[CedrusMacro]

Nice work.

Thanks always a pleasure to have caught someones eye with an image.

[Uponnothing]

A couple more with the SP 24-48.

[CedrusMacro]

After a while in the draw, thought I'd pull the 70-210 46A out.

[marcusBMG]

in the draw

...drawer..
When you check the Modern Photo test results on adaptall-2.com, 46A tests better for resolution than 19AH, equal res to the 30A except 70mm vs 80mm.
Nice pics.

---

Last edited by marcusBMG; 06-06-2021 at 04:45 AM.

[pacerr]

...46A tests better for resolution than 19AH, as well as 30A

Mmm. . . as well as the 30A too?

I've owned all three lenses and IME the SP 30A was notably superior and more versatile. Especially in the era of manual focus bodies where f2.8 was a distinct advantage.

Much better contrast. Sharp and had good bokeh even stopped down. With K200D

Plays well with both the 1.4x TC for reach and extension rings to reduce Min focus distance. Mega-pixel image crops take care of rare corner issues wide open.

The 30A's only con IMO is its greater size and weight. but a palm rest fixes that a bit. It's been my all time favorite SP for decades.

[CedrusMacro]

...drawer..
When you check the Modern Photo test results on adaptall-2.com, 46A tests better for resolution than 19AH, as well as 30A except 70mm vs 80mm.
Nice pics.

...teach me to type a reply without considering the spelling

---------- Post added 06-06-21 at 02:22 AM ----------

Mmm. . . as well as the 30A too?

I've owned all three lenses and IME the SP 30A was notably superior and more versatile. Especially in the era of manual focus bodies where f2.8 was a distinct advantage.

Much better contrast. Sharp and had good bokeh even stopped down. With K200D

Plays well with both the 1.4x TC for reach and extension rings to reduce Min focus distance. Mega-pixel image crops take care of rare corner issues wide open.

The 30A's only con IMO is its greater size and weight. but a palm rest fixes that a bit. It's been my all time favorite SP for decades.

Interesting point Pacerr- you mention the superiority with older cameras, now I know my KS-1 isn't exactly ultra modern, however I would expect that the combination of sensor and processor on the digital cameras would affect the way the lens behaves? I'll preface by saying I'm still very much a novice so please (anyone) chime in with corrections.

To that effect, my experiences with the lens will be unique to say a K7, K1 or Ist'D user?

[Gary H Perth]

SP 24-48mm

A very generous member of our group offered me very good deal on a copy of the SP wide zoom. After four weeks flying around the world, it landed on my front doorway ready to go. Here I offer a few shots taken on the first day out, walking around the local lake late in the winter afternoon. This lens is magical - these shots taken on a Sony A7ii to make use of the 24mm wide-angle. I now have the full set of SP zooms for all occasions - 24-48mm, 35-80mm, 60-300mm.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[luftfluss]

180/2.5 63b...

[pacerr]

. . . the combination of sensor and processor on the digital cameras would affect the way the lens behaves?

I'd opine that's true but in many not so obvious ways. Perhaps not a change in the lens itself but in my perception of it -- the results one gets from it.

For instance, when shooting 'still life stuff' my digital habit is to grab at least 4-5 images of each 'pose'. Basic economics allows me to do that for free, something I wouldn't do with film because of the cost-per-shot factor -- both in $$ and time required in processing. Consequently, I'm much more likely to find a 'best' image from digital bodies (and instant histogram review?) than from film which will inevitably affect my opinion of the lens.

An unfortunate tradeoff is that I was more likely to spend quality time in precise preparation for each shot on film. Nevertheless, it's statistically likely that I'll find a better solution for micro-focus and camera movement issues with more images to choose from.

As a result, I'm likely to have a better (or worse!) opinion of a given lens with more comparable results to choose from even though it's optically the same lens in both cases. I do know I have more confidence in and affection for those lenses for which I have more digital images to compare.

My 30A is a good example. I progressed from a lens I liked to one that I knew WHY I liked it after much more experience shooting with digital bodies.

A few lenses fell out of favor for the same reason. As much as I liked the build and handling of my SP 180 (63B) I discovered I could duplicate the results at 180mm with the 30A. I still have the 30A.

[Uponnothing]

Out and about a lot with the SP 24-48 lately.

[wirrah]

Tamron 135 f2.5 (03B) on a *istD

[wirrah]

And the 500mm SP mirror lens again on a *istD. Sometimes it rains a lot in our backyard!

[jawats]

This is with a copy of the 103A I picked up for $10 or so. No editing - straight out of a K-1. I usually use a Tamron A001, but am always pleasantly surprised how this 1980s lens can compare.

[Uponnothing]

No one has posted on here for a while, so I'll post some more images taken with the SP 24-48 - fast becoming my favourite hiking lens and I've tried a lot of old manual lenses now.

[luftfluss]

A couple months ago I acquired the 018F Extension Tube, which is nominally for the 52B/BB 90/2.5 Macro lens... however I'm coupling it with the 63B 180/2.5 instead. This gives a max magnification of approximately 1:2, which is often more than sufficient for me, albeit at a penalty of around one stop of light.