Your favourite “bang for the buck” lenses

[Duff photographer]

You're not wrong!

Paul and other people banging away at how nice the SK APO Digitar 35 XL is and poof, the three reasonably priced copies available all get snapped up within a few days. I have one.

I can give one example of a good lens that can be used for tilt and shift and can still be found for less than $500 (just); the Pentax 105mm f2.4 SMC. However, it's best used on its native Pentax 67 body where, when fully open and even stopped down a little, the out-of-focus areas are some of the smoothest I've seen from any lens, and the in-focus-area pops. Sadly, it loses its impact on the much smaller digital sensor.

Cheers,
Duff.

 

[John Leathwick]

Sorry guys, I missed one. Since doing my blog article, I've bought another RZ - an ApoSekor 350mm
for which I paid US$369. It fares very well in a head to head test with my Fujinon GF250, and also
plays every nicely with my GF 1.4TC, giving me a high performing combo of nearly 500mm. It's too
heavy to go on my Universalis, but focuses well with an RZ-GF adapter, and its performance is
stellar. An older brochure I found for the Apo-Sekors suggests that this is probably the best
performing of all of them. Here's an image that I shot last week - a stitch of two images, which
works just about as well as flat stitching given the focal length. Great for when you need range
- I was about 1.5km from this outcrop...

-John

 

[Shashin]

As others have noted, the Pentax A 120mm Macro is a steal.

 

[rdeloe]

Here are a couple that I took yesterday - this one shows very well why Rob should not have
sold his EZ 75mm -

View attachment 210486


View attachment 210489

John

These are lovely, but I want to especially say how much I enjoy the way you handle water. I've very fussy about moving water and in my biased view these are perfect.

I would feel a lot worse about having sold my EX 75mm if not for the fact that my Mamiya N 80mm f/4 L is also excellent, and doesn't weigh a lot more. If I didn't have the 80mm, I would have bought a replacement EX 75mm by now.

In looking up the image circle for the 75mm, I realize I've been remiss and did not provide a link to John Jovic's web site, where you can find out the specs for this line: http://www.photocornucopia.com/1056.html

 

[daz7]

Whoa! Those APO Rodagon N 105mm f/4 lenses (...)

I have just measured my Sinaron Digital 105mm f4 and it matches the external dimensions of stock Apo Rodagon N 105 perfectly - front housing diameter 43.8 (43.78 measured), rear elements housing 34 (33.99 measured) and length 50.8 (50.8 measured).

It is just a guess, but it could turn out that it would fit into a stock Rodenstock enlarger lenses housing without much modifications.

 

[rdeloe]

I have just measured my Sinaron Digital 105mm f4 and it matches the external dimensions of stock Apo Rodagon N 105 perfectly - front housing diameter 43.8 (43.78 measured), rear elements housing 34 (33.99 measured) and length 50.8 (50.8 measured).

It is just a guess, but it could turn out that it would fit into a stock Rodenstock enlarger lenses housing without much modifications.

Very interesting... Sometimes it's that simple, but I've run into cases with S-K lenses where they used different diameters for the same focal length depending on housing. It's one of those discoveries that waits for someone who has both to give it a whirl.

 

[daz7]

Other nice sleeper lenses that kick well above their weight are:
- Colortrac scanner lens (normally mounted inside their scanners) which is SK macro Digitar 80mm, although of different size (much smaller) and with a built in infra-red filter in front.
- Super symmar HM 120 and 180HM makro - both just fantastic.
- Apo Ronar 240mm - just great for scales 1:2-1:10

 

[jng]

Sticking with @rdeloe's threshold of <$500 USD, my favorite (no surprise) would be the old Hasselblad-Zeiss 4/150 Sonnar T* V system lens. The Sonnar 150 can be found for well under $500 in either C or CF mount (mine is in C mount, purchased new back in 1976, albeit for more than $500). It sometimes gets the bad rap of not being the sharpest tool in the shed, but I find that it more than holds its own on both the cropped 100 Mp 33x44 (same pixel pitch as the 150 Mp chip found in the IQ4) or 100 Mp 40x54 sensors, with room to shift +/- 10mm on the latter. It's also a nice lens for portraits, with a pleasing bokeh when shot wide open. And that Zeiss magic - nothing like the more modern designs of the XCD series.

John

 

[rdeloe]

Other nice sleeper lenses that kick well above their weight are:
- Colortrac scanner lens (normally mounted inside their scanners) which is SK macro Digitar 80mm, although of different size (much smaller) and with a built in infra-red filter in front.
- Super symmar HM 120 and 180HM makro - both just fantastic.
- Apo Ronar 240mm - just great for scales 1:2-1:10

Robert O'Toole, who runs the Closeup Photography forum (an excellent resource) has pulled all manner of interesting lenses suitable for macro work out of different kinds of industrial equipment. His site is a goldmine of information. https://www.closeuphotography.com/

 

[daz7]

Robert O'Toole, who runs the Closeup Photography forum (an excellent resource) has pulled all manner of interesting lenses suitable for macro work out of different kinds of industrial equipment. His site is a goldmine of information. https://www.closeuphotography.com/

I think he was disappointed with a Colortrac SK 80mm makro lens but I am guessing that either his lens was a lemon or maybe he upset the cells somehow when removing the infrared filter.
My colortrac Digitar is super sharp and almost covers 4x5 but works at a rigid aperture of around f7 only.
Still, not bad as I paid for it less than £80.

 

[MGrayson]

Pentax 645 lenses - manual stopping down?

I've always liked Pentax lenses. This is my third time getting a bunch - they're pretty inexpensive. BUT! How do I stop them down? A tilt shift adapter is going to be purely mechanical, and I don't see the stop-down switch present on the Mamiya 645 and Hasselblad V lenses.

What do you folks do?

Thank you,

Matt

 

[rdeloe]

Pentax 645 lenses - manual stopping down?

I've always liked Pentax lenses. This is my third time getting a bunch - they're pretty inexpensive. BUT! How do I stop them down? A tilt shift adapter is going to be purely mechanical, and I don't see the stop-down switch present on the Mamiya 645 and Hasselblad V lenses.

What do you folks do?

Thank you,

Matt

All of the manual "A" series Pentax 645 lenses have a lever in the mount that is engaged by a spring-loaded lever in the adapter. When you mount the lens on the adapter, you just turn the aperture ring as needed and the mechanism opens the aperture to where you set it.

Many but not all of the FA and HD-FA (autofocus) Pentax 645 lenses use the same system (aperture ring and lever). For example, all versions of the 35mm (A, FA, HD-FA) have an aperture ring. Unfortunately, for some models, they dropped the aperture ring (e.g., the FA 55mm). Fortunately, the lever is still there on these. You can get adapters that have a ring that manually engages the lever. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a tilt-shift adapter that has this ring, so lenses like the FA 55mm are not usable on a tilt-shift adapter (unless you jam the lever to f/8 or whatever you want, and stick it on the adapter).

If you don't know about this site, it's an excellent resource for figuring out Pentax lenses: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

 

[MGrayson]

All of the manual "A" series Pentax 645 lenses have a lever in the mount that is engaged by a spring-loaded lever in the adapter. When you mount the lens on the adapter, you just turn the aperture ring as needed and the mechanism opens the aperture to where you set it.

Many but not all of the FA and HD-FA (autofocus) Pentax 645 lenses use the same system (aperture ring and lever). For example, all versions of the 35mm (A, FA, HD-FA) have an aperture ring. Unfortunately, for some models, they dropped the aperture ring (e.g., the FA 55mm). Fortunately, the lever is still there on these. You can get adapters that have a ring that manually engages the lever. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a tilt-shift adapter that has this ring, so lenses like the FA 55mm are not usable on a tilt-shift adapter (unless you jam the lever to f/8 or whatever you want, and stick it on the adapter).

If you don't know about this site, it's an excellent resource for figuring out Pentax lenses: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

I know that site well. I always look for an aperture ring, but I didn't know if the adapter would stop the lens down. Aperture rings are sadly missing from the Mamiya 645 AF lenses. Some of them are stellar. I should be fine with the Pentax lenses!

Thank you!

Matt (who is looking forward to comparing the Pentax 645 35mm (Yeah, I got the FA, and there is quite a heated debate on the matter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ) against the Mamiya 645 35mm, which is really small and light.

 

[anyone]

If it helps: the Fotodiox Pro adapter p645 to GFX stops down the lens.

 

[rdeloe]

I know that site well. I always look for an aperture ring, but I didn't know if the adapter would stop the lens down. Aperture rings are sadly missing from the Mamiya 645 AF lenses. Some of them are stellar. I should be fine with the Pentax lenses!

Thank you!

Matt (who is looking forward to comparing the Pentax 645 35mm (Yeah, I got the FA, and there is quite a heated debate on the matter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ) against the Mamiya 645 35mm, which is really small and light.

I've owned, tried and compared all three versions of the Pentax-645 35mm. Not everyone agrees with my conclusions.

• For shifting, I prefer the A lens because it has less field curvature.
• The HD-FA was not better for my applications. I did not notice the purported increase in sharpness or flare resistance, and the focal length is a bit longer (which was not useful for me).
• People who are shooting the lens without shift, especially on a 645D or 645Z, will be very happy with the FA or HD-FA.

 

[MGrayson]

I've owned, tried and compared all three versions of the Pentax-645 35mm. Not everyone agrees with my conclusions.

• For shifting, I prefer the A lens because it has less field curvature.
• The HD-FA was not better for my applications. I did not notice the purported increase in sharpness or flare resistance, and the focal length is a bit longer (which was not useful for me).
• People who are shooting the lens without shift, especially on a 645D or 645Z, will be very happy with the FA or HD-FA.

Rob,
I read your review! I once owned the FA on the Pentax 645 film camera and liked it a lot. I have the Mamiya 645 35mm, and it is much smaller, so I'll be curious to see how they compare. If neither is great for shifting, I'll give the A version a try. For non-shifting, the XCD 21, 28, and 45 will do fine.
Thanks again,
Matt

 

[MGrayson]

I was about to throw out my copy of the Mamiya 645 35mm. This is near the corner of an unshifted image on the X2D. The blue fringing of tree branches is bad and I can't get rid of it with CA or fringing tools in LightRoom.


What about Phocus with its adaptive CA removal?


Better, but it's not going to win any awards for ... anything. I may still throw it out.

Well, when my Pentax adapter arrives, we'll see how their 35mm compares. Then there's just take the XCD 21mm, aim it upwards, and keystone correct....

Matt

 

[Shashin]

I like my Pentax A 35mm lens. (On the Pentax 645D)

 

[MGrayson]

I like my Pentax A 35mm lens. (On the Pentax 645D)

The lens is rectilinear. It's space-time that's curved.

BTW, I am a big fan of software correction. Why make glass do all the work? You can make better lenses more easily if you relax the restriction on distortion. We use software to reconstruct luminosity and color. Why not reconstruct geometry? Of course, it can be done badly or excessively, but the concept is great.

 

[Shashin]

The lens is rectilinear. It's space-time that's curved.

BTW, I am a big fan of software correction. Why make glass do all the work? You can make better lenses more easily if you relax the restriction on distortion. We use software to reconstruct luminosity and color. Why not reconstruct geometry? Of course, it can be done badly or excessively, but the concept is great.

Optics are compromises you look passed.