Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Sept 1, 2021 20:30:22 GMT
Last Edit: Sept 1, 2021 20:43:12 GMT by lumiworx
I seem to be digging through more and more odd little critters from storage, and this critter is not so little! It's probably one of the rarest of the Spiratone 135mm f/1.8 lenses from the 60's-70's - this one in M42 mount by Mitake and is branded as a "Lenzar MC". In one of the other topics on 1000mm/500mm lenses, dunksargent mentioned the use of proper hoods when the originals were too short and lacking, and that's also the case here. The only hood I could find was woefully inadequate in the test shots, and I've made a makeshift extension out of construction paper, but have yet to post process the results. Here's a 'split' of the lens itself, and one of a few of the test shots - with more shots in the testbed... The cell tower shot is shown full size in the testbed, but you'll need to use the '3-dot' menu to open it as a full photo from the regular galley image page. The 'grip' on the lens is deceiving. It is milled right into the barrel, and is not a slip-on rubber sleeve. The squat little hood will be the anchor for a more permanent one made from black styrene sheeting, and sized to properly extend it to a useful length - likely 3x/4x the one shown here. It's possible to get the expected photos with more accurate contrast and colors by post processing for digital, but this would be a disappointing lens to use on film cameras shooting color film without a major hood adaptation. It's probably not nearly as bad if one used B&W film, so that the contrast could be pumped up in printing, but without any help at all, it makes a magnificent paper weight and collectable while looking at your color slides using a different lens. :)
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Sept 2, 2021 10:33:48 GMT
Posted: Sept 2, 2021 10:33:48 GMT
It is a very large piece of glass! I had an identical lens under the brand of Unitor Hi-D which I bought back in the mid-1970s before moving to the Contax/Zeiss system. The old photo below illustrates the size of these lenses as it's shown next to a Zeiss 135mm f2.8 Sonnar and attached to a Contax RTS via a M42 flanged adapter ring. Unitor Zeiss 135s front 3_4The lens was sold under a number of brands - Porst ones appear regularly on Ebay - and they all need a deep hood to help improve contrast. IQ wide-open is not something to get overly excited about but as you rightly say, they do make great paperweights! You can have some fun with the shallow depth of field at f1.8 and, with a little effort, some interesting images can be produced but don't expect good edge definition until f5.6. The only 135mm f1.8 independent lenses from that period that really shone were by Soligor and Sigmatel. The latter remains an impressive lens and both of these versions of the 135mm are strong performers, using completely different optical formulae from those other f1.8s and from each other.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Sept 2, 2021 12:56:06 GMT
Posted: Sept 2, 2021 12:56:06 GMT
I was lucky enough to nab a Sigma XQ Scalematic 135mm f1.8 several years ago -- they also made a NON-Scalematic version, and a f2.8 model as well. It has an auto-aperture, multi-coating, a more reasonable 77mm filter thread, and an interchangeable, YS lens mount.
There are a couple of f1.7 lenses out there, as well as the Vivitar pre-set 135mm f1.4. Talk about a hunk of glass!
These fast 135mm lenses are great in low light situations where you need some extra length and don't want to use flash.
Sigma XQ series (1975-1980) of lenses included:
16mm f/2.8 Fisheye 18mm f/3.2 24mm f/2.8 28mm f/2.8 35mm f/2.8 55mm f/2.8 Macro 100mm f/2.8 Macro 135mm f/1.8 200mm f/2.8 200mm f/4 300mm f/4 400mm f/5.6 500mm f/4 Mirror 500mm f/8 Mirror Sigma XQ Mini-Zoom 39-80mm f/3.5 Macro 70-230mm f/4.5 Macro 80-200 f/3.5 Macro 120-300 mm f/5.6
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Sept 2, 2021 14:21:26 GMT
Posted: Sept 2, 2021 14:21:26 GMT
I was lucky enough to nab a Sigma XQ Scalematic 135mm f1.8 several years ago -- they also made a NON-Scalematic version, and a f2.8 model as well. It has an auto-aperture, multi-coating, a more reasonable 77mm filter thread, and an interchangeable, YS lens mount. There are a couple of f1.7 lenses out there, as well as the Vivitar pre-set 135mm f1.4. Talk about a hunk of glass! These fast 135mm lenses are great in low light situations where you need some extra length and don't want to use flash. Sigma XQ series (1975-1980) of lenses included: 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye 18mm f/3.2 24mm f/2.8 28mm f/2.8 35mm f/2.8 55mm f/2.8 Macro 100mm f/2.8 Macro 135mm f/1.8 200mm f/2.8 200mm f/4 300mm f/4 400mm f/5.6 500mm f/4 Mirror 500mm f/8 Mirror Sigma XQ Mini-Zoom 39-80mm f/3.5 Macro 70-230mm f/4.5 Macro 80-200 f/3.5 Macro 120-300 mm f/5.6 Your list has just reminded me of something that I'd quite forgotten. Last month I managed to find a bill from Vic Odden's of London Bridge from December 1977 for a Sigma 200mm f2.8 lens and YS mount for Contax, costing £88.45. I have no memory at all of owning that lens! I suspect that I probably part-exchanged it for the Zeiss 180 f2.8 which I remember using in 1978. It's very rare that I forget a lens I've used... I wonder if I liked it?
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Sept 2, 2021 14:39:10 GMT
Last Edit: Sept 2, 2021 14:40:07 GMT by xkaes
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Sept 2, 2021 16:31:16 GMT
Posted: Sept 2, 2021 16:31:16 GMT
I use a metal Spiratone 77mm lens shade that was sold with the Spiratone/Tomioka 500mm f8 Minitel -- but could be bought separately. I don't ever recall seeing an original hood for these, and it's unfortunate that there's no easy finds for readymade hoods to fit these 82mm threads. I have a feeling that the sparse few in a closer match for the right depth at 82mm will likely be pretty pricey if I'd ever find one. I think I paid $7 for the one I have and it gives me a base to build on. I've still got 50+ sheets of black construction paper, so a pair of scissors and a rubber band works too if I have to remake a new one. (I'm not cheap, I'm handy AND thrifty!)
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Sept 2, 2021 18:13:27 GMT
Posted: Sept 2, 2021 18:13:27 GMT
The link (above) shows lots of metal 82mm telephoto hoods, some with bargain basement prices.
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Sept 2, 2021 21:54:03 GMT
Posted: Sept 2, 2021 21:54:03 GMT
I use a metal Spiratone 77mm lens shade that was sold with the Spiratone/Tomioka 500mm f8 Minitel -- but could be bought separately. I don't ever recall seeing an original hood for these, and it's unfortunate that there's no easy finds for readymade hoods to fit these 82mm threads. I have a feeling that the sparse few in a closer match for the right depth at 82mm will likely be pretty pricey if I'd ever find one. I think I paid $7 for the one I have and it gives me a base to build on. I've still got 50+ sheets of black construction paper, so a pair of scissors and a rubber band works too if I have to remake a new one. (I'm not cheap, I'm handy AND thrifty!) I'll see if I can find mine. It was far too shallow as I recall, being about 1.5" in depth; it had no markings on it at all. I don't recall seeing it recently but I'm sure I wouldn't have thrown it out.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Sept 3, 2021 3:01:34 GMT
Posted: Sept 3, 2021 3:01:34 GMT
The link (above) shows lots of metal 82mm telephoto hoods, some with bargain basement prices. Some are almost there for depth, with one that is a bit too deep (at 86mm), but before I pull the trigger on one, I need to do another test to double check for vignetting on my makeshift paper model. It currently measures 84.8mm deep, from rear thread edge to front edge. Polystyrene is easy to cut to size, but metal hoods can get dicey to get right when I don't have access to a machine shop anymore.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Sept 4, 2021 0:49:20 GMT
Last Edit: Sept 4, 2021 1:06:15 GMT by lumiworx
Another run today with the trimmed paper hood, and it's just at the point where it's showing a wee bit of vignetting in the corners. Even though today was a little on the overcast side, I still couldn't comfortably get the lens under 1/8000 on the A7R at ISO 200 when wide open. I can go lower in ISO, but it seems to introduce more noise than 200, so everything I shot was at f/4. Now the question is, if the vignetting will still be the same, regardless of whether there's a hood on or not, and that I'll try again tomorrow - but I certainly don't mind what I'm seeing the way it is now, The contrast is greatly improved, and no color shifts are obvious. The CA is even a little better since the sensor isn't getting blasted with highlights as badly. The lens with it's temporary 'hoody'... and a single exported shot without post processing... The final depth/length I ended up with wasn't too much different than where it was when I started. It's at 84mm now. The newest shots posted to the testbed from today all have a prefix of "No-PP_" so they're easier to tell them apart from previous tests, if you want to take a peek. Of all the 82mm readymade hoods on ebay, the ones that have a dimension for depth say they're at 3 inches (76.2mm) or 78mm, aside from one used hood that's been measured at 86x86, with 82mm threads, and looks to be about twice the thickness of the others, so that doesn't bode well for the tools I have for trimming. I may try one of the shorter ones later, but I still think my best bet is to do a custom extension for the one I have from styrene. I should also note that the Sony A7R metering doesn't particularly want to behave well with this lens for some reason. Even when pulling/pushing the exposure by a few extra +/- steps, they always seem to be a tad dark when left on the AE setting. Not a big deal on digital, but I wonder if the same phenomenon might happen on film, or if I've got internal reflections with the adapter and it needs some flocking to tame it.
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Sept 4, 2021 9:38:12 GMT
Posted: Sept 4, 2021 9:38:12 GMT
Hi lumiworx, One thing that might be worth noting is that if you use the Contax/Zeiss system, there is a ready-to-go solution for the hood: use a Contax 82/86 Adapter Ring and Metal Hood 5. Having just measured the combination, it will give you a hood with a depth of 80mm which shouldn't cause vignetting; if you decided to add a 82mm or 86mm slim filter, that would be a depth of about 84mm. And of course, the interior of the Contax metal hoods is superb at eliminating light scatter too.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Sept 4, 2021 20:48:20 GMT
Posted: Sept 4, 2021 20:48:20 GMT
Hi lumiworx , One thing that might be worth noting is that if you use the Contax/Zeiss system, there is a ready-to-go solution for the hood: use a Contax 82/86 Adapter Ring and Metal Hood 5. Having just measured the combination, it will give you a hood with a depth of 80mm which shouldn't cause vignetting; if you decided to add a 82mm or 86mm slim filter, that would be a depth of about 84mm. And of course, the interior of the Contax metal hoods is superb at eliminating light scatter too. My senior moments seem to be racking up quite a few extra miles these days. Not 10 feet away from me is that very same combination, and it never even occurred to me that I'd have a suitable replacement at zero cost with the gear I normally use on a regular basis. I'm far too old to get easily embarrassed anymore at the obvious faux pas, but certainly not red-faced enough that I can't say "Thank You!" for the gentile reminder. :)
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Sept 5, 2021 13:07:59 GMT
Posted: Sept 5, 2021 13:07:59 GMT
And I'd like to hear about the results at f1.8. After all, why have a 135mm f1.8 if you are not going to use it at f1.8 occasionally? More accurate focusing in low light, perhaps, but I'll bet the pictures are similar to my 135mm Sigma results -- or my 58mm f1.2 -- used wide open. Soft, for sure, but somehow appealing with that razor thin DOF.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Sept 5, 2021 20:26:42 GMT
Last Edit: Sept 7, 2021 20:14:45 GMT by lumiworx
After a lengthy search, the Contax ring was nowhere to be found. I'm fairly certain I had one, and after a check online, it turns out there are 2 versions... the very short step-up ring type, as an "82/86 S" (what I thought I had), and one without the 'S' suffix, which is about 3 times deeper/longer and is tapered like most of the other Contax rings. The ones currently up for sale are rather pricey, so I just ordered a plain step-up for the time being. I did come across an 86mm CPL filter, so that might get a bit of testing with this setup too, once the ring arrives. I have to say - the more I use this lens on digital, the more I like it, but it really does require some work to get it to perform the way it should. I doubt I'd want to use it on film unless it would be with B&W stock with pumped contrast, but it can be razor sharp. And I'd like to hear about the results at f1.8. After all, why have a 135mm f1.8 if you are not going to use it at f1.8 occasionally? More accurate focusing in low light, perhaps, but I'll bet the pictures are similar to my 135mm Sigma results -- or my 58mm f1.2 -- used wide open. Soft, for sure, but somehow appealing with that razor thin DOF. After a near repeat of the same cloudy conditions as I'd shot in the other day, I figured I'd take advantage and try a different approach to keep things in reflective shade to go for something at f/1.8. That gave me f/1600 at ISO 200, so I set up a scene with items at various depth to see what I'd get for depth of field and vignetting with the same paper hood setup. There are 2 full size shots in the testbed for pixel peeping, with "f-1-8..." prefixes on the titles to open in zoom mode. Neither have any post processing at all (just + 1/3 stop exposure), and are straight conversions from Lightroom from raw files. Here's a screenshot of a 1:1 crop of one of them inside Lightroom, showing my green friend in model pose, with the focus on the gold ring around the eye. It's a little soft, but fairly typical of what I'd expect from other 135mm lenses of other speeds, from f/2.5 or slower. EDIT to add: I posted 2 more of the same 2 shots, but with normal post processing - they're prefixed with "f-1-8_FULL-PP".
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Sept 8, 2021 15:23:49 GMT
Last Edit: Sept 9, 2021 13:13:12 GMT by biggles3
When I saw this for sale, I had to grab it... Sigmatel QC 135mm f1.8 Yashica FX-1This is the amazing Sigmatel QC Scalematic 135mm f1.8 lens. It comprises 6 elements in 5 groups and is more compact than the Porst/Spiratone/Lenzar/Unitor/etc. lenses as it takes 77mm filters while they have 82mm threads. Although more compact, it's no lightweight with a mass of over 820g without its hood. Minimum focus is just over 4ft (1.3m). It is still reckoned to be the best performing 135mm f1.8 lens from the 1970s by an independent producer. I'll publish a piccie or two taken with this lens shortly.
|
|