|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-19-2024, 02:25 PM
|
| |
Who would guess that the state park system owns moon landers?
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-15-2024, 03:01 PM
|
| |
Rattibida columnifera if I am spelling it correctly.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-08-2020, 10:22 AM
|
| |
Parmesan the Goat putting on his wise goat on a cloudy day face.
Super-Takumar f1.8 55mm + Sony Nex-5
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-01-2020, 03:12 PM
|
| |
I hope those little cabbages get ahead in the world.
;)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-27-2020, 06:45 AM
|
| |
I just love wildlife pictures.
;)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-09-2020, 12:45 PM
|
| |
Super-Takumar f/1.8 55mm + Sony NEX-5. Some with B&W conversion.
(cross-posted)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-13-2020, 12:42 PM
|
| |
I love to see audio equipment shots!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
01-05-2020, 06:45 PM
|
| |
I worked as an assistant to the chief offset camera man at a printing company for a while....many, many years ago. My main job was in the graphics department, but when we were slow, I'd go down to the basement and help with shooting negatives for printing plates, or opaquing spots on negs sometimes, too. It is pretty cool working inside of a gigantic camera!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-30-2019, 04:02 PM
|
| |
I'd settle for an insert, or replacement "film door" you could install on a Pentax K1000, that would turn IT into that fantasy non-AF FF Digital camera!
:)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-23-2019, 06:37 PM
|
| |
More with the Super-Takumar f/3.5 35mm, shot wide open on a Sony NEX-5 with an m42 to Sony E-mount adapter. Tonight's sunset:
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-25-2019, 02:18 PM
|
| |
You'd have trouble in central Illinois, where we can sometimes get 10 to 20 degrees below ZERO F. in some winters.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-25-2019, 01:54 PM
|
| |
All Canadians don't adore winter?
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-06-2019, 07:40 AM
|
| |
True for me, too, except that I'm a rather pokey photographer all of the time, even when using AF lenses (which I don't have a great many of). So shooting manual lenses, never seems like much of a time sacrifice to me anyway.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-26-2019, 11:02 AM
|
| |
I suspect that there are conditions when the SMC Takumars may be more flare resistant, give slightly better color saturation, or produce other results that are better in subtle ways. But over a series of many of pictures, taken in a range of conditions, however, the Super-Takumars (with their earlier, less super, or less multied coatings) are going to produce many images that are arguably the equal of the SMC versions.
I'm not saying don't bother to get the SMC lenses, but I am saying that if you're filling in focal lengths in your Takumar collection, and if your can't find (or can't afford) the SMC model for a particular focal length, don't hesitate to start out with the Super-Takumar model. Getting the SMC version might go on the back burner, after you tried out your Super-Tak for a while.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-24-2019, 03:02 PM
|
| |
Generally speaking, I don't the think the results from Super-Multi-Coated Takumars are superior enough to allow them to look down their noses at the Super-Takumar versions. In the reviews and other postings here, there are many pictures from Super-Takumar's that instantly raise the question: "What's all this fuss about the SMC coatings?"
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-05-2019, 08:54 AM
|
| |
I might have satisfied the sort of minimum posts standard some are suggesting, but what keeps me from reviewing any lenses yet has more to do with my not feeling like I have a grasp of how to rank them. I'm not really a ranker. I'm not sure I know the difference between an 8 and a 9? If I never will own a 200-500 dollar lens, could I ever really know what a 10 is supposed to be?
Then, too, some of the categories strike me as somewhat meaningless. Handling, for example, seems like such a personal issue. Something I hate about how a certain lens handles might be what another photographer loves the most about it. Then there are aberrations--except for something like purple-fringing, the various optical distortions (short of blurriness) seem more to me to be part of the inherent character of a particular lens, how that lens sees the world. That is something that can be made the most of and appreciated if one tries.
It always seems like "Sharpness" and "Bokeh" are the only categories that matter much to me. Can the lens be very sharp somewhere you want it to be? Can it produce creamy or some kind of interesting bokeh? But is either of those something to rank, or is it better to describe it as clearly as possible, especially with image examples?
On the other hand, I DO have definite opinions about kinds of remarks in reviews that discredit them for me:
-- How does someone give a 4 for a lens's Sharpness, when the average reviewers are ranking it an 8 or 9, with nobody else giving it less than a 7, and not add the disclaimer "but perhaps I have a bad copy of the lens" (which is still valuable as a warning that either manufacture was uneven or some copies haven't aged as well as others)?
-- How does someone list lack of autofocus as a CON for a lens that was manufactured to be manual focus? It is not a flaw for a manual focus lens to not be able to transform itself suddenly into an autofocus one in the hands of someone who only wants to use autofocus lenses! Why would anyone even need to have that explained to them?
Sometime I will review some lenses. I keep thinking I will start doing so in a month or two....or three. :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-05-2019, 08:26 AM
|
| |
If by "long-winded" you mean adding more context, clarity, and examples, that might be a big improvement over some of the reviews we currently have.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-10-2019, 03:38 AM
|
| |
In those everybody shot film days, I always envied the people who could shoot slides and know they would turn out! I have shot some batches of slides that were good, but some others that were terrible, for reasons I was never very sure of. It turned me into a print film guy, and one who usually shot at a third stop below box speed, just to insure the negatives wouldn't be too thin.
I'm still shooting some film though. I like being able to test an old--they call them "legacy"--lens on one of my Pentax dslrs, to learn some of its character and limitations, before shooting it on a film body, where it can show it's intended field of view. The film shooting is more expensive, but it has its own pleasures. It also makes me slow down, especially if the film body has no meter or no working meter, and I have to use my little handheld light meter. If need be, I can do some post-processing with the scan files from the processor, so the digital experience can actually enhance what I can get out of the film shooting.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-09-2019, 06:59 AM
|
| |
It takes slow film to shoot wide open apertures with fast lenses . . . unless one is okay being confined to shooting in the shade or indoors by window light. ISO 80 to 125 used to be considered "medium speed" for films. [ Yes, I'm old enough to remember that--ha, ha ;) ]
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-14-2019, 02:18 PM
|
| |
When it comes to the Mutiny, I have always been on Clark Gable's side. :) :) :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-23-2019, 05:35 PM
|
| |
The K-mount version of the Sears (Rikenon?) f/1.7 50mm is an excellent lens; it's probably available in m42 as well. Not Takumar weight & build, but my go-to normal lens for a K-mount body, if I don't want to but my m42 adapter in to mount my f/1.4 or f/1.8 normal Taks.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-22-2019, 04:00 PM
|
| |
A friend of mine made it a hobby to frustrate his superiors when he was in the Air Force, by knowing the rule book better than some of them did. When an officer stopped him and told him to button the top button of his jacket, he would instead take the jacket off, fold it, and neatly put it over one of his forearms, which was the other proper way to have one's jacket. Steam would come out of the officer's ears, but they had to abide by the same rules. I suspect, however, that TSA bureaucrats have too much latitude for how to respond for them to be manipulated that way.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-12-2019, 02:28 PM
|
| |
I bought my Super-Takumar f/1.8 55mm used sometime around 1980. I'll never part with it. The colors from it, and the other Super-Taks I also own now, are so great when using my K110D or K10D, that I don't see any reason to go after the SMC super-taks. If I pick up another focal length super-tak, and it happens to be an SMC, that's fine, but, if it isn't, that's okay, too.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-23-2019, 06:23 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-15-2019, 03:28 PM
|
| |
When a set of reviews has some people giving a lens a 9 for sharpness, at the same time some other people are giving it a 5, it does take some careful reading and questioning.
-- Do these people have equivalent copies of the lens, but very very different standards?
-- Do both factions post sample images, and did the people posting 5s post sharp pix for some other lenses (meaning they just don't need new eye glasses)?
-- If both kinds of reviewers are being accurate, do others have to seriously worry about a great quality variation among copies of that lens when they shop for one?
If there is a big swing in quality between copies, it is a good thing if the reviews warn us about it.
|
