wide angle m42 lens
I am going to buy a wide angle M42 lens.
I use a Praktica MTL3 and a Rolleiflex SL35E (with original Rollei QBM-M42 adaptor)with 50 and 135 m42 lenses.
I am thinking on buy a FLEKTOGON MC 20/2,8.
My question is:
- is 20mm so much wide to combine with 50 and 135?
- is it better a 28 choice?
Please suggest to me any lens you think is good for me (Takumar 24/3,5, Mamiya 28/2,8 etc.........)
THANKS TO ALL
You will see a vast difference between 50mm and 28mm and that is what I suggest you buy first, as it will be cheap and plentiful in the marketplace. What you do NOT want is to corner yourself with a lens that has too large a difference, as will the 20mm. If you need MORE 'wideness' later on you can supplement your 28mm. Personally, I think that there is TOO LARGE a difference between the 50mm and the 135mm, but marketing concerns gave the mass market many more 135mm lenses than 90mm or 105mm. Your Rollei m42 adapter allows auto stop down of the aperture. Only that adapter and the Fuji-X m42 adapter allow this useful feature. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 05-27-2011 at 06:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I second going for the 28. The wider the coverage, the more "difficult" the lens is to use. When dealing with wide-angle photography you'll be confronted with composition problems: disturbing stuff entering into the frame any time, difficulty of finding equilibrium between "near" subjects and "background", lack of clear composition (too many elements in a photo give the impression of no proper composition "idea" so to speak), geometric distortion (caused by optics laws and not by lenses' defects), vignetting, non-uniform sky, possibly greater risk of flare, and I think it's also easier to have your horizon not levelled when using a wide angle free-hand.
If you begin with a 20mm you'll going to hate wide-angle photography quite soon. 28mm is already totally different from a 50mm, in perspective rendering etc., and I would go with a 28mm.
I am already quite accustomed to use a 24mm which I use quite often. Today I went around for the first time in my life with a 15mm. Shocking to say the least! Also the occasions in which you can use a 20mm are much rarer than occasions in which you can use a 28mm.
To make a comparison, today I shot some 3.5 135/36 rolls with my Minolta X-700 and 28-85. I also had my Bessa-L with the 15mm with me, and I took "only" around 20 frames. And also those are not all really "legitimate" shots, but I want to arrive to the end of the roll fast because I look forward checking the lens quality, a second-hand purchase.
I'm another that likes the 28mm focal length but if the 20 is really inexpensive, it's a lot of fun to play with. They're very good at near-far relationships where you want to exaggerate the size of the close object.
Heavily sedated for your protection.
It depends, I guess. I find 20 far too wide to have as my only wide. I feel the same way about 24mm. Both of these are "special purpose" lenses to me, with limited general utility for what I shoot (street, landscape, low light, music shows, journalism, candids, etc.). Even Garry Winogrand, the oft-named "master" of street photography, who is known for the technique of getting close with wides, rarely used lenses that were all that wide in the grand scheme of things.
I appreciate Ken Rockwell's attitude on most things he writes about, but this one stands out to me as one of his most useful, IMO: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-...ide-lenses.htm.
One of my favorite sentences: "Most people use ultrawides too sheepishly, and get crummy results with tiny subjects dwarfed in the middle of an open frame."
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I find a 24mm, 35mm tandem to be really useful. Most likely though, that is because I tend to use a 35mm lens as my "standard" lens.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
+1. I find a 28 a little too wide for all around use (like leaving on the camera) and not quite wide enough for other times. If you can carry two lenses the 35 and 24 combo for me hits two sweat spots rather than the in between compromise of the 28.
Originally Posted by MattKing
I agree too that the jump from 50 to 135 is too wide. If I could choose a battery of three prime lenses it would be something like 24, 35, and something in the 85-105 range, preferably a macro. I would only include a 50 if I needed a really fast lens but then I might go 28, 50, 105.
Fortunately film camera lenses are cheap enough these days that it's not prohibitive to have all the major choices and just have to decide which you are going to carry.
Thank you a lot, it is amazing to share all this connaissance.
Now I would also ask to you to give me an indication on the lens I have to buy.
Which is the lens (brand and model) you would suggest to me?
I would go for any second-hand lens of the Eighties. Older lenses are probably not computer-designed and probably have a less effective coating. Russian lenses can be very cheap but quality controls were not stringent at all so production quality is variable. Anything branded Pentax, Fuji or Praktica should be quite adequate, if a modern lens.
Like many things, it's an individual choice. 28 can be more noticeable -- some find it to be an ideal wide angle. Some find it to be too wide.
Once you go to 20mm and lower, then you're almost into "specialist" territory. Not that these aren't great focal lengths, but they can sometimes be almost too wide. But you have to try it for yourself and see if it works for you.
If you're not looking to spend a fortune, the third-party lens makers offered many optics in 42mm screw mount. Personally, I would get a wide angle in screw mount and a different one for the Rollei QBM. Last week, I picked up a f/2.8 28mm Rolleinar for $30. It's in really nice condition.
There are still deals to be had out there. The key is patience.
My widest lens for an SLR is an 18mm Distagon, which I bought from a fellow here. It's for the Rollei QBM, and it's an awesome lens, although certainly not for every situation.