Lens adaptation chronicles

Me too. Following an accident last year, my hands are still not well enough to cope with the M42 threads on my Zeiss and Takumars or even to just hold a camera properly and work it's controls.

Thank you!

Looking forward to it.

Thanks a lot for letting me know - that's reassuring!

I'm really happy about anyone here having an interest in adapted lenses. Perhaps there's a chance to get some good and unique information about adapted lenses in some form to be presented once the editorial part of the site launches - however niche it may be compared to the modern gear stuff, it could be something to help distinguish this site from the bigger alternatives. And, if accompanied by some images, which show the particular merits and unique options some of these MF lenses bring to the table, I'm hopeful it can generate some more interest for this particular field.

Elsewhere you may be interested in a discussion about green casts at the sides being attributed to legacy lenses.

www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67326909

Not really on-topic, just for interest ...

Don't give up! Keep more stories coming!😋😍

As I remarked above when protesting that publishing snaps from different optics was more useful for judging aesthetics than performance, i maintain that mere pictures without enlargements and detailed info on creation and processing of the picture remain less useful if the aim is to compare lenses. the Artaphot.Ch habit of showing the effect of diagonally skewed pictures when comparing lenses is more helpful.

The best advice is to ignore net pictures, grab whatever works fofr the purpose . And to define the purpose clearly: lens price, weight, size, ease of: -focussing (incliuding actally used minimum forcus) - setting aperture, size of final enlargement, light conditions (including properly sized sunshade if strong lights close to where the lens is pointing),

Collecting particular versions is another matter. Here the excessive attention to detail of stampcollectors will come in useful. The key is to admit whether one aquires lenses for use or for enjoying ownership. Both is admissible, but just showing single snaps does not prove much beyoind that the optic actually does form a picture.

p.

Oh, no... why did you delete that image? It was great and I wanted to comment on that interesting lens choice as well - the Fax-Topcor... I've considered buying one some time ago, but decided against it because of the focal length.

Should we re-activate the monthly Adapted lens thread and you post it there?

Yes, true - it seems like a pretty good method of judging performance and comparing lenses and I really appreciate the work Stephan (of artaphot) is doing in that regard. However I think comparing lenses isn't (and shouldn't) always be the main purpose. When I share images made with adapted lenses I usually provide those at full resolution. This way you can get quite a bit of insight about performance even in cases where the main point is the specific look of the lens and a comparison with another lens (which might have better edge performance) might not be relevant at all.

What I often want to show is just: These kinds of images are possible with this lens! and I feel like people who view those (+ also have a full-res image for pixel-peeping at their disposal) will have enough information to judge if that's something which might be interesting for them, even without skewed images and direct comparisons.

As mentioned before I value that kind of comparison tests highly (and in fact the deltalenses.com project - which I'm a part of - has a vast amount of those as well...) but I'm personally not interested in doing too many of those clearly defined comparison tests myself, because it's not that relevant to my personal style and way of doing things.

I agree, but "snaps" isn't a well-defined term and might mean something completely different to you than someone else.

Here a couple of examples:

Field-study by simple.joy, on Flickr

Making hard work light work by simple.joy, on Flickr

Hard to be soft in a good way... by simple.joy, on Flickr

Soft spot for flowers by simple.joy, on Flickr

Are these snaps? Certainly none of them is sharp. And still I consider some of those lenses worth owning for taking pictures.

If we leave the word "snaps" aside, still my picture only showed that the optic actually does form a picture. So I thought it was posted in a wrong thread.

I think you should do so. It was a better place to this kind of pictures.
But is it too challenging to make it monthly thread?
Can you title it "Through Your Adapted Lens"? Is that any English, I mean.

Done! You can find it here: dprevived.com/t/november-2023-this-month-through-your-adapted-lens/5150/

So adapted pictures go there but talk about adaptions go here?
Thanks,
barondla

To be honest, I have some difficulty identifying what this thread is about, but of course talk about adaptions, lenses, experiences is highly welcome and appreciated in the monthly thread as well! It just has been awfully quiet the last time I've tried, so I thought most adapted lens people might have returned to dpreview for good.

I think it's the question of lenses optical value. As PHz set it

I think aesthetics is a great value of a lens, if it really exists, if some lenses made aesthetically different pictures than another lenses.
I think that's true. There's visible, so aesthetical differencies between rendering of different lenses.

But what is the performance of a lens? What is the so called IQ?

timo k puts the precise label on what snaps (=randomly selected images that one likes) is about; positive feelings about the content.

Lens choice is often defended automatically since what one has must by definition be preferrable.

Segregating pictorial examples to a gallery would free up bandwidth for textual content on unfashionable lenses of both the stampcollection variety and the science variety to flourish .

p.

Yes - certainly some truth to that. And it does happen to me as well from time to time!

Thanks for trying to clarify!

I have to admit that I have a really, really hard time understanding what you're saying and I freely admit, that this might be completely due to English being a foreign language to me. So please don't take this as me trying to critizise your way of writing.

Does this mean, you don't want images in this thread? Or are you talking about the forum as a whole, given that you propose a "gallery" as an alternative? I feel like with adapted (and even moreso unusual types of) lenses, written content does only go so far, because they're often more defined by the look (oftentimes actually flaws, inadequacies or limitations) than any resolution chart etc.

However, if this thread was more intended as a collection of "stories" about adapting lenses or as a place to assemble some interesting facts, details, of course some kinds of images (which don't show the thing you describe or help illustrating a point) might indeed be a distraction. I get that and would agree that some might be better suited elsewhere.

Can you tell me what your intention was? Do you want others to tell some stories as well, or has this thread just been misinterpreted in that way by some (including me)?

Anyway, as I've stated I'm happy to re-activate the regular "This Month Through Your Adapted Lens" thread and have already done so, so if there are snaps, or sample shots or any other type of image made with adapted lenses, everyone is hereby invited to share them there, with and without description or story behind it. But of course it's always fascinating to read about that, so please do share your thoughts, findings and personal experiences.

I find that to be very common in photographic fora when equipment is being compared. Many people think that the final result after raw conversion, editing to taste and even printing 8x10" is the correct criterion for camera comparison.

I am inclined the other way. The closer I can get to the sensor the better it is and shots of targets examined by analytical software are preferred. For example a 5-degree slant-edge as opposed to shrubbery and rolling hills ...

... and there's your answer! Of course that's true "when equipment is being compared" but that isn't always the case and it doesn't necessarily have to be. I'm thankful for people who are able to do proper comparisons, I find those fascinating, valuable and helpful for some decisions. I also don't enjoy making those myself and I'm of the opinion that they're one important aspect, not the only one. Would you agree with that?

I would agree. For example, a Petzval lens is technically horrible compared to a modern portrait lens, but ... ... ...

I haven't been communicative on this subject because until now I hadn't seen a post fit to respond to and I've been hesitant to start my own thread. I've never seen an "odd" optic, but I use some unconventional lenses - Alpa, Kilfitt,, Novoflex, Meyer, Schacht, to name a few.

If I know Kilfitt, Meyer, Schacht etc. were lens manufacturers. Alpa, Novoflex with others rebranded their products but did not make any lenses by themselves.