r/VintageLenses

Hello guys! I recently bought a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (the older non-IS, non-L version)

The focus ring does have a noticeable stop at the minimum focus distance and another stop at infinity. However, if I continue applying gentle pressure, the ring can rotate past these stops and keeps turning indefinitely in either direction.

The focus ring still appears to control the focus correctly, but I am wondering whether this is normal for this lens.

Could someone who actually owns this exact model of lens (Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, non-IS, non-L) please confirm whether their focus ring behaves or not in the same way?

This is the official lens page.

Thank you!

This is my new project; we shot a motivational video,

and I decided on a whim to use the Super Takumar 50 1.4 and the Aivascope Anamorphic attachment.

I was really impressed with the result and decided to share it with you.

The link is here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDEKfPkt2XI

Hello, just got my first canon fd today (a 28mm f2.8) but the aperture ring won’t turn, it looks like stucked midway.
I tried to turn it clicking the little black button but it doesn’t move even when mounted to the adapter.
Am I doing something wrong?

Is this one of the swirly bokeh ones?

Factory appears to be KMZ, built in 1975 ... 8 blades etc !!!!

Also if you can suggest another similar bokeh one, please feel free !!!

Ok so i bought a Super Albinar MC auto zoom lens (80-200 mm) and i want to connect it to my Nikon D5300 but i dont know what kind of adaptor i would need, or if there even is one out there, so i figured i would ask here to see if somebody knows something.

Recently dug up my dad's old Minolta that has a 50mm f1.4 Rokkor-X lens. Since it's such a fast lens, I decided to try a macro teleconverter and use it with my Canon Rebel.

I also have a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro EF lens to compare. Although I can get sharper images with the Canon (it's brighter, with autofocus and stabilization), the Minolta has its own character, especially with flares and ghosting. But for plain shots without obvious bokeh and ghosting, I think it would be hard for most people to tell the difference.

My only frustration is the Photodiox Pro MD-EOS adapter. I read the corrective lens was removable, but there no spanner grooves. I tried friction with a rubber band, but it's in there too tight and smuded the lens. Anyone have experience removing the lens on this adapter?

I bought the Schneider–Kreuznach Xenon 50mm ƒ/1.9 last month, based on the watercolor-like rendering I saw in other people’s photos. But when I tried the lens myself, my initial response was that it’s surprisingly bubbly. Last week I had another look at the first test photos I took last month, and I realized, it actually looks quite a lot like the MC Helios-77M-4 50mm ƒ/1.8!

So today I took some comparison photos with both lenses, and I was even more spot-on than I realized. Dare I say, if you have one of these lenses, you don’t necessarily need the other. That is, unless you can appreciate some of the minute differences. Here are my observations:

• Bokeh & swirl – Let’s get the most important yet subtle difference out of the way: the rendering of the out-of-focus highlights. To my surprise, the Xenon produces EXACTLY the same amount of swirl, and the bokeh are the same cat-eye shapes. The only difference is that the Xenon has sharper bubble outlining. Depending on the lighting conditions, the outlining can look milder or very sharp—almost edged. The outlining tends to be so thin though that in some photos (not the ones shown here) they can have a light and almost ethereal quality to them.
• Detail & focus – It felt like it was easier to achieve optimal focus with the Xenon, because I think the focus throw is longer. But when pixel-peeping, I’m not noticing a difference in the amount of detail. In the Xenon photo of the bird feeder, the roof tile on the very front is sharper, but the ones above it are sharper in the Helios-77M-4 photo, so those differences seem to be down to a very slight difference in focus. I must have focused slightly further away with the 77M-4, most likely because of that shorter focus throw. In my experience, both the 77M-4 and the 44-2 are a bit finicky with focusing, because moving the focus ring just slightly can alter the focus range quite a bit. I also noticed that the Zeiss Biotar was easier to focus, so it’s possible that German lenses tend to have a longer focus throw.
• Contrast – I don’t have much to report here; the contrast looks quite even to me. Actually, the Xenon may even yield a slightly higher contrast, judging from the deeper shadows in the background (see first image), although it’s also possible that the deeper shadows are due to the Xenon photos being a bit darker in general (see second image in particular). Either way, it’s quite impressive, as my Xenon is from 1958, while my Helios-77M-4 is from 1991. I did forget to test how the lenses compare in direct sunlight, however. The Xenon will undoubtedly lose contrast faster since it’s a single-coated lens. I will probably do a follow-up test, as I’m also curious how the flare potential of both lenses compares.
• Colors & tones – Here is the second most significant difference I’ve noted between the two lenses; the Xenon seems to produce a green tint, which is especially noticeable in the roof tiles in the first image, but it’s also noticeable in the brown colors of the trees. The 77M-4 meanwhile produces neutral and fresh colors. And as mentioned, the Xenon appears a little darker, which is particularly noticeable in the second image. Despite the white balance being the same (5500 K), the Buddha head is rendered in a darker and slightly cooler gray, the greens in the background are noticeably darker, and the yellows of the 77M-4 are brighter. It’s actually a bit curious that the Xenon is darker, since it has a slightly wider aperture than the 77M-4. I guess the glass of the Xenon has a weaker light transmission.

—

Conclusion

So which is the better lens? I think in most technical aspects, it will have to be the Helios-77M-4; it produces better colors, it has a better light transmission, and it can focus much closer (although the minimum focus distance of the Xenon varies; I will explain more about that below). But in my opinion, that sharper bokeh outlining of the Xenon is an exciting characteristic to explore in artistic photos.

Here are three more things to note:

• Aperture blades – I tend to shoot wide open anyway, but for those who stop down, the number of aperture blades are probably important. The Helios-77M-4 has just 6 aperture blades, while my zebra Xenon in Exakta mount has an astonishing 18 aperture blades, so background highlights will always stay round when stopped down. In either case though, stopping down will immediately ruin the cat-eye bokeh and reduce the swirl. If you want to get yourself a Xenon lens, do pay attention to the variant. Only the first silver Exakta lenses and the later zebra ones have 18 aperture blades. The silver Retina-Xenon (DKL mount) has just 5 aperture blades, and the zebra Edixa-Xenon and the black Xenon both have 6 aperture blades.
• Minimum focus distance – I took all pictures in this test at a distance of 80 cm, since that’s the MFD of my Xenon. The Helios-77M-4 meanwhile has an MFD of 45 cm, so you can get much larger background highlights by focusing closer. Of course you can put the Xenon on a helicoid for closer focusing, however. Usually I do, but I still have to order some Exa–M42 adapter rings so I can mount more of my Exakta lenses on my M42 helicoids. Here again, if you want to get a Xenon, pay attention to the variant. The DKL Retina-Xenon has an MFD of 100 cm, while the Edixa-Xenon and the black Xenon have an MFD of just 50 cm.
• Xenon vs. Helios lenses – A while ago I compared the Helios-44-2 and the Helios-77M-4 with each other, and I noted that they also produced the same amount of swirl and bokeh size, but that the 77M-4 produced slightly sharper bokeh outlining, and that the 44-2 has slightly more gentle background transitions. I feel that comparison also holds for the Xenon and the Helios-77M-4. In other words, the three lenses lie on a spectrum from mild outlines to incrementally sharper bokeh outlining. I will probably do a comparison of all three lenses at some point, so you can see that spectrum for yourself. Note also that the Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm ƒ/2 is optically identical to the Helios-44-2, so it can be placed on that same spectrum. I might just include the Biotar in that comparison.

Which lens do you prefer, the Xenon or the Helios-77M-4?

Bought this 44-2 from Ukraine a while back k. And why I love the images it produces, I’m a bit frustrated since I haven’t been able to put a step up ring on the front for my VND filter. I also shoot video so I really wanted to use it without having to turn the shutter speed up high. But even as I bought a 49 mm step up ring it seems it won’t take it.

I looked up some images of this specific model, and I see multiple versions with a filter thread. And I’m wondering if mine just came missing a filter thread or if there’s a way to put a filter thread on the front, and or be able to put a step up ring on for my VND.

My Fujinon B4 lens (first image) has a stuck macro lever. Compared to other identical Fujinon lenses (second image), the macro lever sits in a completely different position.
The lens only focuses properly around f/5.6, and with the 2× extender it won’t focus at all.
Could a stuck macro mechanism cause these symptoms, or is it more likely a back focus/internal optical issue?
Has anyone experienced this before?

Caught this hummer fueling up.

Pick this up cheap for $20 bucks had a scratch on the front element but didn't cause issues in image quality. Probably improves the crazy flares this lens gets.

I got this old Summar from 1938, and I'm super excited to use it with my cameras! I've got a Voigtlander Bessa-R that arrives tomorrow (my first rangefinder!), and waiting on an adapter to use it on my other cameras.

What can I expect from sharpness with this many scratches on the front? They are near invisible until light angles it. This is an uncoated lens and sadly many of the Summars are in similar shape. I have the lens hood too so that should help some of the flaring I hope!

Quick test of a quite rare (inexpensive) wide angle, these are the jpegs SOOC, I think the speedbooster is messing with the IQ a lot here since the back element is super close to the booster glass and the combo is not ideal, will try in the near future with a fullframe too

Got this from ebay. It looks good but my God the focus ring was so stiff my hands literally ache when turning the thing.

This was video after i have stripped this thing down, stripped all the gunk and grease that had stuck up the focus ring, cleaned the grooves on the aperture notches. Re-applied minuscule amount of professional grease i got from a kind local shop owner. Put it back together.

As a beginner i would not have wished it upon my worst enemy. Holy crap this thing is so tough to put back together

The Takumar 58mm f/2 is the only SLR lens ever produced with Sonnar design, giving it its distinctive buttery bokeh.

My first field test of the Helios 58mm 44-3. It’s my first vintage lens and I’m loving the bokeh! Using an L-mount adapter.

Scored one on ebay for $130 pretty mint except for small dent on the filter threads. Had to take a quick pic of my cat mango.