Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
holymoly

Everything Digital Photography

Recommended Posts

I noticed one of my macro lenses is very dusty on the surfaces facing the diaphragm. So I removed the rear group. Look at the dust!

image_zpsb7246458.jpg

 

After cleaning

image_zps6c080d53.jpg

 

After reassembly

image_zpse79027e5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was trawling lowyat (the forum) looking for a particular lens to buy. But I saw a Canon 650D + EF 40mm/2.8 being sold for the conspicuously low price of RM1.4K. Shutter count was only 1300 actuations. I meditated to the stage of first djana, took cold showers, went for long walks and binged on chocolate to dissipate the intense desire to buy yet another camera I do not need.

 

Then three days later, the seller lowered his price to RM1.2K. Haih. So severely thou tempteth us, oh Lord.

IMG_4985_zps2e596679.jpg

 

The latest dog pic in the other thread was shot with this setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a lens on mudah I couldn't pass up. The Sigma 105/2.8 EX Macro. It was going for RM250. The seller described the AF as not working, which is fine with me. I have three macro lenses, and none could be autofocussed properly since the focus range is so long and the DOF so narrow. I.e. I use macro lenses in manual focus mode.

 

When I met up with the seller, I found a wonderfully built lens, heavily used, but disappointingly, it was riddled with haze and fungus. The haze was so bad, the pictures were low contrast and there was blooming around high contrast edges. I told the seller I am not taking the lens, but he said let's do RM200. Well, I am getting a very nice original metal lens hood, and both caps, and a lens that might be serviced. So I took it.

 

It turns out the entire haze and fungus was on a single lens surface -- on the rear group, directly facing the aperture. I spent 30 minutes disassembling the lens and managed to completely clean out the fungus.

IMG_1924_zps4a085d0d.jpg

 

While inside, it also became apparent why the AF isn't working: the rubber drive belt is loose with age. This is a little rubber band the circumference of a 10 sen coin. If you take a closer look at the lens above, you'll see the black rubber belt. I'll give Sigma a call about a replacement.

 

Meanwhile, you would never guess this lens ever had fungus on it. Perfect.

IMG_1946_zpsdd4a51cf.jpg

 

IMG_1967_zpsa9271a19.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, macro lenses are awesome, especially if they're 105mm or longer. mine isn't as fast with a variable aperture of f4.5-5.6, compared to your sigma 105/2.8.

 

but then again, you probably need to stop down to f8 (or f16 even) for adequate depth of field anyways.

 

_DSC1938copy.jpg

at the kl butterfly park.

 

 

_DSC1184.jpg

unfurled silver fern frond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me see the macro lenses I have.

 

Minolta Maxxum AF 50/2.8

Canon EF-S 60/2.8

Canon Compact-Macro EF 50/2.5

Sigma EX 105/2.8 Macro

 

Of these four, the Canon 60/2.8 is a forever lens, i.e. I will never part with it. Staggeringly good, modern performance, without qualifications. The Compact-Macro is an ancient design from 1983, but still made today. It is no longer competitive by today's standards, let down mostly by low contrast and loads of chromatic aberration especially in the OOF plane. Yet it has the creamiest bokeh of all four, and the low contrast gives it the relaxed look of vintage lenses. It's perfect as a normal lens on a Canon film body for B&W. The Minolta is of a similar vintage to the Compact-Macro, and is also still made today with new coatings and a new housing under the Sony label. It is a well-tempered lens, competent in every aspect. The Sigma, from preliminary shooting, is not that sharp but sharp enough, not that contrasty but contrasty enough. The bokeh is just acceptable. It's not a lens for the connoisseur, but like any modern lens, perfectly good enough for its intended application. In the arena of macro lenses, there is never poor performance, just either very good or jaw-droppingly good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lousy Canon with Sigma 35/1.4 Art. (I would love to peek at his camera closet, must be overflowing.)

tumblr_n3fxn7nQtL1qad1efo1_1280.jpg

 

Ethan is the one with the M Monochrom.

"I shoot with 3 cameras for the most part - A Leica M3 film, a Leica M9 digital and Leica M Monochrom digital. I have for the longest time shot only with a 50/2 pre-asph lens I bought about 6 years ago, from the early 90’s, but recently bought a 50/2 dual range close focus lens, and a 35/2.8, both late 60’s Leica. I have a 90mm that I bought for $100 on ebay which is surprisingly good for a 50 year old piece of glass, and a 50/1.4 from the 80’s which sits on my old M8 gathering dust.

 

"Film I primarily shoot with Ilford HP5 for black and white, and Kodak portra for colour.

 

"I shoot with Leica because I know it, have learnt it reasonably well, and can rely on it. I’ve never bought anything new, and am always scrounging for bargains or calling in favours to get my photography gear. It’s expensive stuff, but bargains can be had if you look. An M3 with an old 50mm lens is about the best set up I can think of, and my M3 and 50mm lens cost me less than $1500. Not cheap, but still a bargain for such a great camera."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got off the phone with the Sigma repair technician. It's like talking to a mental retard. Totally useless. He wants me to send the lens in to him, but this is impossible because I can't put any lens in the hands of a dumb ass who needs to be bashed on the head with a hockey stick a few times to wake him up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a long day, finally the drive home. I've been intrigued by my new lens, the Canon EF 40mm f2.8. How does it draw? This is a recent lens, introduced in 2012, and one which Canon is proud of, with a full page cover ad in a Japanese photography magazine. The ad has a MTF diagram of the lens. Just shows who they are communicating to. Canon lenses are typically bulky, but this one is very compact.

 

And very good.

foliage_zps4926745f.jpg

 

tanah_zps612a1c21.jpg

 

grass_zpsf203f10b.jpg

 

It's a very cost effective lens at RM500 new. Bargain of the decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gathering experience with my Sigma 105mm/2.8 macro as a cine lens. The Canon video format is vastly better than the Sony AVCHD, the worst codec ever. Yet, even the Canon is just barely OK; nobody is going to mistake this for 4K.

 

The Sigma lens is very low contrast at closer focussing distances like those above. It's not such a great lens. I also shot with the EF-S 60mm/2.8 and the colours and vibrancy were much better. But in videos like this the limiting factor is not the lens, it is the format/codec, and it is youtube's compression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super-Takumar 135/3.5 with backlit subject. The veiling flare is out of this world. Cinematographers actually use a smoke generator to create this veiled effect.

DSC05186_edited_900px_zps77fdfb3b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More important than the lens, or camera, is the lighting. But if you must know, this is the Canon 40/2.8 on an EOS M.

brownee_potrait_zps35ad716c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole reason I got into Fuji, the XF 18-55/2.8-4.

xf1855_zps7f8d07d1.jpg

 

It's a stop brighter than other standard kit zooms, is stabilised, and has a superb build quality. Image quality is very good at the wide end, but hazy on the long end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At home, I mostly vegetate. Especially at about this time when dogs are shedding their coat, kotmj doesn't bring me out and about because of the hair issue in the car.

max11_zps74e06b0c.jpg

 

But just now, we went to the beach!

max14_zpsc5bb4753.jpg

 

In case we've not been introduced, I'm Max the 9-month old Golden Labrador.

max12_zps53863a58.jpg

 

Oh no, now nobody on this forum will buy kotmj's camera, it has been sprayed with sea water all over!

max13_zps7370b000.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baby biawak in the apartment block. These things are actually quite smart. Fujifilm X-M1 + XF 18-55

biawak_zpsb11b7544.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nikonfm_zpsabe7d7b6.jpg

 

My Nikon FM arrived. It's a legendary camera from 1977. I've always wanted a Nikon, so it was delicious to be able to baby one in the hand. It feels very good, very precise, like a watch. The lens is really a different league than most other manufacturers. For me, this is the ultimate double gauss normal lens. More recent lenses are not optically better, and certainly not built as well. The normal lenses in recent years have abandoned the double gauss design because of its limitations, so this is the king of an era which has passed.

 

I bought an adapter to use it on my Fujifilm X-M1. With double gauss designs such as this, open up no further than f2.8 if you want best results.

 

f2.8. Max always gives me this look in the morning. He wants to get out to urinate and defecate.

max21_zps7d12853d.jpg

 

f4.0. Ahhh, relief.

max22_zps2f950145.jpg

 

f2.8

max23_zps3ff3905e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×