Adapted Adapted lenses, any make, for any camera

52610042913_799074b6ab_o.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Kodak Cine Anastigmat F2.7 102mm for 16mm in S-Mount, This one is in "closeup" mode (you pull the little stop button on the lens for the close-up focus option and you spend 5 minutes later trying to get it out of it, at least it does on my 1940s copy)
 
52609587921_84eeaabf01_o.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Kodak Cine Anastigmat F2.7 102mm in "normal" mode. You get the swirly bokeh, of course. It is surprisingly sharp wide open for such an old lens (but that's true for the other S mount cine lens I have, especially the Ektar 25mm 1.5) of the 3 I have, this is the one I use the least, but it is still a wonderful piece of glass. This one is not coated, contrast is low which is normal for the era. It does really well in black and white.
 
CZJ Tessar 50mm F2.8 with a Z6. A work in progress.

Tons of dust on it and keeping this in check manually and through PP is a constant work in progress.

Plus, must admit, I’ve been finding it difficult to use this on the Z6 compared to other manual adapted lenses. Most of the lens’ focus throw practically is dedicated to the distance between a close 0.35m to 1m with the distance between 1m to 10m/ infinity comparatively an afterthought. What this means is that it’s been a bit awkward focusing by instinct as it’s completely different in feel to all my other adapted lenses.

Another thing; the camera insists, as with the image below, on applying what I deem an unreasonably high iso level even when the light is naturally bright. Yes, the camera can handle iso 2200 like iso 100 back in the day but that’s not the point, I want the camera to apply iso 100 when it is fine to do so. So why didn’t I set ISO to 100? Well I did; and the shutter speed took 1 second(!) I only mention this as it doesn’t occur with any of my numerous adapted lenses at the same aperture using the same camera. I’m usually happy to let the camera determine the shutter speed but for this particular lens I think I’m going to have to go full on manual with the exposure triangle and not allow the camera to decide anything. As I say, a work in progress. Still, can’t complain about the output.

Just a heads up as to what to expect with this lens, which in any event only set me back $20 - all part of the fun!
DSC_1603 copy Final.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
Why are so many dolls so creepy? These little things look capable of homicide.
Shot with the Leica f2 50mm collapsible Summicron from 1952, a lens that is a lot of fun to use. Most of the work I did on this was dodging and burning because of the awful lighting conditions; the dolls were at the back of a deep shelf and deeply shaded. I ran a light sharpening mask, about what I typically run. All done on an original camera jpeg.

DSC00767.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Lawrence, I don't really see that, but it is a recognised phenomenon:


As is fear of clowns:

 
Lawrence, I don't really see that, but it is a recognised phenomenon:


As is fear of clowns:

They really don't make me anxious; I know that, unlike Chucky, they can't do anything to me. But the blank, unblinking stare makes them look a bit mad.
 
CZJ Tessar 50mm F2.8 with a Z6. A work in progress.

Tons of dust on it and keeping this in check manually and through PP is a constant work in progress.

Plus, must admit, I’ve been finding it difficult to use this on the Z6 compared to other manual adapted lenses. Most of the lens’ focus throw practically is dedicated to the distance between a close 0.35m to 1m with the distance between 1m to 10m/ infinity comparatively an afterthought. What this means is that it’s been a bit awkward focusing by instinct as it’s completely different in feel to all my other adapted lenses.

Another thing; the camera insists, as with the image below, on applying what I deem an unreasonably high iso level even when the light is naturally bright. Yes, the camera can handle iso 2200 like iso 100 back in the day but that’s not the point, I want the camera to apply iso 100 when it is fine to do so. So why didn’t I set ISO to 100? Well I did; and the shutter speed took 1 second(!) I only mention this as it doesn’t occur with any of my numerous adapted lenses at the same aperture using the same camera. I’m usually happy to let the camera determine the shutter speed but for this particular lens I think I’m going to have to go full on manual with the exposure triangle and not allow the camera to decide anything. As I say, a work in progress. Still, can’t complain about the output.

Just a heads up as to what to expect with this lens, which in any event only set me back $20 - all part of the fun!
View attachment 356908
You probably know this, Ray but this behaviour made me wonder: are you sure the aperture blades follow the setting of the aperture ring?
M42 lenses often have an A and M setting and a pin on the back of the lens that the camera is supposed to push when the lightmeter is engaged.
Perhaps something is off here.
I always set my M42 lenses to M on the a7ii so that the blades close and open with the aperture ring. When on A, they don't. I don't think any adapter pushes the pin.
 
You probably know this, Ray but this behaviour made me wonder: are you sure the aperture blades follow the setting of the aperture ring?
M42 lenses often have an A and M setting and a pin on the back of the lens that the camera is supposed to push when the lightmeter is engaged.
Perhaps something is off here.
I always set my M42 lenses to M on the a7ii so that the blades close and open with the aperture ring. When on A, they don't. I don't think any adapter pushes the pin.
Hi Bart,

I'm away from home till next weekend so will certainly look at that upon my return. The pin on the back of the lens is fine in operation but you're right of course about the A and M setting on the lens and using the camera in full on manual mode. More to come (and thanks).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top