[moggi1964]

I have both the 52B and 52BB. I cannot say that I notice much difference between the two. The 52B focus ring has become quite stiff, so I am trying to loosen it up by rotating the ring to move the grease around (I hope that is the reason and the theory will work).

Reliability of PKA adapters tends to be the limiting factor as to whether I take one out, I am down to one working PKA adapter and that lives on the 35-80 these days, occasionally on the 60-300.

You could try warming it in the oven and then rotating it back and forth for a while. I did this to an old Helios 44-2 that had a stiff focus mechanism (it would unscrew from the adapter when I tried to focus) and whilst it isn't Takumar smooth it is a lot better and more importantly useable.

There are dangers in that technique of course, you may warm oils/grease that then cause issues elsewhere.

[pacerr]

Old grease and oils MAY out-gas when heated and cause internal fogging of the lenses.

Try very gently warming the lens in sunlight while monitoring the temperature rise and frequently checking for improvement.

I've generally had good results by introducing a VERY small drop of penetrating oil (WD-40?) to older, manual focus, stiff lenses.

[Uponnothing]

I grabbed an Adaptall 35-135 f3.5-4.5 (40A) after some positive comments on here for just £18 - I already had the sturdy plastic hood from a random job lot I picked up a while a go. Handling is good and after two trips out I have to say I am really impressed so far. Sharp at 35mm and 135mm - stopped down to f8/11, but as this is purely for landscape I have not tested other apertures so far. Much better than the SP 28-135. I will be using this a lot more in the coming weeks as I think it has real potential. Has some purple and blue fringing, but nothing out of the ordinary for vintage glass on digital, and nothing I could not remove in Lightroom easily so far. Corners a little softer, but that seems to be true of the other adaptalls I have used for landscape (28-80 SP, 24-48 SP, 28-135 SP, 28-70). At 35mm I think this lens gives the legendary Minolta MD 35-70 f3.5 Macro a run for its money - and I have been using that Minolta a lot lately.

[luftfluss]

I grabbed an Adaptall 35-135 f3.5-4.5 (40A) after some positive comments on here for just £18 - I already had the sturdy plastic hood from a random job lot I picked up a while a go. Handling is good and after two trips out I have to say I am really impressed so far. Sharp at 35mm and 135mm - stopped down to f8/11, but as this is purely for landscape I have not tested other apertures so far. Much better than the SP 28-135. I will be using this a lot more in the coming weeks as I think it has real potential. Has some purple and blue fringing, but nothing out of the ordinary for vintage glass on digital, and nothing I could not remove in Lightroom easily so far. Corners a little softer, but that seems to be true of the other adaptalls I have used for landscape (28-80 SP, 24-48 SP, 28-135 SP, 28-70). At 35mm I think this lens gives the legendary Minolta MD 35-70 f3.5 Macro a run for its money - and I have been using that Minolta a lot lately.

Well, you're certainly making that 40A look very good.

[luftfluss]

Despite the 180/2.5 63B being my current lens crush, I have not forgotten the excellent 19AH...

[Uponnothing]

I just love that I'm getting those photos from an old lens that cost less than £20. This is on a 42mp full frame digital camera.

How much better would those photos be with a modern £1000+ zoom? I'm getting more convinced that the difference would not be worth it and the joy of using old glass makes me forgive some slight defects in image quality.

[luftfluss]

I just love that I'm getting those photos from an old lens that cost less than £20. This is on a 42mp full frame digital camera.

Yup, it's a very impressive performance.

How much better would those photos be with a modern £1000+ zoom? I'm getting more convinced that the difference would not be worth it and the joy of using old glass makes me forgive some slight defects in image quality.

That's always the question, isn't it: At what point is good enough, good enough?

[Parry Johnson]

Yup, it's a very impressive performance.




That's always the question, isn't it: At what point is good enough, good enough?

Good point. Personally, I don't really like the term "good enough" as it's either good or it isn't. In most cases, an older lens can still produce a very good, if not excellent image, and ther real level of "good" is more due to the experience and creativity of the artist. So, you're not only doing a good job, but a great job!

[tim60]

Good point. Personally, I don't really like the term "good enough" as it's either good or it isn't. In most cases, an older lens can still produce a very good, if not excellent image, and ther real level of "good" is more due to the experience and creativity of the artist. So, you're not only doing a good job, but a great job!

Good point. When I look at my pictures I look at the picture, not at the price of the lens. Or its age. The lens is a tool to help make pictures.

[moggi1964]

Tamron 24mm F/2.5 (01B) on the way. I'll post some updates once I have it in hand.

I already have the Sigma Super-Wide II 24mm F/2.8 and I also have a CZJ 4/25mm coming too. Should be fun to see what each brings.

[fuzzyphoton]

after receiving my 40a, i unwrapped it and thought " oh no, 9$ shot on a toy " ... then i took my first pics ( below ) and decided to spring for it's cousin, the 22a, which is also handy . hints for the 40a is to use a large sunshade and an extension tube works better than the very handy macro button on the lens.

[luftfluss]

Really like that composition @fuzzyphoton

[luftfluss]

Tamron 24mm F/2.5 (01B) on the way. I'll post some updates once I have it in hand.

I already have the Sigma Super-Wide II 24mm F/2.8 and I also have a CZJ 4/25mm coming too. Should be fun to see what each brings.

I have the 01B and had the Siggy. Similar sharpness in the center, but the Siggy was sharper on the edges. I've actually been meaning to sell my 01B but just haven't gotten around to it.

[Uponnothing]

Good point. Personally, I don't really like the term "good enough" as it's either good or it isn't. In most cases, an older lens can still produce a very good, if not excellent image, and ther real level of "good" is more due to the experience and creativity of the artist. So, you're not only doing a good job, but a great job!

I've used a lot of vintage glass and some of it is really poor on digital, so there are times when it is very difficult to take a good photo with them. I was given an immaculate Miranda 28mm, f2.8 and corner / edge performance was awful. As I am almost solely shooting landscape with vintage glass I need edge / corner sharpness so lens performance is interesting to me.

The 40 at 35mm performs in an entirely different league to the SP 28-135 - which was awful at 28mm, half the image was a blurry mess. It performs as well, if not better than the SP 28-80. I recently picked up the Vivitar Series 1 24-48 and took it out for a walk and it was awful, at 48mm only the centre is sharp, the rest is beyond soft, so blurred as to be hideously out of focus - so I am going to have to test that again, see if it was my focus.

Anyway, took the 40A out again:

[marcusBMG]

Your 28A sounds off. I have suites of comparison pics 28A vs 40A (I have two of both at the mo), I didn't get any results with either at 28mm/35mm that didn't show a bit of preference to one side of the image, overall not much to choose between them. Stopped down 28A is pretty good at the wide end based on these results. I'll try to do a post on the comparison.