M42 Standard Lens Comparison
Last summer I acquired a K-mount to M42 adapter for my Pentax K100D DSLR. Until now I've done very little shooting with the various M42 standard lenses that I've acquired over the years. I thought it would be fun to compare the M42 lenses against each other and against the Pentax kit lens.
My comparison is hardly scientific, but I believe it is precise enough to say whether there is a significant difference in lens performance under the conditions I created. My test conditions are simple enough. Photograph a static image under incandescent light using comparable focus, aperture, and shutter speed. I set a custom white balance on my DSLR to obtain more realistic color. ISO was set to 200. The only real problem I encountered in testing was obtaining similar focus with all of these manual focus lenses. In the end, the focus was close enough for my purposes. If the focus was slightly different between shots, I simply concentrated on comparing the in-focus portion of the photos. I didn't test under a variety of conditions. That will probably come later. I'd like to test for resistance to flare and purple fringing.
Here's a chart of the tests I conducted:
Photo Lens Aperture Shutter Length Frame Number Length ============================================================================== 1 Auto Sears 55mm 1:1.4 f1.4 1/40 55 #100-8439 2 Auto Sears 55mm 1:1.4 f4 1/15 55 #100-8440 3 Auto Sears 55mm 1:1.4 f8 1/4 55 #100-8441 4 Sears Auto EE 50mm 1:1.4 f1.4 1/40 50 #100-8442 5 Sears Auto EE 50mm 1:1.4 f4 1/15 50 None 6 Sears Auto EE 50mm 1:1.4 f8 1/4 50 None 7 Cosina Cosinon Auto 50mm 1:1.8 f1.8 1/30 50 #100-8446 8 Cosina Cosinon Auto 50mm 1:1.8 f4 1/8 50 #100-8448 9 Cosina Cosinon Auto 50mm 1:1.8 f8 0.4 50 #100-8451 10 Pentax DA 1:3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL f5.6 1/6 50 #100-8454 11 Pentax DA 1:3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL f8 0.3 55 #100-8455
Click on the link below to compare images.
 |
| M42 50mm Lens Test |
After carefully comparing each image, the conclusion is fairly simple. Any of these old M42 lenses is great for low light shooting on a DSLR such as a Pentax K100D. The Auto Sears 55/1.4 is a tiny bit soft at f1.4, but it's difficult to know for sure given that the depth of field is so shallow at f1.4. Regardless, the images were very sharp by f4 and beyond. If you had to pin me down, the Cosina photos where very good at all apertures. The Pentax kit zoom compared quite well to the primes, maybe a little bit softer, but very good nonetheless.
When would you want to use a fast M42 prime? Well, you certainly wouldn't use it for action or following your kids, but it's perfect for most anything else that doesn't require fast focusing. Setting exposure on the K100D is as simple as pushing on a button which stops down the lens and sets the shutter speed. In addition, you get all the benefits of in-body shake reduction. The other nice thing about old M42 prime lenses is that they are cheap. Modern fast AF lenses are not cheap, but these M42 lenses with speeds as fast as f1.4 cost next to nothing. If I recall correctly none of my lenses cost more than $10. In conclusion, I've got to say that all of these old M42 standard prime lenses were a lot of fun and very useful. I hope to test them in more challenging conditions in the near future. In addition, I will be testing a few 135mm lenses.
Fuji Discovery 312 Point and Shoot
I could probably review old point and shoot cameras forever. Local thrift stores sell them for less than $5 each. Canon, Minolta, Konica, Pentax, Olympus, Ricoh, Argus.... You name it, you can find it cheap. I recently found a Fuji Discovery 312 with an EBC Fujinon lens and bought it for $1.99. I'm a big fan of EBC Fujinon lenses based on some shooting with a Fujica SLR+EBC Fujinon lens. While I can't be sure that a Fujinon in a point and shoot is the same as a Fujinon for an SLR, I was hopeful nonetheless.
The build of the Fuji 312 is nothing special. In fact, it's kind of bulky and cumbersome. Handling while shooting is nothing special. There's a significant delay from pushing the shutter release button to the time that the shutter is actually released. I wouldn't use this camera for action shots. The zoom control is fairly slow and startup/shutdown is leisurely as well. As far as tech specs go, the 312 is fairly underpowered. The top shutter speed is 1/250s and there's no exposure compensation. The zoom is decent, ranging from 38mm to 120mm.
Now, let's get down to the most important features. Image quality and exposure accuracy. I've got to hand it to Fuji, they did a great job with the lens and exposure meter. I shot a roll in overcast snowy conditions and the Fuji 312 did a great job in not being fooled by the white snow. In addition, the images were sharp and showed good detail. You would have a difficult time distinguishing the photos from this camera from photos taken with an SLR. My next photo test consisted of a few indoor flash shots. Again, the Fuji 312 did a nice job of not over-exposing and giving as natural a look as possible with an on-camera flash. I give the Discovery 312 very high marks in image quality. It's too bad Fuji didn't surround the lens with a better body.
Here are a couple of sample photos using ordinary Kodak Gold 200 processed at Walgreens.
Nikon FG
The Nikon FG is a small SLR introduced in the early 80's. Although I no longer have my Pentax ME Super, the FG appears to be very similar in size and function. That's a good thing. It makes you wonder if Nikon designers may have borrowed the design a bit. The FG is a simple SLR by today's standard, it offers program, aperture priority, and manual metering modes. In addition it offers exposure compensation via a +- 2 stop dial.
How is the FG in actual use? Very nice actually. I was surprised at the difference in size and weight after using an N90 for the past month. The FG is much easier to carry around and doesn't get in your way because of the bulk.
Despite the crazy snow we've had here in the last month, I was able to get out and snap a few shots. I was using a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AIS. It's been a while since I've used a small fixed focal length lens. I was pleasantly reminded of the simplicity of using a manual focus lens where I don't have to worry about a bulky zoom. The center weighted metering of the FG makes it a simple matter to know if bright or light parts of the scene are influencing the metering and the exposure compensation function makes it a simple matter to adjust accordingly. Nice.
The image quality of the resulting photos was great. As expected, the Nikkor 50mm AIS produced sharp and color results. The FG is a great match for this lens.
There's not a lot more to say about the Nikon FG. It's a great little SLR, especially suited for light traveling with a couple small fixed focal length manual focus lenses.
Costco Slide Scans
I don't know why I didn't notice before, but my local Costo offers 6 megapixel slide scanning for 28 cents per slide. Not bad at all. The following are a few examples of Kodak E100GX scanned at Costco.
Something Old and Something Older
I think I've come full circle with regard to 35mm photography. The only thing left is a Leica addiction. Luckily my wallet can't handle it. Instead of a Leica, I've begun to walk down the Nikon road. I just received an old Nikon N90 for $29 USD + shipping from KEH. Once again KEH proves that BGN (Bargain) quality is quite good if you are willing to put up with a few scuffs. I've paired up the N90 with a Nikkor 24-120 AF-D and an inexpensive (but great) 50mm f1.8 AIS. Why the N90? A few reasons. First, I wanted the fast 1/8000s shutter speed so that I could open up the aperture in sunny weather while using ASA 400 film and not resort to ND filters. Second, I wanted to try out intelligent fill flash using an SB-26 flash. Third, I wanted to be able to use autofocus lenses and manual lenses.
My first roll of film using the N90 was Superia 800. Although the Nikkor 24-120 AF-D may not be the highest rated lens that Nikon has produced, I was quite pleased with the results. Here's an obligatory puppy photo.
Fantastic Plastic – Cheap Plastic Film SLRs
This weekend I was stir crazy from staying inside because of heavy rain. We had a little break, so I broke out my fantastic plastic Pentax MZ-50; complete with a lightweight 35-80mm zoom. It's not much to look at, but it's super lightweight and if you drop it, buy another one. This was my first effort with the camera. The light was fairly dim, but good enough for some ISO 400 film. My main goal was to verify that the camera was working correctly and to catch a few shots of super saturated colors that you often get after heavy rain.
and
Not too shabby for something you can pick up off Craigslist for $50 USD. Let's see. $50 for the camera and lens, $6.99 for five rolls of Superia 400 from Costco, $10 for processing and scanning(no prints) four rolls from Costco, and $5 for a battery.
What do you get for $72? You get control over depth of field, you get a large viewfinder that is bigger than all but the most expensive full frame digital SLRs, and you get scans good enough for great 5x7 prints. You will be surprised at how much it helps composition to have a large viewfinder. You can also print the scans at 8x10, but they start to get a little grainy. For some reason, the 3000x2000 Costco scans show more grain than is actually there and it's somewhat noticeable when printed at 8x10. However, if you take your negatives into Costo and request an 8x10 enlargement, the resulting prints are much better than the prints from scans. Costco probably scans at a higher resolution for 8x10 prints than 3000x2000. Whatever the reason, I consider their scans digital proofs and good for 5x7 and smaller prints.
If you do the math, you can shoot 4 rolls per month for about $16. The total cost for a year of shooting plus equipment and processing is only $250. It's very economical and the cost is incremental. If you find that you want to shoot more, consider investing $400-$500 in a used DSLR. There's no reason you can't use both film and digital.
Experiments with Ektachrome 100GX
Most of my film photography the last few years has consisted of using negative film with a variety of old cameras; rangefinders, point and shoots, SLRs, folders, and TLRs. It has been a blast and I've learned a lot. I have rarely shot slide film, mainly due to not having a projector, scanning costs, and my own impatience. When I did shoot a couple of rolls of slide film, I had the lab perform a low-res scan of the slides. The results were very good, but after those two rolls, I only shot negatives because it was cheaper to experiment. It seemed there were always sales of some sort on film and I could always find cheap development and scans.
Recently I've been reviewing my film scans from the last few years and found that the low-res scans from slides were very good in comparison to my negative scans. Great colors, excellent sharpness, and nice contrast. And this was from 1500x1000 megapixel scans. It's not that I haven't seen good scans from Kodak's Portra series, it's just that the slide scans popped in a way that the negative scans did not. I wasn't sure of the reason for the difference in quality, but I wanted to find out.
My local pro lab has a Kodak HR 500 with which they scan their film. I had a conversation with one of the operators and they said their best results came from Portra 160NC/400NC negative film and E100 slide film. The operator claimed that E100 gave the best scan results. I decided to test this theory and recently shot a roll of E100GX. I had them scan at their medium resolution which resulted in a 5824x3908 image which was extremely detailed and almost grain free. Compared to the 160NC scans, the E100GX scans were clearly superior. However, the pro lab wants more than $6 per slide. That's just not something I can afford over the long haul. Compare that to the same lab offering entire roll scans of negatives for $20 and Costco offering 3000x2000 scans for as little as 2.99 for four rolls.
My local pro lab has told me that they will soon be offering scans of entire rolls of slide film for the same cost as their negative scans. If that is true, then I'm pretty sure I'll be shooting more slide film. I've also read on Ken Rockwell's site that there are other labs who will be offering similar high quality, reasonable cost slide scanning services.
A Negative film I'm really looking forward to using is the new Kodak Ektar 100. It's supposed to be super fine grained and have punchy slide-like saturation . I'm sure I'll be testing it in the next few months.
Here's a link to one of my E100GX scans:
Canon L lenses
My latest equipment obsession has been Canon FD lenses and bodies. One reason for acquiring FD gear is that it is an orphan format. FD gear is incompatible with EOS digital bodies so FD gear is super cheap. In fact, I'm very excited about the fact that I will soon be receving my first FD L glass. I ordered an 80-200 f4 L lens which is fairly legendary among Canon fans. Hopefully it will be here Friday or Saturday. With the great results I've seen from shooting Kodak E100GX, I can't wait to see the results from L glass.
I've thus far managed to acquire the following equipment:
- AE-1 Body (on loan)
- AE-1P (black body)
- A-1
- Canon 50mm f1.4 S.S.C
- Canon 50mm f1.4 nFD
- Kiron 28mm f2 (a highly regarded 3rd party prime)
- Canon 70-210mm f4 macro (performs much better than I expected)
- Canon 50mm f3.5 macro (super sharp)
My next quest is probably a Canon 24mm and 100mm f2 prime. We'll see.
**UPDATE**
I've received my FD 80-200L lens and managed to shoot a few photos.
Digital Point and Shoot Versus Film Point and Shoot (Part 1)
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to discuss the relative merits of digital and film point and shoot cameras to help you decide when one or the other is appropriate to your needs. Both photographic mediums have strengths and weaknesses. I think it's a good idea to lay them out and look at them with an eye toward practical use by normal family photographers. In the end I would like to find out if there is any noticeable difference in photos between digital and film when the cameras are used in a similar way.
The Contenders
First, let's meet the contestants. I'll be evaluating several cameras.
- Canon A560 -- The Canon A560 digital point and shoot is a well regarded budget digital. It lacks image stabilization, but overall is good choice for those who want a good camera without breaking the bank.
- Fuji F20 -- What the Fuji F20 doesn't deliver in megapixels (6Mp), it delivers in great image quality; especially when compared to comparable cameras at higher ISOs.
- HP 720 -- This camera was not especially fast or feature filled, but it did a good job for an early digital point and shoot. It is included for comparison just to see how a 3.1Mp camera will fare compared to its modern cousins.
- Pentax IQZoom 90WR -- The 90WR distinguishes itself from the other cameras with built-in weatherproofing. It can withstand rain and snow as well as a short dunk in the water.
- Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 -- The Sure Shot Classic 120 was considered at the top end of the Sure Shot Series. It has a number of features useful to the advanced amateur such as a custom setting to remember preferred settings.
- Olympus Stylus Epic (mjuii) -- The Stylus Epic is widely regarded for producing sharp photographs. The main drawback compared to the other cameras is lack of a zoom lens. It also lags a bit in the number of available scene selections, but that's not a big deal. I thought it would be interesting to include this camera although I'll probably step back or get closer to the subject when possible to produce comparable photographs.
With the exception of the Olympus (which has a fixed focal length lens), all of the cameras feature zoom lenses, scene selection, and flash. In their day, each of these cameras was considered a good quality camera for general use by casual photographers.
Methodology
As much as possible I'll try to use the cameras as most casual photographers will use them. I'll also point out situations when a feature of a camera might be used but typically isn't. A feature that comes to mind is custom white balance available on most digitals. I will carry all of the digital cameras and one of the film cameras for each round of testing. I will photograph the same subject with each of the cameras in turn. There will be several rounds of testing with a different film camera used in each round. Why am I using just one film camera per round? Cost. Which is one of the disadvantages of digital if you want to conduct tests such as this one.
Scenarios
- Scenic sunny
- Scenic sunset
- Action
- Macro
- Indoor flash
- Indoor no flash
- Portrait
- Water or beach scene
- Backlit
- Dark Subject
- Light Subject
- Cloudy
One advantage for digitals in all of the above scenarios is that you get a preview of your results on the LCD. If the photo is blurry, improperly exposed, or framed improperly you get immediate feedback and can take another photo. From what I've seen, casual photographers will often re-take a photo if it is framed improperly such as group shot or sports shot, but will less often re-take a shot if the exposure is slightly off or the subject is slightly blurry. In fact, slight blurriness is difficult to see with a normal LCD on a point and shoot. My usage scenario will be to take the photo and not look back unless there was some gross mistake. I'll try to keep the attitude and behavior of a casual photographer.
Film Selection
I had to think about this one for a bit. A typical point and shoot photographer will not normally use pro films from Kodak and Fuji. However, pro films can be used with great success in a point and shoot. In the end I decided to use one pro film for reference purposes. Consumer film will be used for most scenarios.
- Fuji Superia Xtra 200
- Kodak UltraMax 400
- Kodak Portra 400VC
- Kodak UltraMax 800
ISO
Digital has the advantage of being able to use a number of different ISO settings. A casual photographer will not change the ISO unless it is automatic. Because ISO is a conscious decision for the film photographer, it is more likely that casual photographers will pick a film suitable for their usage scenario. I will therefore use several different film speeds in my evaluation. Given the number of film cameras and film speeds, I would have to burn a lot of film. I will therefore have an ISO test for one round where I will use ISO800 film and all digitals will be set to ISO800 if possible.
Printing and Scanning
All film will be scanned and printed at Costco. Costco offers good quality 6Mp scans for very little money. All digital photos will be printed at Costco as well. I'll let Costco print at default settings for both film and digital to replicate the typical consumer experience.
Enlargements
Certain photos will be selected for enlargement to 8x10. The photos will be compared for quality.
Getting Started
I plan to start testing Saturday, May 24th using all of the digital cameras and the Pentax IQZoom 90WR load with either Fuji 200 or Kodak UltraMax 400 film. I plan to publish results by the following Saturday, May 31st.
Thrift Store Lens Shootout
Originally uploaded by spokanekelly
I picked up a few crusty lenses from a thrift store. Two of them were 135mm telephoto lenses. This photo was taken with an old Cosina brand 135mm f2.8 lens. All of the shots on the roll with this lens are sharp compared to the other lens which is a Sears generic brand.
I had read that the Cosina brand was pretty cheap and low-end back in the day. However, despite the low build quality, the shots from the Cosina were much sharper.