MF lenses on Sony a900
 

Just to keep this group pumped up a little bit.

Slightly OT.

I've been using my MF lenses on a Sony a900 (36x24mm).

The results have been very good, but not better than my better
Sony/Minolta lenses of approx. the same FL.

The drawback is stop down metering (and AF, but I don't use that much in
any case).

Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?

MF lenses on Sony a900
 

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Just to keep this group pumped up a little bit.

Slightly OT.

I've been using my MF lenses on a Sony a900 (36x24mm).

The results have been very good, but not better than my better
Sony/Minolta lenses of approx. the same FL.

The drawback is stop down metering (and AF, but I don't use that much in
any case).

Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?


Not yet. I'm not sure using one of my RB lenses on my K2 or LX body is
practial, at this point.

MF lenses on Sony a900
 

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:56:14 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?

I recently bought an adapter to allow use of my Pentax 645 lenses on
my Nikon cameras, but haven't done much with it yet. The two lenses I
plan on trying are a 135mm f/4LS, for it's leaf shutter, and the 120mm
f/4 Macro in a head-to-head comparison with a 105mm VR.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There
is no substitute for thinking.

MF lenses on Sony a900
 

Michael Benveniste wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:56:14 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?

I recently bought an adapter to allow use of my Pentax 645 lenses on
my Nikon cameras, but haven't done much with it yet. The two lenses I
plan on trying are a 135mm f/4LS, for it's leaf shutter, and the 120mm
f/4 Macro in a head-to-head comparison with a 105mm VR.


How do you cock the leaf shutter and trigger it?

With my adapter, it is the camera shutter that is used, not the leaf in
the lenses (Hasselblad).

I compared the Hassy 120 f/4 Makro to the Sony 135 f/1.8 (non macro) for
very comparable results in the center area at max-close focus.

The Minolta (or Sony) 100 f/2.8 macro completely blows away the
Hasselblad (since the Hassy is 1:3 and the Minolta is 1:1 that goes to
follow).

MF lenses on Sony a900
 

"Alan Browne" wrote:

How do you cock the leaf shutter and trigger it?

My answer is "awkwardly at best." On the 645, the procedure
is described he
http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/m...135mm_Lens.pdf

I think it's the roughly the same procedure when using the adapter.
Set the camera to manual mode at 1/8th of a second, select f-stop
and shutter speed on the lens, cock and shoot.

With my adapter, it is the camera shutter that is used, not the leaf in
the lenses (Hasselblad).

Mine works the same way, unless I want a 1/500th sync speed for
some reason.

The Minolta (or Sony) 100 f/2.8 macro completely blows away the
Hasselblad (since the Hassy is 1:3 and the Minolta is 1:1 that goes to
follow).

The Pentax is 1:1 natively, so it ought to be interesting.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There
is no substitute for thinking.

MF lenses on Sony a900
 

Mike Benveniste wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:

How do you cock the leaf shutter and trigger it?

My answer is "awkwardly at best." On the 645, the procedure
is described he
http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/m...135mm_Lens.pdf

I think it's the roughly the same procedure when using the adapter.
Set the camera to manual mode at 1/8th of a second, select f-stop
and shutter speed on the lens, cock and shoot.

Hmm. No way I can do that with the HB lens as the leaf shutter
cock/release is on the back flange of the lens. No way to trip it (that
I can tell).


With my adapter, it is the camera shutter that is used, not the leaf
in the lenses (Hasselblad).

Mine works the same way, unless I want a 1/500th sync speed for
some reason.

My Sony a900 syncs at 1/250 and the Minolta Maxxum 9 at 1/300 so it's
not that big a deal (For that matter, I can safely sync the 9 to about
1/350).


The Minolta (or Sony) 100 f/2.8 macro completely blows away the
Hasselblad (since the Hassy is 1:3 and the Minolta is 1:1 that goes to
follow).

The Pentax is 1:1 natively, so it ought to be interesting.

MF lenses on Sony a900
 

RolandRB wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:26 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
saying something like:

Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.

If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.

I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?

I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.

As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.

I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).

MF lenses on Sony a900
 

RolandRB wrote:
On 25 Okt., 16:55, Alan Browne
wrote:
RolandRB wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:26 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
saying something like:
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.

As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.

I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.

At 300 I use a prime. 80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.

MF lenses on Sony a900
 

RolandRB wrote:
On 9 Nov., 20:21, Alan Browne
wrote:
RolandRB wrote:
On 25 Okt., 16:55, Alan Browne
wrote:
RolandRB wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:26 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
saying something like:
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime. 80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that
great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter
so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?

No idea how that would stack up. I don't like TC"s and I believe you're
more likely to see CA with them than not.

MF lenses on Sony a900
 

RolandRB wrote:
On 10 Nov., 08:31, RolandRB wrote:
On 9 Nov., 20:21, Alan Browne
wrote:





RolandRB wrote:
On 25 Okt., 16:55, Alan Browne
wrote:
RolandRB wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:26 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
saying something like:
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime. 80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that
great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter
so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -

But do you think f5.6 will be enough light to manually focus with with
any accuracy?

That's another reason why I prefer my 300 f/2.8 (which I've sold) for 300mm.