affordable fast 85mm?


Mongoose

Link Posted 01/04/2007 - 23:39
Reuben0 wrote:

Yes, but screw-mount lenses are actually easier to use than M's and K's, as you can just leave the camera in Av and it meters with whatever aperture you've set on the lens.

Cheers,
reuben0

I second this, particularly if the M42 lens in question has the M/A switch, since you can focus on full aperture and then flick the switch to M to meter and shoot. It's actually pretty easy.

As long as you make sure you get a multi-coated version, from what I hear the J9's are pretty good.

I often use my Tamron 90mm F2.5 for fencing action shots in dingy gyms. It's probably verging on too slow for your purposes, but is cheap and very high quality even wide open.

Kimbo

Link Posted 02/04/2007 - 01:42
I was going to suggest the Tamron 90mm F2.5 too as it's cheaper than a Pentax 85mm and is a stonkingly good macro lens, as well as being ideal for portraiture.

If you wanted to go for a really cheap option ie. nothing to lose, you could look for a Tamron Adaptall 2 135mm F2.5 (model 03B).
It's an old style (metal bodied) manual focus lens, fast for it's focal length and a remarkably good performer.
I expect you could pick one up for less than 20 (+ 10-20 for a KA Adaptall 2 mount).

I actually paid 22 for mine quite a few years ago from a high street store (Jessops, I think) and I dare say eBay would be an even cheaper option.
It really is a fine lens and at that price, there's no real risk is there?
Die my dear doctor, that's the last thing I shall do!

Mongoose

Link Posted 02/04/2007 - 01:56
kimbo, if you know where I can get a KA adaptall mount for under 20 I'd be most interested!

still they aren't TOO expensive, at some point I shall convince myself I want one enough to buy one, at which point the price will probably double. I have a KM mount on my macro lens atm.

The 90mm also combines very nicely with the 2x flat field adaptall converter to make a 180mm tele-macro. Very useful for wildlife closeups when working distance is everything.

Kimbo

Link Posted 02/04/2007 - 02:11
Hmm, you're right - I haven't bought a mount for quite a while but they used to be about 25 new and I think PK and especially PKA ones now often sell for more than that secondhand - probably cheaper to buy a lens that you don't want, just to get the mount!

I've got an Olympus OM and a Canon FD mount......if anyone's interested
Die my dear doctor, that's the last thing I shall do!

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 02/04/2007 - 11:56
I got one (a PKA mount) from MXV a year and a half ago - for 18.

They've only got a PK one now though.

Dan

thomastherhymer

Link Posted 02/04/2007 - 12:17
how do I know if a jupiter 9 is multi coated?

Kimbo

Link Posted 02/04/2007 - 13:02
Lenses usually, if not always, state something like 'Multi Coated', 'Multi' or 'MC' as in the following picture:

http://mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/jupiter_9_m42.html
Die my dear doctor, that's the last thing I shall do!

thomastherhymer

Link Posted 02/04/2007 - 15:05
I've not seen a jupiter 9 for sale yet that said MC on it, but will keep an eye open for one.

You can I think remove the aperture lever quite easily from an M lens to use in aperture priority like a M42 lens as some have described above.

It would get a bit dark on smaller apertures though!

Reuben0

Link Posted 02/04/2007 - 16:03
thomastherhymer wrote:
how do I know if a jupiter 9 is multi coated?

Multi-coated versions have "MC" next to "Jupiter 9".

You can also tell from the colour of the glass. The single coated version has a faint brown colour and the multi-coated version has the usual purple colour.

Cheers,
Reuben0

bretbysteve

Link Posted 02/04/2007 - 16:16
Hi,

"Sorry to stamp on that comment, but to give you an example, a cheap 50mm f1.7 Vivitar lens is reckoned to be as good as more expensive Nikkors... "

Reckoned by who? and how have they compared them? or is this just more of the anonymous uninformed internet chatter?

... if you compare any lenses simply by looking at small d&p 6x4 or 7x5 prints you will see no difference. However if you use decent technique and compare lets say a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 with a vivitar 50mm lens and then produce a quality 10 x 12 print you will soon see the limitations of the Vivitar lens..very clearly, especially if the Vivitar lens is used anywhere near wide open.

I agree cheap does not always have to mean naff, but the major lens makers ( Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus ) do make lenses which consistently out perform the others when you start to push the limits harder. If you only produce small prints, you may never see any differences, or if you only ever hand hold your camera you may never see any difference...there are many variables to consider.

"On the other hand, schmucks who spend 1000+ on L-series glass don't always realise that although the lenses contain expensive glass there are much cheaper alternatives that are optically superior....or comparable"

IMO this really is a bit of a silly statement. Many of these 'schmucks' are professional sport photographers who depend on their living from these lenses....to suppose there are far cheaper and superior lenses to do the same job....mmmmm. Some rather dubious comments here methinks.

cheers Steve. (and no I am not a Canon fan)

Pwynnej

Link Posted 03/04/2007 - 08:17
bretbysteve wrote:
Hi,

"Sorry to stamp on that comment, but to give you an example, a cheap 50mm f1.7 Vivitar lens is reckoned to be as good as more expensive Nikkors... "

Reckoned by who? and how have they compared them? or is this just more of the anonymous uninformed internet chatter?

The Late Stewart Bell of Amateur Photographer, when he tested a Vivitar camera a few years ago...

Quote:
IMO this really is a bit of a silly statement. Many of these 'schmucks' are professional sport photographers who depend on their living from these lenses....to suppose there are far cheaper and superior lenses to do the same job....mmmmm. Some rather dubious comments here methinks.

You're entitled to your own opinion, I keep mine. I don't think they're dubious. Compare a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 to a Canon L 70-200 f2.8 or f4, is the Canon optically 2 times better than the Sigma?

bretbysteve

Link Posted 03/04/2007 - 10:09
Hiya,

Apologies to all for going way off the original thread..but you know how these things happen..

"Compare a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 to a Canon L 70-200 f2.8 or f4, is the Canon optically 2 times better than the Sigma?"

...if you could sum up lens performance in this simplistic numerical way, the answer would very probably be a firm no, but that would be to miss the point entirely anyway. Professional sports photographers buy lenses to earn their living. They do not care if the Canon lens costs twice as much as the Sigma. They want the extra pro back up of the Canon service centres and the extra durability of the Canon lenses..as well as some extra image quality for large reproduction purposes...possibly posters or large magazine spreads, advertising, etc.

There is also the point that Sigma (and others) do not duplicate all the Canon lenses. If you are an amateur or semi-pro then yes it makes a lot of sense indeed to buy Sigma or others, I have a superb Sigma lens myself, but many pros NEED the extras you get with Canon & Nikon...they are not schmucks. They are just buying the best tools for their job.

Most people realise that as you buy ever more expensive lenses, the law of diminishing returns sets in...you pay increasingly large amounts of money for smaller and smaller improvements. This has always been the case and probably always will be.

cheers Steve.

Mongoose

Link Posted 03/04/2007 - 11:58
It's all about having the right tool for the job in hand. Here is an example:

I have been fencing at inter-university level for about 3 years. I have always taken my camera along with me to matches. When I first started out I was a penniless student so I picked up a beat up old MZ-50 and SMC 50mm F2 from Ebay. This kit cost me something like 50 in total, but with ISO1600 film it did the trick.

On more than one occasion at matches I encountered others attempting to take pictures with DSLRs. They were generally using kit zooms and got nowhere at great speed in the dingy fencing gyms, while my trusty F2 (and later an A series 1.7) allowed me to keep the shutter speed up for crisp shots most of the time.

Those DSLRs cost at least 10x more than my MZ-50, in general use they were undoubtedly superior, in that situation they were paperweights.

Higher price does not mean better, it just means more expensive. You have to realise what is important for the shots you want to take and then pay the appropriate price, whether that tag is attached to a 10 SMC-M 50mm F2 or a 500 SMC-DA* 50-135.

Of course if there has been confusion and the tag from the former has become attached to the latter, you should buy very very fast and then run before they realise their mistake, but surely that is obvious

Classvino

Link Posted 03/04/2007 - 18:52
Mongoose said :

Quote:
kimbo, if you know where I can get a KA adaptall mount for under 20 I'd be most interested!

Not sure if this is KA - just says K on site...

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-Adaptall-II-adapter-Pentax/dp/B00009XUYM/ref=sr_1_67/102-4977672-3872954?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1175612335&sr=1-67

(sorry rfor the long URL - couldn't remember how to make a short link...)
--------------
MZ-6,K10D,K20D,Grip,DA*Zooms,DA 18-55-200 Kit,FA50,1.7TC,AFZ360
For Saleentax FA28-90,FA100-300,Sigma EX28-80,DC18-200,
Makinon 500mm Mirror
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.