/vint/ Vintage Lenses

File: images.jpg (16KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 470x313px

First for Ricoh.

File: c7bb329f397b0de95966ce5e44478d08.jpg (60KB, 650x532px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 650x532px

It doesn't get much better than this

File: P1050488 TWO.jpg (468KB, 1330x1000px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1330x1000px

Jupiter 21m. Crazy sharp, even on my MFT cam. heavy as fuck tho

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.16
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2017:08:08 01:57:50
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	14.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1330
Image Height	1000
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Auto
Focus Mode	Auto
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Mode 1
Macro Mode	Normal
Shooting Mode	Aperture Priority
Audio	No
Flash Bias	0.00 EV

File: IMG_20170716_212058.jpg (3MB, 4640x2610px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4640x2610px

105/2.5

This is the most ungodly fucking lens after the 135/2. Never have I used a lens so smooth, so elegant, so sharp.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OnePlus
Camera Model	ONEPLUS A3003
Camera Software	OnePlus3-user 7.0 NRD90M 15 dev-keys
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:16 21:20:59
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.26 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4640
Image Height	2610
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3129181
>>>>vintage

some GDR Goodness

1st: Pentacon 2.8/29

File: DSC00225.bearb1.jpg (1MB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x900px

>>3129202
forgot my image

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Bridge CS5.1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:08:08 02:29:01
Image Width	1200
Image Height	900

>>3129197
>tfw you unlock the non-ai magic

File: DSC00227.bearb2.jpg (1MB, 889x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 889x1200px

>>3129203
2nd: Pentacon 4/200

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Bridge CS5.1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:08:08 02:29:01
Image Width	889
Image Height	1200

File: DSC00229.bearb4.jpg (975KB, 845x1200px) Image search: [Google]

975KB, 845x1200px

>>3129203
3rd: Pentacon 2.8/135

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Bridge CS5.1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:08:08 02:29:02
Image Width	845
Image Height	1200

>>3129204
FUck yes.

Dw it's converted tho, so no problems using it on my F3.

File: DSC00228.bearb3.jpg (1MB, 899x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 899x1200px

>>3129203
and last but not least a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 2.8/50 on a focal length bellow mounted to a Exa 1b with a magnified overhead viewfinder.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Bridge CS5.1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:08:08 02:29:02
Image Width	899
Image Height	1200

I need a portrait lens for my xpro1
im thinking to adapt the contax/yashica carl zeiss 50mm1,4 (gets 75mm) for better DoF than my current fuji 35mm does.
Is this a good option for portraits ?

>>3129214
Nope.

DoF scales with crop factor, a 1.4 is about 2.1 with the 1.5x factor. Also minum focusing distance is SHIT with adapted lenses. I mean it's a nice way of adapting CHEAP glass, but don't buy expensive stuff.

Get the 50mm f2 fuji.

>>3129200
what age do you consider vintage?

What is the benefit of adapting vintage lenses to cameras with 2x crop factors? I'm asking honestly.

>>3129281
Same benefits as if you used modern full frame lenses on cameras with crop sensor.

>>3129214
>>3129218
I can't afford that right now that's why im asking which lens to adapt

>>3129396
Not that guy, but konica hexanon 50/1.7 is probably you best bet. Cheap, available and optically very good. Around $40 plus $20 for an adapter.

>>3129197
do you actually have the 135/2D? that lens is godlike but affordable for me

>>3129406
not affordable, i missed a word

>>3129406
>>3129407
I've borrowed one for about 2 weeks, but it was never mine. Will probably get one in the future.

Best OM zoom or telephoto?

Been looking at the 100mm 2.8

>>3129218
how would a 50/2 be better than a 50/1.4 for portraits? I realize the newer fuji would be sharper, but for portraits thats not the biggest issue. I guess just the AF and MFD then? I would save the cash and pick up an older 50 thb.

Got a Fujinon 55 1.8. Filter size should be 49mm. How do i determine what lense hood i need?

>>3129218
With ring only adapter on a Nikon and the lense above I can focus roughly 1,5-2m away which is enaugh for head+upper body portraits. Going to buy one with a lense though and give it a try.
with a 240mm lense i was able to focus ~20m (or more?) away.

>>3129747
Because that lens has been optimised for the Fuji system. Objectively (lol), a 50 f1.4 on a film camera is better, as any lens is on it's respective native system.

>>3129789
I had a canon 50mm 1.8 FD adapted to my fuji, so it was 75mm equivalent, and it worked just great.

>>3129938
>optimized for x system

I hate this meme, kys

>>3129940
What is your deal madfag? Each brand is optimised for it's native system, are you retarded?

>>3129956
There is nothing to "optimize" for retard. With the right adapter and if flange focal distance isn't a problem the lenses will perform the same on every fucking camera it can fit on.

>>3130009
MFD is a big one, even your tiny pea-sized brain can comprehend .
Sensors are another.
Flange distances designed by some chink company aren't always perfect.

Stop being a mad little faggot.

>>3130036
You're the one being mad as fuck here kek

Non of that matter you stupid faggot (^:

>>3130036

If you get a good adapter like the techart pro, or voigtlander close focus, minor variations in adapter focal distances becomes a non-issue.

>>3130037
>I-I'm n-not m-mad !!!

Chill bro. I said Chill.

>>3130040
Yeah my dad doesn't buy my adapters for me.

>>3130036
im also interested, how exactly do you think you 'optimize' a lense for a system?

okay if the flange distance doesnt fit, you lose focus at infinity or can focus past infinity.

if the lense distributes the light onto a larger area than necessary (ff on aps-c for example) the lense becomes softer and loses potential vignetting.

now tell me what things the lense does to the light to work better on some sensors than on others.

>>3130079
Ok, tell me this, if there was a an adapter for full frame cameras that could use APS-C lenses, do you think they would work flawlessly?

>>3130130
Lenses made for different sensor size is a separate matter retard. We're talking about same sensor size by default since this thread is about vintage lenses. There's no fucking aps-c sized film to have "optimized" lenses for. Kys.

File: IMG_1296.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

This lens mmmmm
The color rendition is absolutely fantastic, a little warm due to the radioactive element used in making the lens, but the greens in any photo I take are fucking spot on. Better rendition than any of my canon FD lenses. The bokeh is also very swirly and super bubbly. Lens flare is also very minimal surprisingly, far far less than any of my FD lenses, which is why it's my main lens now. It's also pretty sharp wide open surprisingly as well. Ironically I thought it was a piece of shit since I my art teacher just gave it to me (attached to a broken pentax sootmatic f which I fixed), and I adapted it for shits and giggles but it's actually a fantastic lens. I highly recommend it.

>>3130145
My point still stands.

But we were talking about APS-C cameras dingus. Follow the thread because you have the reading kills of a Moldovan peasant

File: _IGP9845.jpg (194KB, 1600x1064px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1600x1064px

Probably one of the best vintage lenses available, especially for the money.
Pentax k mount smc 50mm f1.4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1064

>>3130009
>There is nothing to "optimize" for retard. With the right adapter and if flange focal distance isn't a problem the lenses will perform the same on every fucking camera it can fit on.

This is not actually true, especially when talking about native lenses designed for digital cameras vs. vintage film camera lenses.

One way that a digital sensor is different from a piece of film is that the photosites on a sensor have depth. Depending on the sensor technology, this is mitigated a bit by microlenses or a backside illuminated design, but in general, sensors work better when the light rays are hitting them going straight down rather than at an angle. Silver grains, on the other hand, are all slopped together right there on the surface of the film and they react identically regardless of the angle a photon comes in at.

The upshot of this is, lenses designed with digital sensors in mind tend to be designed with that in mind--I.e., they're optically designed corral the light rays into straight lines heading down into the photosites rather than being designed to hit a piece of film at whatever angle is convenient for them.

It's not generally a BIG difference--and likely not one that's even noticeable, beyond a little extra vignetting on digital that might even be corrected automatically in software--but it *is* a difference.

File: a93da059d508ac6403b8651cbd538163.jpg (105KB, 650x649px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 650x649px

Industar 50-2 50mm f3.5

Fun little soviet pancake copy of a Carl zeiss lens. It's got a soft/silky thing going on.

File: 170808_143312_5D3_3229.jpg (374KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 640x960px

My copy of the lens is out in my car, but shots actually taken *with* the vintage lens are better than pictures *of* lenses anyway, right?

Shot this with a Nikon 55mm f/1.2 that I picked up a couple months ago. I love it because it gives everything a soft, dreamy sort of look (i.e., it's optically shitty and I use that for ART). I also love it because I picked it up for only $60 when they go for over $300 on eBay etc because the woman selling it was a photographer and wanted to make sure it would go to a good home and actually be used. So I got it really cheap and don't even have to feel guilty about it, because I've been using the shit out of this lens since I got it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Macintosh)
Photographer	A K Crain
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:08:09 11:03:46
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

/p/eople. What's the best prime lens 70mm to 135mm that I can get in m39,m42,or k mount for CHEAP? (Sub $100)

I need a longer lens option, right now I only have 50mm.

File: KODAK_Advantix_APS_Film.jpg (19KB, 230x173px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 230x173px

>>3130145
>There's no fucking aps-c sized film to have "optimized" lenses for.


That isn't quite true.

>>3130170
I've got the 1.2, crazy lens flares but they're interesting. It's a nice lens.

>>3130130
im the guy you replied to. well the lense would cast a smaller image circle onto the sensor, so you get heavy vignetting. if you manually crop to aps-c size, you get the original picture: the only important parameter is then the pixel density of the sensor. if its smaller, you might lose a little detail if the lense maxes out the sensors potential, if not, you get the original picture.

my point is that all the consequences are relatively easy to explain once you understand how lenses and sensors work together. i just doubt there are any other reasons other than marketing to go for 'optimized' lenses

>>3130212
But there is a reason why Fuji lenses are made. If not, people would just buy vintage shit and adapt it.

>>3130181
Pentax M/SMC Takumar/Super Takumar 135/3.5 should be about $30-40 in very good condition or better.

File: stack1.jpg (124KB, 620x613px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 620x613px

>>3130079
Not him but the thickness of the sensor stack is very important.

Lenses optimized for film (=no sensor stack) will lose sharpness on digital sensors (at least some sensor stack).

- Digital Leica's have very thin sensor stacks (purposely so old Leica lenses work well on new digital Leica's)
- m43 has a very thick/ sensor stack.
- Nikon and Canon are somewhere in-between.

A Canon lens on a m43 body will not be very sharp, and a Leica lens will be even worse - unless you use a speedbooster that actually compensates for the differences in sensor stacks.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2008:06:04 01:00:17
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	620
Image Height	613
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3130213
like any technology lenses are pushed every year, new features like new builds, coatings, stabilization or even autofocus need to be included in new lineups for various price classes. apart from that every company wants to make money, so a bringing out new equipment is mandatory for companies like fuji.

a few weeks ago i adapted my dads old nikon e-series to my a6500 and its comparable to the decades younger (and numerous times more expensive) sony 35 1.8 in terms of sharpness, has no vignetting/distortion and only slighty worse contrast. but it lacks the modern features like oss and autofocus which is a must have for a lot of modern photographers.

>>3130242
is this only because of refraction on the first glass layer? i've found some ominous blog post about this which seems to fit this as it seems to matter more for wider lenses

>>3130242
There's no such thing as "lenses optimized for film", it's simply lenses "made for film camera in a standardized way". Optimized implies they had a choice to use extra resources to make it better for either film or digital which simply isn't the case.

>>3130239
Thank /p/rother. I was looking at the takumar 135mm 2.5 thinking faster has to be better, but all the pictures with it just look bad. The 3.5 looks way better.

>>3130258
Maybe they didn't think of it that way because there weren't many digital sensors yet.

But they always tried to optimize performance, and with film as their only reference point they would automatically optimize for film.

File: Helios135.jpg (12KB, 299x300px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 299x300px

Just heard about this lense.
135mm with a 2.8 is kinda impressive, especially for a m42 lens.
does anyone have any insights?

>>3130355
Dude, there are literally dozens of garbage 3rd party 135/2.8's in m42.
Back before zooms were really a thing, that classic plebeian babby's first camera kit was always a basic SLR with the standard fast 50mm, and then a Soligor/Hanimex/Kimunor/Tasman/Sears/Sigma/Tokina/Vivitar 28/2.8 and 135/2.8.
For the record, the 28's are always trash, the 135's are usually very nice resolution wise, but low contrast due to shitty coatings.
The m42 ones usually have 50-bladed apertures as well, that shit is cash.

>>3130355
Get the Carl Ziess Sonnar 138mm f2.8.

>>3130355
Most of these are soft bloomy pieces of ass at f2.8 - making it only used for accurate focusing (assuming no focus shift :^) ) and a bright viewfinder image. You'll be using'em at f4/5.6 minimum. Unless you're into bokehwhoring that badly. Tbh at the price they go for you can just get a generic thrift store one for a few quid, see how the focal and image quality work for you and figure out if you need some expensive meme brand/model one or not. If you're just after the focal length, I recommend a Jupiter-11.

>>3130170
can i put it on my d5300?

I always heard that nikon sucks for adapted lenses

>>3130531
you can but you'll loose infinity focus. if you intend to shoot portraits at f/1.4 with it you'll be fine

File: 20160724-DSC00148.jpg (794KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 2000x1333px

>>3130355
135mm f2.8 are really common in M42. I do recommand the Beroflex and the Vivitar (but beware, there are many lenses branded "Vivitar" and I can't tell how to identificate this one). The Carl Zeiss Sonnar in C/Y is a must have. The Jupiter-11A is somewhat a sleeper lens, basically a Helios 44 in 135mm with Zeiss inside™. Avoid the Pentacon and the Takumar f2.5.
One rare and interesting lens is the Sankyo Kohki -Komura- 135mm f3.5 too -weak contrast and prone to flare but excellent optics and bokeh.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3129691
135/3.5 is tack-fucking-sharp wide open, and even better at 5.6. The 200/4 is also very nice at 5.6. 100mm and 85mm seem rare and expensive in the OM system, so I've no opinion.

>>3130546
>jupiter 11
Ever since I bought a Jupiter 21m at a flea market I am sold. It is not as fast as my canon 200mm f3.5, but damn it is sharp. Very little abberations too.
I love Portraiture at insanely long focal lengths.

File: 1497771176084.jpg (3MB, 3000x2573px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2573px

>>3130546
why avoid the 135/2.8 from Pentacon? im just curious because i own one and have been very satisfied with its performance when i compare it to my modern Nikkor Glass.

File: 932ae816-1e67-46da-9cf6-e9f5774fd2e9.png (1MB, 960x807px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x807px

I kinda wanna get a vintage lense for my D3300 for some reason

What would you guys recommend?

>>3130711
>not a sony
>not even mirrorless

why bother

>>3130181
>>3130239
Ok, I snagged a 135mm 3.5 smc pentax m for 40 bucks shipped. Gonna try to get me some of those shots and footage I've never been able to before. Thanks for the suggestion.

>>3130725
>F mount
uhhhh

>>3130152
Asahi is also beer

Any opinions on the Minolta 50mm f/3.5 MC QF Macro? Thinking of adapting one for my Sony A6300

>>3130152
Post snapshits

>>3130176
I got an industar 69 a while back, I like it, swirly bokeh is fun and it's a nice focal length on aps. I can't infinity focus unless I set them aperture to like 5.6 though and I can't focus very close and the threading for focusing is crusty as shit so i need to clean and relube it.
Awesome size tho

File: Shooting-Wide.jpg (77KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x334px

Whats a good sub 35mm of wider lens under like $70 usd?

>>3130536
But there are adapters with infinity correction glass. Are those alright?

File: av7LBOZ_700b.jpg (25KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x480px

>>3133304
Konica Hexanon 28mm f2.8
Canon FD 28mm f2.8
Minolta 28mm f2.8
Beroflex 28mm f2.8

Basically you're fucked. Anything remotely decent and wider is heavy on hipster tax and/or won't fit your definition of "good".

>>3133304
Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 is decent, its f/2.8 bro can be had for about a hundred so if you wait for long enough... don't pay too much for them, neither is truly worth more than 50€ on the spot, and don't at all even look at the f/2, shit's a gimmick.

>>3133417
>zuiko 35 f2.8
>not worth £50

lol good luck finding any of them in good condition for under $100, and they're well worth it.

>>3133304
That is a picture of my friend.

>>3133458
>zuiko 35 f2.8
isnt he talking about a 28mm not a 35?

anyone have any experience with the Minolta Celtic lenses? I am looking to adapt more Minoltas and the Rokkor 28 mms are always just a touch more than I want to spend while Celtics are dirt ass cheap. I've heard it's due to build quality but can anyone comment as to their performance?

Hey guys, quick question, is the Pentor 70-210/4 a good lens? It is internal zoom like those expensive white ones.

File: DSC03151-1.jpg (189KB, 1500x653px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1500x653px

Really like this one.

Very tempted to get a samyang 135/2 because of this lens. Really like the focal length on apsc.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6300
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:08:16 16:46:22
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	1.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	653
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3134037
Celtics have same optics as normal rokkor, but cheaper coatings and build quality.

>>3134067
So worth looking at or not?

>>3134069
As long as you get them dirt cheap.

Most rokkor lenses aren't that expensive to begin with, so quite often it makes more sense to go for the rokkors.

>>3134076
I'm specifically thinking of a 28mm. The Rokkor is like a 200 dollar lens where as the Celtic is under 50.

>>3134077

Get the rokkor 28mm f/2.8


It is pretty awesome and only like $75.

>>3129203
it thoroughly enjoy me pentacon lenses.

Russian tier:
Jupiter-37A Cheap sonnar copy, pretty sharp and small.
Zenitar-M 50/1.7 Some folks say it's ultron scheme. Smooth bokeh, sharp.
Helios 77m-4 Swirly bokeh! Effect is stronger then 44-X series. Not much sharp, but center is still good.

For wide angle lenses (sub 20mm) are the only real options the Canon FD 17mm f4 and the Tokina 17mm f3.5?

I have a Lumix G85, upgrade recently, so I wanna invest a focal reducer / speedbooster into a vintage mount, to get some better DoF, speed and more workable focal lengths. I'd mainly use the lenses for video. I already have FD, AIS and M42 lenses and adapters. What's a good mount to invest a focal reducer for video on MFT?

File: P1060130_01.jpg (719KB, 1919x1079px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 1919x1079px

Saw a Vivitar 100mm 2.8 M42 for 25€ at a photostore and I loved the pure feel of it, how it handles.
I took just a few testshots and they look halfway decent. pic related is a 1:1 crop of a corner. Seems sharp enough
What do you think? should I go back and get it?
I don't have a 100mm yet, only 50mm and 200mm. Don't know what I'D use it for on an MFT body.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G7
Camera Software	darktable 2.0.3
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2017:08:17 18:19:03
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1919
Image Height	1079
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Auto
Focus Mode	Manual
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Off
Macro Mode	Normal
Shooting Mode	Program
Audio	No
Flash Bias	0.00 EV

Came across a Leica R elmarit 135mm f/2.8 for 60usd.
Missing the built in lenshood sadly, but optics are perfect.

Seeing them go for around 150-200usd on ebay.

I've been looking at a 135mm so I'm going to bite.

>>3134205
Probably one where you can adapt all your lenses to for example canon fd.
You have to use multiple adapters but you dont have to buy multiple speedboosters.... Just buy the one with the smallest flange from your kit. I use a zhongyi lens turbo 2 on my gh3 and bmpcc (m42version) i bought from a forum used for 100€ quid. In my opinion it is the best value for money if you want to experiment. (Aparrently the same optics as the first generation of the metabones speedboosters)

>>3129281
You don't see the corners of the lens
You have a smaller pixel size so you see more of the imperfections of the glass. The focal lenght gets 2x as long as normal. Its basically like shooting with a teleconverter without the decreased f stop

Anyone knows if a m42 mount lens with a nikon f adapter (more specifically a helios 44-m) will damage the aperture feeler tab on cameras that have them?

Anyone know a good 135mm ? M42/M39 or OM mount if possible

>>3136012
Pentacon 135 2.8
Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135 f3.5

Two best 135 for M42.

If you guys want to pick one brand of lenses to stick with, i would recommend the minolta rokkor MC/MD line. The build quality is good and consistent and they are all sharp lenses. Especially the rokkor 35mm 2.8 is unbelieveably sharp.

>>3130176

Is this compatible with Nikon FF, i.e. does it focus to infinity? :o