What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Share your photos with legacy lenses

We had a brief stay in a rural hotel in Burgo de Osma, Spain, and the only native L-mount lens I took was the Sigma 35/2 and the rest was done with a Takumar 24mm f/3.5 and a Konica 57mm f/1.4. Here are a couple of pictures from the Takumar, which impressed me overall even though IQ falls off towards the edges even at f/8.

This is the central courtyard of the hotel (a refurbished 500-year-old university building)

55117194942_4316ebb6db_c.jpg

Castilla Thermal by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

And this is in the cathedral

55120143275_ef4caf6b4c_c.jpg

Spotlight by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
 
The Minolta 58/1.2 is one of those cult classic fast lenses. I have a fairly old copy, but ran across a newer copy at an estate sale last week. Unfortunately, not only was the filter ring badly dented, but the rear element was badly stained. They let me have it for $40; I went ahead and grabbed it because I remembered another lens with similarly stained elements that gave some lovely images with appropriate post-processing:

52784814566_aaec0861b0_b.jpg

20230328-P1000866 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Lumix S5, Kiron 75-150/4

Haven't had a chance to test it with those kind of photos yet, but I did get a chance to do some testing on exercise walks.

55139783340_11b951e4cd_b.jpg

20260306-SDIM9521 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, MC Rokkor-PG 58/1.2

55139633639_599ed19c6a_b.jpg

20260308-SDIM9599 by Travis Butler, on Flickr

55139576198_8df4d9a4b5_b.jpg

20260308-SDIM9604 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
One for @Pete_W !

55138507837_54cd31b98a_b.jpg

20260308-SDIM9625 by Travis Butler, on Flickr

55139633629_28c02eb184_b.jpg

20260308-SDIM9626 by Travis Butler, on Flickr

The last is the only one so far that really shows signs of the rendering I was looking for, but it looks like it's still capable of some good images with some work. Hoping to try it out on the kind of subjects I was looking for sometime soon.
 
Travis Butler said:
The Minolta 58/1.2 is one of those cult classic fast lenses. I have a fairly old copy, but ran across a newer copy at an estate sale last week. Unfortunately, not only was the filter ring badly dented, but the rear element was badly stained. They let me have it for $40; I went ahead and grabbed it because I remembered another lens with similarly stained elements that gave some lovely images with appropriate post-processing
Click to expand...

I have had my eye on a Minolta 58mm f/1.2 for a while but alas, at present I have to make do with the absurdly slow f/1.4 variant :)

I've never heard of a lens with a "stained" element - stained with what?

These were all taken with the S-M-C Takumar 24mm f/3.5

55139149945_d1eb1ba1cf_c.jpg

Burgo De Osma by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

55138762841_9d164fc20a_c.jpg

White pots by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

55138941083_969d240e7f_c.jpg

Burgo De Osma by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
 
Jonathan-Mac said:
I have had my eye on a Minolta 58mm f/1.2 for a while but alas, at present I have to make do with the absurdly slow f/1.4 variant :)
Click to expand...
Hah. :) Well, having owned both (the MC Rokkor-X and MD-III versions of the 50/1.4, as well as the 58/1.4 and MD 50/1.2), it's not about the speed; there really is a qualitative difference in the bokeh and rendering. Despite also being f/1.2, the 50/1.2 doesn't have it; neither does the 58/1.4, though both the 58/1.4 and the 50/1.4s have their own charm.

Aside from the pretty justified reputation as a bokeh monster, the 58/1.2 is just a good all-arounder. The 58/1.4 can be very nice at short-to-medium distances with a single subject (portrait or portrait-equivalent) but is mediocre at long-to-infinity and architectural/landscape, and can flare badly. The MC and MD 50/1.4s are good at landscape and close range, but can't match the 58/1.2 for bokeh effects. The 58/1.2 can do long-range, it can do close-up, and it can do the really artistic bokeh.

Jonathan-Mac said:
I've never heard of a lens with a "stained" element - stained with what?
Click to expand...

Best I can describe it is looking something like the residue left behind after a liquid evaporates. The pattern follows the kind of rings you see in a region with hard water (or when you use regular water instead of distilled water in a CPAP humidifier); but instead of the white-ish film left by tap water minerals, it's darker, more like ink or oil.
 
A few shots with a newly-acquired Nikon AI 50mm f/2. It seems pretty good optically but suffers from the same physical characteristics as the 50/1.4 I tried a few years ago - less impressive build quality than it's peers of the time, dry, poorly damped focusing ring and aperture clicks only at full stops. I might keep it though as at least it was a fraction of the price of the 1.4.

55176355889_73580454f1_c.jpg

At the window of the Gruff Goat by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

55176349414_4fa32ccf59_c.jpg

Princes Street, a cold spring afternoon by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

55179157068_933596b988_c.jpg

Westend Tailors by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

55179248259_34247d0ea6_c.jpg

Blue by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
 
Konica Hexanon 135mm f3.2

P1016110_kl.jpeg
  • Panasonic DC-S1RM2
  • 135mm
  • 1/60s
  • ISO 80
P1016103_kl.jpeg
  • Panasonic DC-S1RM2
  • 135mm
  • 1/100s
  • ISO 80
 
Jonathan-Mac said:
I saw one of these very cheap recently but when I asked for photos showing the optics I saw it was full of fungus :( It does seem to be the best 135mm from Konica, especially for close focus.
Click to expand...
As far as I know there‘re 3 135mm from Konica and the f3.2 is the best in that regard. But beside that I love the overall image quality from it. I’m glad I found a cheap one in very good condition.
 
Trying out a lens I found at a sale a couple of days ago, from a company I've never heard of before:

20260425-SDIM0262.jpg
  • 1/80s
  • ISO 100


It feels to me like one of those generic private label lenses from the 80s or 90s; contract Asian manufacturers like Sun or Samyang made lenses that were either sold as a major chain's private label brand (like 'Focal' for K-Mart), or as a discount brand at other retailers (like 'Albinar' or 'Hanimex'). I see a lot of them at sales, when the owner apparently couldn't afford a first-party lens. But film era zooms with this focal range were rare, and I've never seen a generic one before this lens; generics are usually one of the standard primes (28/35/50/135) or long teles like an 80-200. And while I've seen a number of generic lens brands, I've never seen 'Magnum' before.

Anyway, it intrigued me for the zoom range and also the small size; and since it was bundled with a Minolta XG7 SLR for just $20, I figured I wasn't losing anything if it didn't pan out. So how did it do?

55233088754_0283dc188c_b.jpg

20260425-SDIM0269 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, Magnum CCT 28-50

Not terrible, certainly; reasonably sharp. Contrast is OK but benefits from boosting black levels. Competent but not outstanding; I can get good pics with it, but nothing that grabs me and makes me want to use it, either.

55233088634_2138a016ce_b.jpg

20260425-SDIM0273 by Travis Butler, on Flickr

OOF areas look pretty good close to the focal plane, but bokeh gets very busy in the background. Lots of bokeh balls, but doesn't look like the kind of thing that would charm bokeh enthusiasts.

55233088704_97f9621074_b.jpg

20260425-SDIM0278 by Travis Butler, on Flickr

Not terribly sharp (unless I missed the focus, which is entirely possible!), but quite a bit of detail.

55231933152_304c517018_b.jpg

20260425-SDIM0295 by Travis Butler, on Flickr

Some good detail from the clouds, and doesn't look like much in the way of flare.

55232845321_6191532c61_b.jpg

20260425-SDIM0307 by Travis Butler, on Flickr

I like the colors; but again, while they're nice, I've gotten equally nice color from other lenses.

On the whole... it certainly isn't bad, and like I said I can get some decent pics out of it. But apart from the size, I haven't seen anything yet that makes me want to use it; and the OM Zuiko 28-48 is even smaller and has arguably better IQ, while the Minolta 24-50 is larger but a full level up in IQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top