[wim]

"I have recently given up completely on those for Canon bodies as they were not satisfactory to me. IOW, all my non-Canon and non-MFT lenses have left the house now, except a few high quality enlarging lenses (for macro work)."

 

a.
Interesting summation Wim.  And I have to admit I only have an intuitive grasp of why the tubes defeat AF to a large extent.  I agree, tubes for shorter focal lenght, and Diopters for longer lengths, and yes they do seem to give the best of both worlds as far as image brightness and AF within their foreshortened focal distance range.  Also, someone, perhaps you(?) mentioned an interesting fact that teleconverters often are more useful with macro lenses then at telephoto distances.

 

b.
And...I'm almost prepared to guess that your junking of analogue lenses.  Sort of a Wimsical term since really, all lenses are analogue), but I get your meaning, Junking them just because they are confusing more than not capable.

 

c.
Tubes shorten the distance between lens and object.  Yet Canon's life size converter changes its 50/2.5 1:2 macro to 1:1 macro, and actually increases the MFD, giving you more working room

 

d.
My guess is that you just want to make your life simpler.  I don't even believe you believe your modern lenses are more than just convenient to use.  Lots of old lenses render perfection as we know it, even today.  Just not always as easily.

 

Pick up a couple lenses like the old Tamrons SP 500 F/8 mirror and you can sit somewhere and catch great candid, and bird in flight photos. 

 

e.
What I'm getting at is if you are just junking some high end legacy glass...sent it to me!  But is has to be clean and with a long silky well damped and wide focus ring!  I still like taking the MF lenses out for fun.

 

f.
Last time I checked Canon was not offering a 15mm 1:1 macro.  Surely you can make an exception to your rule, and get this one!

And yet.  Now I have Canon APS-c, Canon full frame.  And I want MFT as well.  So I must get rid of my beloved old lenses, to make was for efficent systems.  You are really pointing the way! Wim!

 

Hi Arthur,

 

Just added some letter annotations to answer more easily .

 

a.
Essentially, very often the extension on the camera side makes that the forward movement of the lens is much larger than the focusing of the lens allows, which means that you just can't focus anymore without moving the entire camera/lens setup. And with close-up lenses, the focusing area falls often well before the normal focusing area/reach, so you also have to move the entire setup.

I can't remember saying anything about teleconverters in this regard, but I certainly do use them for macrophotography, f.e. with the MP-E 65 .

 

b.
No, actually, just not capable enough compared to 30-40 year old newer lenses. F.e., my old SMC Pentax 20 F/4, which I got in 1978 had a reasonably sharp centre, but the corners weren't that great. Not as bad as the Sigma 12-24 EX at 12 mm, mind you, but it cannot hold a candle to my TS-E 17L, not by a very long shot. Even the 17-40 F/4L at 20 mm was better, to be very honest. Add to that that I would need to use an adapter, adding effectively another item which would make the lens potentially less sharp due to potential alignment problems. Furthermore, lenses for film generally were of a simpler design, often predating computing solutions for optical calculations, and hence never were as good as at least some of the modern designs.

 

Do note that I tried, f.e., from a 50 mm POV, a Pentax 50 mm F/1.7, 1.4, Contax Zeis T* 50 F/1.4, Olympus 50 F/1.4 and F/1.8 (I think, could be F/1.7), some old Nikon 50 F/1.4, Canon 50 F/1.8 Mk I, Mk II, 50 F/2.8 Macro, on FF and APS-C cameras, and those and a few more on MFT, (f.e., Canon FD 55 F/1.2) and neither could convice me at all, barring the EF Canons, but even those were not in the same league as my current lenses.

 

All in all, I never used them anymore thereafter. Not as sharp, not as contrasty, not as good in the corners, and requiring at least 2 to 3 stops, sometimes more, to get to an acceptable level of sharpness, contrast and convenience, to me anyway.

 

If I was in for specific effects, I guess I might have kept some, but the truth is it wasn't worth it to me, and adapting them when I needed them was another barrier as well, even though I kept a bunch of them adapted all the time.

 

c.
The 1:1 converter for the Canon 50 Macro is actually just that: a dedicated converter (with glass IOW) plus extension tube combined into one. I had one of those as well . Although I really liked the 50 Macro, apart from the noise it made, the 1:1 converter was not necessarily all that great.

 

d.
Is it about making life simpler? No, I think it was about effectuating the actual status quo. I was never going to use those lenses ever again. Did it hurt to get rid of them? Yes. I made some great photographs with them back in the days .... But what is the use letting them lie around and not using them? If someone else wants them and actually uses them, better for them.... I got really frustrated with them when used with digital cameras - digital shows the shortcomings of these old lenses too well.

 

As to mirror lenses: out of curiosity I have tried them out, but somehow I never really liked the fact that you could not adjust aperture .

I am lucky enough to own a 100-400L II, so I don't really need a mirror lens anyway. Just add a 1.4X extender, and I have a better performing 560 F/8 .

 

e.
Well, I actually brought them to a photo retailer friend of mine - some of these lenses still have real resale value, like the Contax Zeiss 50, the Pentax 20 F/4, the Leitz 60 Macro. He will sell those for me, for a small commission. I don't have the time anyway to do so myself.

 

I could check if the 135mm F/3.5 Pentaxes (from around 1980) are still available if you are interested, or the Pentax 100 F/4 Macro (plus an additional, original Pentax bellows; both from around 1975, both in pristine order). Or possibly the Olympus 50 F/1.4 and the 85 F/2 or F2.8 (can't remember now; already out of my mind ).

 

f.
A 15 mm macro I would only get if it is corrected for at least a 10x to 20x magnification (think pictures of frame filling small insect eggs), has a tele- rather than wa-design, and comes with an extension tube which allow you to actually take photographs at those magnifications. I could in principle already get there with my enlarging lenses, just that I do not have the extension tubes to get that close-up, yet . Having looked at the options, I'll probably get a bellows set for this type of work, at some point in time.

 

BTW, I used to do macrophotography or microphotography if you like, for work, long time ago, of 2 mm items and smaller, which would fill the entire FoV, or 24mm x 36mm frame .

 

A good way to start with MFT, apart from getting an MFT camera obviously, is to get a Metabones EF-MFT Ultra 0.71X adapter for your Canon glass. OTOH, it may not work with Canon EF-S glass, but will work with 3rd party APS-C lenses, and obviously with all FF lenses. You'd still have AF if they are AF lenses of course.

 

Kind regards, Wim