The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Godfrey
Well-known member
I agree that the L1's 14-50/2.8-3.5 is a great lens and produces superb results, a bit nicer than the G1's 14-45/3.5-5.6. I have it, and use it mostly on my E-1 and L1 bodies as well as the G1.
The primary reason I'm looking for an alternative is for a compact and fast wide. I'm not so concerned with distortion and a little smearing ... but it has to be inexpensive. (For more serious work, I have the Olympus ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5 which is a great lens. It's a bit on the bulky side but a no-brainer when it comes to image quality!)
Godfrey
Well-known member
Good to know, thanks.
If I can find it, somewhere in my family one of my brothers has my father's ancient Bolex H16 Rex, which has three C-mount Kern-Pailiard Switar lenses to play with ... !
Godfrey
Well-known member
I've had Olympus Pen F cameras twice or three times since the 1970s, and one of them was a beautiful black FV body. A delightful camera, I am always drawn to get another one but investing in equipment to shoot film is a waste of time for me nowadays.
I only shoot film very occasionally and usually to fool with a neat old camera I have already, like a Minox C, Pen EE, Dial 35, Contax Tix or Rollei 35.
Godfrey
Well-known member
No, it was a custom-finished FV. Previous owner liked the look of the black FT so much he had the FV professionally finished to look the same way. Really nice. I don't remember precisely why I sold it ... sigh.If it was black, it was an FT.
V
Vivek
Guest
What is the deal with the kitzoom (14-42) and the rumored price ($900/-)?
Who needs another kitzoom (and kit only cam)?
Who needs another kitzoom (and kit only cam)?
pellicle
New member
Vivek
This is what I get with a Computar (modified to fit the hawkPeng adaptor)
Its nice but because of the vignetting I find that I need to crop significantly. If I'm after a look, great, as the image has a different character to the Kit lens. But if I'm after wide I might as well use the Kit lens and end up with the same view.
yes, I agree ... although I did want to see for myself.
This is what I get with a Computar (modified to fit the hawkPeng adaptor)
Its nice but because of the vignetting I find that I need to crop significantly. If I'm after a look, great, as the image has a different character to the Kit lens. But if I'm after wide I might as well use the Kit lens and end up with the same view.
Godfrey
Well-known member
Seeing what it does I'd crop either square or frame to 9:16 format.
V
Vivek
Guest
Square would work but it makes use of only a small area of the sensor and framing is often a major problem. Very frustrating to say the least.
Computar (or Cosmicar) 12.5mm
Computar (or Cosmicar) 12.5mm
Godfrey
Well-known member
I think your photo above is really quite nice. A little corner vignetting, a little softness ... eh? never hurt for good street shooting.
LOL ... Your comment suggests more about your predilections than it does about the lens' capabilities. I happen to like working with square framings quite a lot. Beyond the notion of whether you like square framings or not, let's think about resolution.
The G1's 12Mpixel loses 3000 pixels, 1500 on each side of the frame, for a center-square crop, making a square still a 9Mpixel image ... 75% of the G1 full resolution ... which is quite enough for lots of uses. Both the E1 and L1 (5 and 7.5 Mpixel respectively) produce very satisfactory 13x13 inch (or even larger) prints from square compositions like this:
There's certainly a point at which you'll run out of enough resolution for a good print, but I don't participate in the current "every print must be capable of being printed to humongous size" fad. Few photographs really need to be so big imo. ;-)
I'm just still not so sure that it's worth the effort to modify lens and mount adapter to use this lens purely from a time and use perspective. It will cost me more in time and machining work to make it fit than I've got into the lens and adapter already, which is less than $70, and I'm not sure how much I'll actually use it. I'm on the fence...
V
Vivek
Guest
On the last point- modification to fit the adapter is easy.
Just remove the c mount flange from the lens and use a nail file (hey, even I could do it!) to trim away the excess metal. These are brass so, they file away nice and easy. the finish won't look like what Robert showed but they will never even show once mounted in the c-adapter. Takes about ~30minutes (trial and error to get the distance right).
The most serious problem, as I mentioned is the framing. It isn't about the pixels or the print size.
BTW, I have dismantled these (Cosmicars and Computars)- the lens design is similar to a wide angle Nikkor or a Distagon- nothing less (imagine how much they would have cost had they been labelled Zeiss, Nikon or heavens forbid Leica). They are superb optics. It is shame that the coverage is inadequate.
Just remove the c mount flange from the lens and use a nail file (hey, even I could do it!) to trim away the excess metal. These are brass so, they file away nice and easy. the finish won't look like what Robert showed but they will never even show once mounted in the c-adapter. Takes about ~30minutes (trial and error to get the distance right).
The most serious problem, as I mentioned is the framing. It isn't about the pixels or the print size.
BTW, I have dismantled these (Cosmicars and Computars)- the lens design is similar to a wide angle Nikkor or a Distagon- nothing less (imagine how much they would have cost had they been labelled Zeiss, Nikon or heavens forbid Leica). They are superb optics. It is shame that the coverage is inadequate.
Godfrey
Well-known member
I presume this means the other adapter, not RJ's (jinfinance).
For RJ's adapter, there's a substantial amount of meat that has to come off the Cosmicar 12.5mm lens mounting flange ... it's a larger diameter than the recessed hole in the adapter, which is 2.6mm deep. That 2.6mm means cutting the mount right up into the securing screws' threads. I don't know how I'd want to do that with a nail file, or how I'd secure the flange back onto the lens.
I went to Ebay and couldn't find "hawk" or "hawkpeng" as sellers with a search. Do you have a link to the right mount auction?
All a matter of what you want out of it. Me, I'll be happy if I can get it to work. ;-)
Audii-Dudii
Active member
I agree with your 75% figure, but the pedant inside me feels the need to point out the pixel loss on each side is only 500, not 1500. The OEM G1 frame is 4000 x 3000, so you only need to trim away 1000 pixels total to make a square (3000 x 3000) image...
Also, provided you use "live view," two strips of gaffer's tape on the LCD works wonders as a framing aid for square-format compositions. If you position them carefully and get the resulting image perfectly centered, you can then automate the cropping-to-square process in PS by simply specifying the crop area as 3000 x 3000 pixels and the program will center the marching ants for you automatically.
Voila ... a digital pseudo-Hasselblad for cheap!
m3photo
New member
V
Vivek
Guest
For those who do not want to or can not bother modifying lens flanges, there is an easier solution. As Ranger found and reported here, there is this older version 12.5mm f/1.9 (a tad slower) Cosmicar lens that would fit the RJ adapter and would focus to infinity without any modification.
I found a sample after seeing Ranger's report here and can confirm what he reported on the coverage and performance. It is a sweet lens as well.
I found a sample after seeing Ranger's report here and can confirm what he reported on the coverage and performance. It is a sweet lens as well.
apicius9
New member
Just wondering, how would the Cosmicar 12.5 compare to the Canon TV-16 13/1.5 in terms of sensor coverage and IQ, does anybody have both? Here are two quick shots at the market with the Canon, one in 4:3, the other in 16:9. Overall, I like it and think especially the 16:9 is really useful.
Stefan
P.S. Just wondering, how did we get here from the original topic?
Stefan
P.S. Just wondering, how did we get here from the original topic?
pellicle
New member
this is the fellow
pellicle
New member
Hi
I think we should start a thread "rough as guts camera adaptations"
I'll toss in my "precision" flex coupling for tilt and shift
:ROTFL:
and I thought I was a back-yarder doing it with my swiss army knife's file!
I think we should start a thread "rough as guts camera adaptations"
I'll toss in my "precision" flex coupling for tilt and shift
:ROTFL: