MattKing
Moderator
They overlap, are often intertwined, and neither are appropriate subjects for discussions in this forum.
Let's discuss MANUAL-FOCUS ONLY, THIRD PARTY ONLY, Super-Wide-Angle Lenses
-
A
- Thread starter xkaes
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Royal Soft Focus 150mm f/4.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
They overlap, are often intertwined, and neither are appropriate subjects for discussions in this forum.
Here is a picture I took yesterday with the Vivitar 19/3.8 lens, probably made by Cosina in the 1980s (serial number 97...) This is a bit out of bounds because it is digital infrared, but that's how I can quickly turn around an example from one of the lenses mentioned in this thread.
Cloudbursts, Arizona by reddesert64, on Flickr
The photo was made on an un-IR-converted Nikon D70 with an IR760 filter, Vivitar 19/3.8, about f/9.5, 2 sec exposure, camera mounted on a Smallrig clamp to a fence, not the sturdiest thing but more or less adequate. This is a crop-sensor camera so you don't get to see the corners. I'm sure the lens would be worse there; although it has an IR focusing mark, asking it to perform at 800 nm is a bit much, so I stop the lens down a lot. A nice thing about this lens is that it is small and only needs a 62mm filter.
Cloudbursts, Arizona by reddesert64, on FlickrThe photo was made on an un-IR-converted Nikon D70 with an IR760 filter, Vivitar 19/3.8, about f/9.5, 2 sec exposure, camera mounted on a Smallrig clamp to a fence, not the sturdiest thing but more or less adequate. This is a crop-sensor camera so you don't get to see the corners. I'm sure the lens would be worse there; although it has an IR focusing mark, asking it to perform at 800 nm is a bit much, so I stop the lens down a lot. A nice thing about this lens is that it is small and only needs a 62mm filter.
Took this with the Lomo Neptune 15mm on my Nikon F3P
I have the VC M21 f/3.5 color skopar and the current VC M15 f/4.5 iii. I use them a lot less now that I've switched fully to film. So much easier to use with live view, and my subject matter has changed with film. Not sure I'd buy them now. But both are very well made and pleased with the optics. In particular, the VC M21 is a really good, cheaper option than the current Leica M21 SEM, which is a fantastic lens, but quite clinically sharp and far too expensive for my needs.
Here is the lens hood attached to my 151B version of the 17/3.5. The thread in the lens hood accepts 82mm filters, but they are horrible to mount in the hood - ther is nearly no way to grab the filter ring, so you have to wear gloves and touch the filter glass.
i was lucky to get it secondhand earlier this year and paid app. 40€ plus p&p - which I think is quite ok for a special hood. At that time I thought about selling the 151B and get a 51B instead, but then this hood crossed my way.
Took this with the Lomo Neptune 15mm on my Nikon F3P
The results from the wide-angle adapters/converters that I've used have been disappointing -- even stopped way down -- but this one looks great. But at that price, it ought to be.
Could you maybe make that the big five? Because Olympus put out some awesome lenses.
I've been pleased with my Tokina 17mm RMC in K-mount. It cost me $100 around 2009-10. Very solid all-metal build, focus and aperture rings move very smoothly. Resolution is quite good, flare control is good. Barrel distortion at the edges is not too bad, but there. The lens hood for it (RH-672) is very similar to the Tamron pictured above except the filter threads on the lens (67mm) are accessible, and there are no threads in the hood.
My one gripe is that Tokina should have made the focus ring go the same way as with my Pentax lenses. The aperture ring turns the same way as my Pentax, Nikon, and Fujinon lenses, but the focusing is opposite. That would be understandable if it were the Tamron with its adapters, but the Tokina is a fixed mount. I just think that the popularity of the Nikon, Pentax K-mount and M42 screw mount would have justified making helicoids for those mounts that turned the same way as OEM.
My one gripe is that Tokina should have made the focus ring go the same way as with my Pentax lenses. The aperture ring turns the same way as my Pentax, Nikon, and Fujinon lenses, but the focusing is opposite. That would be understandable if it were the Tamron with its adapters, but the Tokina is a fixed mount. I just think that the popularity of the Nikon, Pentax K-mount and M42 screw mount would have justified making helicoids for those mounts that turned the same way as OEM.
Last edited:
When you check the magazine tests of late 70s and 80s you'll see which were the top 4, and which ones were lagging behind. Many japanese manufacturers put out some great lenses (i.e. Olympus has the 50/3.5 or 28/2, outstanding lenses), but the top 4 consistently put out the best lenses possible.
Which is a great merit for Nikon and Minolta, really, because i understand Canon had a far bigger company than the others with a HUGE R&D budget thanks to its sale of calculators and photocopiers, and Asahi Pentax sold more cameras than the other three manufacturers combined. So those were bigger companies that could afford lots of man-hours for R&D.
It is interesting that you are calling the Neptune lens system an adapter system, because I guess it is. But it has to be the ultimate adapter system! One optical base unit that you can attach 15, 35, 50 and 80mm lenses to. lomo speak they call it ‘convertible’
And let's add Yashica/Tomioka to the list. There are others as well.
To be accurate I called it an "adapter/converter", lumping those optics together -- like all the other tele- and wide- adapters/converters. They been around forever -- for use on large format cameras, as well as subminiture cameras. But the Neptune system of four lenses is far from the most extensive convertible lens systems -- but that gets way off topic.
I've never heard of anyone claiming that they are as good as prime lenses, but some of them are much better than others. They can save size, weight, and cost, for sure, and sometimes that's very important -- or the only option.
The 15 is smeary on the outer 1/4, but the 35, 50 and 80 are surprisingly good. I would not be able to tell the difference between them and primes. Even given the fact that when mounted they have a little play! I think that the fact they are slow lenses makes it easier to make them ‘good’.
They really are novelty lenses in use though as who really wants to stop down manually before each shot? And three small slow lenses maybe compact, but not much more so than an excellent faster 35-80 zoom!
yeah, it’s all about the process..
taken w the 50 and the 35. Using a Nikon F2as, but the F3 or any AE Nikon would be better/easier/quicker. Also available in Canon and Pentax mounts. The 80 is wikked sharp too, across the frame.
The reason I mentioned Olympus though, was the number of lenses no one else had at the time they came out, like their numerous f/2 lenses like the 21/2, 24/2, 50/2 macro, 180/2 and 250/2. And their array of 6 macro bellows lenses, from 20/2 to 135/4.5
I've never owned Olympus, but I highly respect what they accomplished with the OM system.
I have liked Olympus because of their Pen series -- and several of them had very fast lenses too. But their lenses only went to 20mm. That's super-wide on a full-frame, but not on a half-frame. I could use adapters/converters, but I decided to improvise -- see:
www.photrio.com
Inexpensive 35mm VIEWFINDER cameras with Leica mountS
Careful interviews got virtually perfect Canon P. I got a great one from the unfortunately accursed Cambridge by asking to talk with a salesperson who actually knew about them.
www.photrio.com
The 15 is smeary on the outer 1/4, but the 35, 50 and 80 are surprisingly good. I would not be able to tell the difference between them and primes. Even given the fact that when mounted they have a little play! I think that the fact they are slow lenses makes it easier to make them ‘good’.
They really are novelty lenses in use though as who really wants to stop down manually before each shot? And three small slow lenses maybe compact, but not much more so than an excellent faster 35-80 zoom!
yeah, it’s all about the process..
taken w the 50 and the 35. Using a Nikon F2as, but the F3 or any AE Nikon would be better/easier/quicker. Also available in Canon and Pentax mounts. The 80 is wikked sharp too, across the frame.
How did you get the ball to get suspended in the air long enough to take the photograph 'cuz machine gunners will tell you that you cannot do that in one shot if the ball was moving. Then again they only think that they are photographers.
Incredible timing and skill. Plus the fact that it was dangling there attached to that cord.
I think from an optical design point of view, convertible lenses with an exchangeable front group, are a very different design problem and solution than front mounted "converters" like the screw-in wide and tele converter accessory lenses.
The first type includes everything from large format convertible lenses (Plasmat sets, etc) to the exchangeable groups on a Contaflex or Kodak Retina, to the Lomo Neptune (apart from the 15mm, the Neptune 35/50/80 are clearly similar to the Contaflex / Retina focal lengths). These are usually based on a double-Gauss design, where the "normal" focal length is roughly symmetrical like a typical normal lens, and the front components that are wide or tele are notably larger and more complex, but designed to work with that particular rear group.
The second type are afocal converters that you add to a complete lens; like a teleconverter but it goes in front. These are usually a major design compromise.
The first type includes everything from large format convertible lenses (Plasmat sets, etc) to the exchangeable groups on a Contaflex or Kodak Retina, to the Lomo Neptune (apart from the 15mm, the Neptune 35/50/80 are clearly similar to the Contaflex / Retina focal lengths). These are usually based on a double-Gauss design, where the "normal" focal length is roughly symmetrical like a typical normal lens, and the front components that are wide or tele are notably larger and more complex, but designed to work with that particular rear group.
The second type are afocal converters that you add to a complete lens; like a teleconverter but it goes in front. These are usually a major design compromise.
I'd say that was a home run!
Voigtlander 21mm f4, c200
The 17mm Tamron S.P. I have, the rubber hood takes 82 mm filters.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |