[Pentaxor]

here are some samples I took with the FD/K adapter.

one picture was done without the correction glass element while the other 2 photos have it.

from what I can say, there is very slight IQ degradation of the images with the correction glass when you pixel peep them. although not noticeable nor atleast field relevant to me if you should ask me. although I have an issue with the magnification caused by the added glass element and a stop or over loss of light. the magnification caused by the added element also produced some small/tiny oof circles which I think are normal effects of such correction lenses.

I would be interested to know your insights regarding the images presented.

w/o glass element


w/glass element


w/glass element 2

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 05-22-2010 at 12:28 AM.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Pentaxor, looks better than I dared to hope.

Currently a copy of the Canon FD 200mm f4 macro lens is on its way to me. Got it for a rediculously low price. Two different adapters are on its way. I plan to test them and take out the glass from the loser to get a macro-only-adapter as an alternative. Seen Canon FD to Nikon F glass-less macro only adapters, but non for Pentax. But both glass versions are quite inexpensive. Recon a version with no glass will mean no IQ loss at all and even somewhat less close focus range and somewhat more than 1:1 macro. Only vorry is how dark it will be to work with it closed down to at least f8 to get some DOF, or how slow it will be to focus wide open and then close down. After all, long macro lenses are for bugs... But all in all, this is a fairly inexpensive experiment. If now just someone could borrow/donate me a SMC Pentax-A* 200 macro, and I could have an interresting shoot out!

[Pentaxor]

Pentaxor, looks better than I dared to hope.

Currently a copy of the Canon FD 200mm f4 macro lens is on its way to me. Got it for a rediculously low price. Two different adapters are on its way. I plan to test them and take out the glass from the loser to get a macro-only-adapter as an alternative. Seen Canon FD to Nikon F glass-less macro only adapters, but non for Pentax. But both glass versions are quite inexpensive. Recon a version with no glass will mean no IQ loss at all and even somewhat less close focus range and somewhat more than 1:1 macro. Only vorry is how dark it will be to work with it closed down to at least f8 to get some DOF, or how slow it will be to focus wide open and then close down. After all, long macro lenses are for bugs... But all in all, this is a fairly inexpensive experiment. If now just someone could borrow/donate me a SMC Pentax-A* 200 macro, and I could have an interresting shoot out!

hi Douglas, that's a great find and I wouldn't mind guessing if you were able to get it for only $20 bucks.

what is the difference between the 2 adapters that you bought?

anyway, I did another test with the adapter again with and w/o the correction glass element. mind you that this is still only a secondary phase testing and not yet 100%. what I noticed is that the center sharpness is somehow retained at an extent even with the correction element installed. I was able to shoot some birds at infinity, thus making the lens have a focal length equivalent of 193mm. however I lose a stop of light making it somehow a 200/f3.5 glass by my estimation.

now here is an interesting test that I saw, I tried shooting the lens w/o the correction elements and focused at infinity and shoot the lens w/ the correction glass on at an approx focus range that will display atleast an equal size of the center subject in focus and equal FOV size as well.

the lens without the correction optics, has a much shallower DOF and the one without the optics has a much deeper DOF and more in focus or slightly defined background but loss a stop of light as well. also the one with the correction optics seems a bit more sharper (f/3.5 sharpness rendering equivalent).

I would say that it works both ways. with and without the correction optics for macro use. of course, expect some magnification, less FOV and loss of light and some tiny oof circles caused by the correction optics but deeper DOF.


anyway, I'm hoping that Samsung would release a better camera than the NX10, since the FD lenses seems to be a perfect fit for the NX system, which would only require a glassless adapter that could focus to infinity and obtain a much wider FOV due to the system being an APS-C dslr. much better than the M4/3 cropped cameras. I'm not sure though if they would make an adapter for the Sony NEX system.
I'm keeping that one in check til the end of the year, whether Samsung will have an upgrade or Pentax would release a new system that would fit the FD lenses perfectly. APS-C is ok but FF would be great. I believe the mirrorless concept made this possible, so let's hope so. atleast we can now use some old and cheap FD glasses on new mounted systems. only problem, some systems only offer an optical stabilization, not in body SR. that's the problem of the Samsung as of the moment, I'm not sure about the Sony.

P.S. I'm considering a portable dslr, the Samsung NX10 might be it or it's successor. let's see how would the pricing go after a couple of months.

[JohnBee]

This is an EXCELLENT reference thread!
Thank-you very much for this!
JB

[Pentaxor]

I must reiterate however the need for the correction element for telephoto use or focusing farther to infinity. but be wary that such correction elements does display a halo/glow effect and CA, especially at wider apertures on some images. these things however are non-existent if there is no correction glass installed. just a reminder.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

what is the difference between the 2 adapters that you bought?

I'm not sure, but they do look like different desings judging from the photo's on ebay. One is also significantly cheaper than the other. I think you ordered the same type as the one jinfinance sells. But I also found another one sold by a gobido.cn. Both presumably "made in japan". I would be good with a bit of less cropp factor. I will do some comparisons and post the results here, though I cannot promiss how fast it will go. Workload is hugh until end of June. I intend to compare it against the SMC Pentax-M 200mm and perhaps the Super Takumar 200mm. As macro, it will be interresting to compare it with the Tamron adaptall 2 SP 90mm f2.5 with the 2x converter, my current longest manual focus macro option. Could be interresting to compare it with the DFA 100mm also since I often use it with a 1.7x converter for reach.

now here is an interesting test that I saw, I tried shooting the lens w/o the correction elements and focused at infinity and shoot the lens w/ the correction glass on at an approx focus range that will display atleast an equal size of the center subject in focus and equal FOV size as well.

the lens without the correction optics, has a much shallower DOF and the one without the optics has a much deeper DOF and more in focus or slightly defined background but loss a stop of light as well. also the one with the correction optics seems a bit more sharper (f/3.5 sharpness rendering equivalent).

I would say that it works both ways. with and without the correction optics for macro use. of course, expect some magnification, less FOV and loss of light and some tiny oof circles caused by the correction optics but deeper DOF.

I suppose it is hard to maintain the same sharpness all over the image since the adapters appear to have only one lens.
Have to think about what the DOF means. Are you sure it's not because you moved to get the same size?

anyway, I'm hoping that Samsung would release a better camera than the NX10, since the FD lenses seems to be a perfect fit for the NX system...

The small format is what makes the other mirror-less system cameras a no-no to me. The NX APS-C is a good improvement in that sense. If someone would make a full frame mirror-less camera I might be seriously interrested. Not to abandone my SLRs, but to be able to shoot all my Konica Hexanon lenses (and Pentax lenses) in the intended format with infinity on digital. So far I've not been that impressed by the tests I've seen on the NX.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

This is an EXCELLENT reference thread!
Thank-you very much for this!
JB

You are welcome! Maybe it should have been posted as a Pentax Article?

[Pentaxor]

I'm not sure, but they do look like different desings judging from the photo's on ebay. One is also significantly cheaper than the other. I think you ordered the same type as the one jinfinance sells. But I also found another one sold by a gobido.cn. Both presumably "made in japan". I would be good with a bit of less cropp factor. I will do some comparisons and post the results here, though I cannot promiss how fast it will go. Workload is hugh until end of June. I intend to compare it against the SMC Pentax-M 200mm and perhaps the Super Takumar 200mm. As macro, it will be interresting to compare it with the Tamron adaptall 2 SP 90mm f2.5 with the 2x converter, my current longest manual focus macro option. Could be interresting to compare it with the DFA 100mm also since I often use it with a 1.7x converter for reach.

it was by jinfinance. funny you mentioned the Tamron BBAR 90/2.5 Adaptall 2. it was the same lens that I had to let go in favor of the Vivitar S1 90/2.5. I can't say anything bad about the Tamron. it is a great lens and better than the newer and slower 90mm-100mm macros. I feel that the Vivitar is only slightly better than the Tamron. both lenses are exceptional if you ask me. the dealbreaker between the two lenses is the bokeh rendering. the Tamron has a very nice bokeh, but the Vivitar's bokeh is just magical. that sealed the deal.

I suppose it is hard to maintain the same sharpness all over the image since the adapters appear to have only one lens.
Have to think about what the DOF means. Are you sure it's not because you moved to get the same size?

Yes, I had to move away a bit and adjust focus as well. the idea there is to see how the image would look with the same perceived subject and background size. obviously DOF is not the same, so does exposure. the sharpness that I was referin to is the notion when we close aperture down, we increase the depth and sharpness as well. what I noticed is that with the correction glass installed, the background is a lil bit defined as compared to the adapter w/o the correction glass. it is something like w/o the correction glass, the DOF is like f2.5. with the correction glass, the DOF looks like f3.5.

The small format is what makes the other mirror-less system cameras a no-no to me. The NX APS-C is a good improvement in that sense. If someone would make a full frame mirror-less camera I might be seriously interrested. Not to abandone my SLRs, but to be able to shoot all my Konica Hexanon lenses (and Pentax lenses) in the intended format with infinity on digital. So far I've not been that impressed by the tests I've seen on the NX.

this is also the reason why I don't buy the small format eventhough the older lenses are compatible with them. 4/3 is just too narrow for me, and less shallow DOF. the Samsung trend gave me hope for future mirrorless camera with APS-C/FF sensors that would accomodate older lenses, thru a glassless adapter. although the NX10 does seem look like a disappointment, I'm looking forward for it's successor which I hope would be a great one.

there is a possibility that the Sony APS-C NEX cameras might be able to accommodate older lenses. although I'm not that too happy that Sony had to remove and accessorize the VF and flash.

no problem. I'm quite busy myself this month and in Juneas well. although I will be posting some images as well when I have the chance to do so.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Time to kick some life in this thread. Last Thursday my Canon FD 200mm f4 macro 1:1 arrived and the adapters had arrived just a few days before. Unfortunately, the weather turned bad at once. Not until today did I get a fair chance to try it out door. Still pretty windy, so the butterflies were absent, but there were some bumble bees to test it on. Shot with the Pentax AF160FC ring flash an monopod. ISO 200/400, 1/180, f11 or f16. No cropping and only slight exposure correction and contrast increase since it is eassy to miss out the exposure 1/2 to 1 step when running the ring flash in manual.

With the adapter this is presubably something like 280-300mm and with >1:1 max macro ratio. Have not measured it yet. I got two adapters intending to take the glass out of one of them to get a macro only adapter that does not focus to infinity, but retain unchanged IQ and bokeh. But this is just a first test with the adapter including glass.

















It was easier to work it than I thought. Running on M, setting the apperture on f11 or f16, the ring flash on full +0.5, composing, focusing, close down (the adapter have a close down ring), shoot.

Now if someone can send me their SMC-Pentax A*200mm macro over the summer I can make a shoot out...

[Ben_Edict]

Douglas it would be great to see examples at farther distances and with the aperture fully open, to really judge the quality of the adapter better. At these small apertures, the adapter's effect will also be small in terms of IQ dgeradation.

Ben

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Douglas it would be great to see examples at farther distances and with the aperture fully open, to really judge the quality of the adapter better. At these small apertures, the adapter's effect will also be small in terms of IQ dgeradation.

Ben

I'll see what I can do. But I don't buy a 200mm macro to play with DOF. The natural way to use such a lens is to close it down enough to get the flower or bug within the DOF. There will be plenty of OOF behinf the subject anyway. So that's what was my first priority, to see what it could do as a long reach macro. As for IQ degrading on the 200mm macro, I think that the primary effect, which should apply also closed down, is the pretty large crop-factor of the adapter. If a 200mm lens is turned into almost a 300mm lens by a single enlarging lens, it will degrade the resolution.

When I have the time I will be testing the adapters more, and maybe on another lens than this. Trying to get the Canon FD 50/1.4, 50/3.5 macro and 135/2.5.

What I can say from a first look at the adapters themself are that they look like they are coated, but the glass surface reflects more light than a Pentax or Hoya UV filter, so the coating is not SMC or HMC grade.

[Pentaxor]

those are pretty good results Douglas. just a bit overexposed.

Benedict, as far as IQ degradation using the adapter is concerned, there are several things I want to mention about it.

1. there are several instances that a hazy glow/halo color effect would occur on a few areas around the image. this glow is prevalent at scenarios with significant light source. this occur at wide open from MFD to infinity.

2. there are traces of fringing on the highlighted areas but not that worse. there are a few instances that CA do occur and CA in the blue channel can be difficult to correct or impossible unless done with further extensive work, although not that often.

3. sharpness and resolution could be slightly affected dependent on per actual lens used.

mind you that I used a Vivitar S1 90/2.5, which has an excellent resolution and sharpness, so any IQ degradation that the adapter might cause would not be much of an impact as compared to other lenses. but still would be just barely slightly less if you really want to get the maximum potential of the lens. this effect is no different from that of a 1.4 TC + great lens combo.

now the notable effects that the adapter could cause.

1.> increased focal length rendering due to optical magnification. est magnification of 1.4x.
2.> OOF background blur and circles on OOF areas due to magnification. this is an expected effect and not an anomaly. it's more like the same OOF effect shown on an 120mm or 135mm lens.
3.> larger DOF. I noticed that the background has more definition with the glass element compared to without the glassless one.

4.> a stop or over slightly slower.

recommended usage for the adapter:

1.> for optimal macro use from wide open to all apertures - use glassless adapter.

2.> for excellent macro to telephoto results with a longer focal magnification by a glass adapter - use f4 to f8. at best would be f5.6 - f8. sometimes f4 is enough to get rid of the glow.

[Pentaxor]

anyway Doug, it might be better to use the Samsung NX10 if you are concerned about APS-C FOV, retaining aperture speed, avoid unnecessary magnification, optimal performance avoiding slight IQ degradation and disturbing glow effect at wide open and glassless adapter infinity focus which works the best and atleast it's practically the same sensor as that of the Pentax. I would prefer it against the m4/3 cameras.

for exclusive macro at close proximity, the glassless FD/K mount would do extremely well at all apertures. with the glass adapter, it could be advantageous at the longer telephoto use as long as you stop down enough to avoid the glow. but could be a bummer for a lens that is an excellent performer at wide open.

for short telephoto and portraiture use, the NX system FD adapter would be a perfect fit to use from wide open and with perfect distance.

[Ben_Edict]

Benedict, as far as IQ degradation using the adapter is concerned, there are several things I want to mention about it.

1. there are several instances that a hazy glow/halo color effect would occur on a few areas around the image. this glow is prevalent at scenarios with significant light source. this occur at wide open from MFD to infinity.

Yes, that's what I noticed in the example shots here. I am just not sure, how much of that glow could be attributed to the shallow DOF for the macros and what could be attributed to the adapter lens. That was my main reason to ask Doug for some examples at far distances, because that rules out any DOF effect.

2. there are traces of fringing on the highlighted areas but not that worse. there are a few instances that CA do occur and CA in the blue channel can be difficult to correct or impossible unless done with further extensive work, although not that often.

3. sharpness and resolution could be slightly affected dependent on per actual lens used.

That's to be expected and not necessarily too bad.

mind you that I used a Vivitar S1 90/2.5, which has an excellent resolution and sharpness, so any IQ degradation that the adapter might cause would not be much of an impact as compared to other lenses. but still would be just barely slightly less if you really want to get the maximum potential of the lens. this effect is no different from that of a 1.4 TC + great lens combo.

If your experience is like that, then the adapter is much better than I anticipated. Usually a single lens with magnifying properties would introduce more degradation. The losses connected to a typical 1.4x tc are very acceptable, if the primary lens is good.

Thanks very much for your detailed answer!

Ben

[Ben_Edict]

I'll see what I can do. But I don't buy a 200mm macro to play with DOF. ... As for IQ degrading on the 200mm macro, I think that the primary effect, which should apply also closed down, is the pretty large crop-factor of the adapter. If a 200mm lens is turned into almost a 300mm lens by a single enlarging lens, it will degrade the resolution.

When I have the time I will be testing the adapters more, and maybe on another lens than this. Trying to get the Canon FD 50/1.4, 50/3.5 macro and 135/2.5.

What I can say from a first look at the adapters themself are that they look like they are coated, but the glass surface reflects more light than a Pentax or Hoya UV filter, so the coating is not SMC or HMC grade.

Doug. You are ofcourse right about DOF. I wanted the wide open test shots, to get an idea about "worst case" behaviour of the adapter. It would even be better if one could compare shots with the same lens with/without the adapter - but for obvious reasons that's impossible.

Thanks for your further info about coating etc.

Ben