girls like that, she'll show her friends and then pretty soon you'll have a whole bunch of girls hanging out at your house trying to get you to take pictures of them. It's going to suck. Just warning you. Oh well, I need not worry because its not glowing nor perfect She actually hates my pictures of her BUT I can't say I'd mind having a bunch of girls hanging out here I'd be fine with taking a couple of pictures also

03-27-2010, 01:22 PM	#1440
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by jsherman999 135 3.5 needs more shooters, IMO. The odd thing is that aside from the 50's, it's usually about the cheapest "M" lens you can get, and about the easiest to find, too (these facts are of course related). Between that, the useful focal length, it's IQ, amazingly small size, built in hood, and enough magnification and a nice focus ring that should allow almost anyone to successfully focus it manually, it should really be in a lot of bags. I know I talk every so often about wanting the M120/2.8, but really, it's probably more often that I'd prefer the extra reach of the 135 over the extra width (and half stop of aperture) of the 120. If price and availability were the same, maybe I'd feel differently. But as it is, I can never bring myself to pull the trigger on the 120. Meanwhile, my 135 keeps coming with with me and giving me shots like these: