Index: Non-native lenses on E- and A-mount cameras |
Page <1234 13> |
Author | |
addy landzaat
Senior Member Joined: 22 April 2006 Country: Netherlands Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Posts: 15701 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 19 December 2013 at 13:35 |
Good move, like it - now I can post MD 35/2.8 pictures
|
|
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
|
|
darosa
Emeritus group Joined: 23 March 2007 Country: Netherlands Location: Old Zealand Status: Offline Posts: 14187 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 19 December 2013 at 13:47 |
You are quick Addy, I'm still working on it!
And I have edited my post a bit. |
|
darosa
Emeritus group Joined: 23 March 2007 Country: Netherlands Location: Old Zealand Status: Offline Posts: 14187 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 19 December 2013 at 14:01 |
And now I must add the specs of all the versions ...
|
|
addy landzaat
Senior Member Joined: 22 April 2006 Country: Netherlands Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Posts: 15701 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 19 December 2013 at 14:04 |
I'll be thinking of you while doing other stuff
Without kidding, it is appreciated! |
|
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
|
|
darosa
Emeritus group Joined: 23 March 2007 Country: Netherlands Location: Old Zealand Status: Offline Posts: 14187 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 19 December 2013 at 14:29 |
Thanx
|
|
thornburg
Senior Member Joined: 25 July 2013 Country: United States Location: PA Status: Offline Posts: 3765 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 19 December 2013 at 19:46 |
What about the "Celtic" versions? I know they're not as popular, but they don't say "Rokkor" on them. |
|
Sony a3000, a6000, a57, a99 - Sony E 16-50, 28/2 | Vivitar 13, 85 | Minolta 24, 28-105, 35-105, 50/1.7, 75-300 | Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 | Sigma 70/2.8 Macro | Tamron 70-200/2.8 | Celestron 1000/11
|
|
darosa
Emeritus group Joined: 23 March 2007 Country: Netherlands Location: Old Zealand Status: Offline Posts: 14187 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 19 December 2013 at 20:50 |
For the moment I would like to leave the Celtic lenses out. We have quite a lot of versions already and as you say, the Celtic versions are not very popular so I don't expect many contributions.
But I may be wrong and if anyone would like to post his/her shots taken with a Celtic lens, it's no problem adding that lens. |
|
Peekayoh
Senior Member Joined: 19 January 2009 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Posts: 3162 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 27 December 2013 at 00:59 |
What about different optical formulae?
The 35/2.8 formula changed in '75. Shouldn't there be two threads? |
|
addy landzaat
Senior Member Joined: 22 April 2006 Country: Netherlands Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Posts: 15701 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 27 December 2013 at 01:33 |
@Thornburg:
Celtic lenses were only sold in the US - as far as I know their optical construction was the same as all other lenses. @Peekayoh: It is impossible to keep track of all changes Minolta made over the years: SR to MD to MC, in between optical changes, changes in filter thread. There are NINE different versions (not counting Celtic labelled lenses) of the 35/2.8, for most people it is impossible to differentiate between these. Also, I think the first 35/2.8 (1959) was different from the second one (1962) - so, there are three optical versions.... Furthermore, there are 5 (five) different optical formula's for the 135/2.8 - making it quite messy if we make a thread for all. I support the decision to just keep one thread for all SR-Mount 35/2.8, 135/2.8 (etc.) lenses. |
|
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
|
|
Peekayoh
Senior Member Joined: 19 January 2009 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Posts: 3162 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 27 December 2013 at 11:47 |
I'm not suggesting a thread for all version, after all some were just cosmetic, just for major changes. The 35/2.8 seems to have two optical formulae, 7 in 6 (1959-1974) and then 5 in 5 (1975-1981).
I agree that it becomes more difficult with the 135/2.8 but as/if the threads become longer and get more difficult to search for the lens you want to research then the thread is no longer a resource, just somewhere to post images. |
|
addy landzaat
Senior Member Joined: 22 April 2006 Country: Netherlands Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Posts: 15701 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 27 December 2013 at 12:32 |
There are three optical formulas for the SR-Mount: '59, '62 and '75 - the '59 and '62 versions have the same number of groups and elements, but differ in minimum aperture (f/22 and f/16) and minimum focus distance (25cm and 40cm) so it has to be a different optical design.
The optical design changed in '75 in the middle of the MC series - if I have an MC 35/2.8, how do I know which version I have? And even if I know, how does the casual shooter knows? And when we're done with the Minolta MD/MC lenses, we can start with the Canon FL/FD lenses and the Nikon F-mount lenses. After that the Contax MM and AE lenses - there is no end. Did I mention M42 already? I can see were you're coming from, however, this is about non-native lenses. It is an additional resource. Maybe you like mflenses better. I'm in favour of keeping things simple - simple minds need things kept simple |
|
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
|
|
darosa
Emeritus group Joined: 23 March 2007 Country: Netherlands Location: Old Zealand Status: Offline Posts: 14187 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 27 December 2013 at 13:41 |
I'm with Addy on this one, for now.
ATM there is no problem finding your way in the samples threads imo. Starting a separate thread for each optically different version would only be confusing and might lead to members posting samples in the wrong thread. We had a similar discussion in the AMAE team and decided to keep it simple in the beginning. But it's always possible if and when the samples threads grow bigger and bigger, to change this. |
|
Peekayoh
Senior Member Joined: 19 January 2009 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Posts: 3162 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 27 December 2013 at 14:08 |
I can see the point in plumping for simplicity, I just hope that simplicity does not end in hopeless confusion.
On the other hand, the threads may not prove to be all that popular; we'll just have to wait and see, I guess. |
|
saxbike
Senior Member Joined: 30 June 2008 Country: United States Location: Cary, NC Status: Offline Posts: 420 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 29 December 2013 at 15:55 |
> Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > Other mount lenses | Page <1234 13> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.
Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer
In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania
Feel free to contact us if needed.