[Leica] Picking up old lenses

[imra at iol.ie (Douglas Barry)]

I have to agree. I tend to normally do street shooting and am happy with 
a good 50mm or 35mm on my Sony, but sometimes occasionally I do need 
longer lenses or even macros. However, I have a collection of various 
lenses picked up over the years, but find many of them give 
unsatisfactory performances using the five different Fotodiox adapters I 
have - Leica, M42, Pentax K, Miranda and Olympus. I've more or less 
written off Pentax, but find the M42 fine.

Here's a pic using my old Pentacon 135/2.8 (first series) on my Sony A7II.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/DouglasBray/Oddments/Pentacon+f2point8+135mm+First+Series+test+at+2point8+from+7+metres.jpg.html

This is a test shot of focus from seven metres away on Aldi lettering on 
top of an aluminium pole at f2.8 ISO 100 1/250s No sharpening done or 
resizing from 6000x4000. File size reduced from 10.7MB to 757kb only.? 
Zoom in on the pole to see definition.

While this lens combo works, many others are very poor, and inevitably 
I'll probably have to buy Sony E mount lenses.

Douglas


On 06/06/2021 22:02, Don Dory via LUG wrote:
> This isn't about a great lens I found.  What I am really questioning is
> using equipment that is "good enough"  I stumbled on a 40mm Makro Kilfit
> f3.5 D version at a stupidly cheap price.  Even in Exacta mount that wasn't
> an obstacle with a mirrorless body.  It is a four element in three group
> design. Using it I found it quite usable wide open if you kept the main
> subject in the center third.  Stopped down to 5.6-8 it was quite usable out
> to the outer third.
>
> Even compared to the Leica 60mm Macro it is half the size and weight.  So,
> what is everybodies feelings about good enough even though modern
> technology will be far superior?  I know more than several members have
> transitioned to the Q2 for the size, weight, and simplicity of use.
>
> Part of this is that younger photographers need a beginning place.  Most of
> us started out on used equipment that worked and as our fortunes and
> interests matured we acquired better tools.  My child didn't really get an
> income that would support a lot of hobbies until thirty after the PhD.
> Many folk don't get to that point so the tools need to be more reasonable
> than a $2000 M body and a $500 foggy Russian lens.
>
> Anyway, thoughts?
>