This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Mitakon 35mm 0.95 worth it if you already have the XF 35mm 1.4?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lens Forum' started by Luis Costa, Aug 10, 2017.

  1. Luis Costa

    Luis Costa New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal

    -Return to Top-

    So, I've been reading some reviews on the Mitakon 35mm 0.95 lately and the reasonable price tag has seriously tickled my G.A.S.!
    Thing is, I already have the XF 35mm 1.4 (my favorite lens) so I'm afraid they might be a bit too similar... I'm a sucker for shallow DOF but would the 0.95 make a significant difference in terms of bokeh? Anyone with both lenses care to comment?
     
  2. beakhammer

    beakhammer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,804
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    Location:
    Salish Sea

    -Return to Top-

    It will be quite different, though I don't know if it will be "better".

    Another approach would be to use an adapted 50mm/1.4 on a focal reducer. This will give you narrower DOF than the 35mm/1.4, at the same field of view, and in addition will get you a bonus full stop of extra light. You could use other, even longer, adapted lenses with the same focal reducer as well (more stuff for your money, in the end).
     
    Luis Costa likes this.
  3. Luis Costa

    Luis Costa New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal

    -Return to Top-

    That's a great idea that I hadn't thought of! I already have a Canon FD 50 1.4 and a Helios 58, but I've been using them with regular adapters. That way I could have 2 different focal lengths with the same lens!

    Anything I should be aware when looking for one of those focal reducers?
     
  4. F2Bthere

    F2Bthere Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Location:
    Austin

    -Return to Top-

    Lens Turbo II is about $150 US and the Nikon version is quite good.

    The first version of the Metabones for Nikon I tried was horribly soft. The newer version is reported to be better. Metabones is significantly more expensive but offers a tripod foot and, if you are using a lens without an aperture ring (G lens in the Nikon world), the f-stops are marked as F (wide open), 1, 2, 3 etc. on the LT II they are not marked.

    I don't have experience with reduces for other brands, but search the forum and you will find a number of discussions.
     
    Luis Costa likes this.
  5. beakhammer

    beakhammer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,804
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    Location:
    Salish Sea

    -Return to Top-

    I have heard good things about the Lens Turbo focal reducers, as well as the Metabones. The early models were not as good as current models with both companies, I believe. Metabones makes a Canon FD-FujiX focal reducer.

    The Mitakon Zhongi Lens-Turbo Fuji-X to Canon Eos mount focal reducer will work with a long list of other lenses using additional
    straight adapters for:
    Canon Eos to:
    Nikon
    T-mount
    Contax/Yashica
    Leica-R
    Olympus OM
    Pentax M42
    That's quite a list with some very nice lenses on it, and you could buy a few good lenses for the money you save, compared to the Metabones.

    However, there is no straight Eos to FD adapter. The adapters that do exist change the magnification and degrade IQ by introducing an additional lens into the adapter.

    A lens Turbo that mated Minolta lenses to Fuji-X would give you a lot of options for good low-cost glass. Minolta makes a 50/1.4, a common 58mm/1.4, and a less common 50mm/1.2 I believe.
     
    Luis Costa likes this.
  6. specLegacy

    specLegacy Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    155
    Location:
    Houston

    -Return to Top-

    I have both, and like you the Fujifilm 35/1.4 was my favorite lens. I now use the Mitakon more often, but use the Fuji when I know I need something more reliable (AF, better image quality). It does provide a nice look to images that's different from the Fuji, while still being technically good (main IQ issue is that the focus plane is not flat).

    The Mitakon is sharper than my LTII + OM 50/1.4, which is sharper than the LTII + Yashica 50/1.4. Not sure how well the FD would do, but the Lens Turbo does also work with other legacy lenses.

    If you go for the Mitakon, make sure to get the version 2.
     
    Luis Costa and F2Bthere like this.
  7. Luis Costa

    Luis Costa New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal

    -Return to Top-

    Great feedback guys, thank you!

    I've been looking into it and apparently there aren't many options for the Canon FD, the ones that exist seem to be either too expensive or low quality. But there's a lens Turbo II at a moderate price for the Helios m42, so I might try that one.
    I'm still a bit unsure though because the price is about 1/3 of the mitakon 35mm, but I'm guessing the image quality will be much lower using an old lens + focal reducer than an actual modern lens.

    @specLegacy : so having both you never felt they were redundant, right? Do you have any images with the mitakon wide open that you could share?
     
  8. beakhammer

    beakhammer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,804
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    Location:
    Salish Sea

    -Return to Top-

    Not necessarily true at all. Some old lenses produce fantastic image quality, some don't. This whole topic is hard to discuss because we all have different ideas of what "good" is, but even in a dry technical sense there are old lenses that equal modern lenses. It's never just about the lens though, it is always a matter of how a particular lens works with a particular camera/sensor/film combination. In any case, there are some old lenses that will kick the Mitakon's ass.

    The Helios is just OK, in my opinion. Lots of fun, but not exceptional. There are some good M42 lenses out there, but remember, you can mount M42 lenses on a FujiX-Canon Eos Lens Turbo with an additional adapter. The M-42 to FX adapter will only work with M-42 (which has one of the longest flange-back distances). The Eos-mount Lens Turbo will also accept Leica and Contax (Zeiss) lenses, some of which equal any modern lens by most people's standards.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
    RnR and Luis Costa like this.
  9. Luis Costa

    Luis Costa New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal

    -Return to Top-

    I see your point, the EOS-mount Lens Turbo would give me much more options than getting the M42 one. I'll look into that, thanks!

    In your opinion, what are some of the old lenses worth checking that work well with focal reducers on Fuji?
     
  10. F2Bthere

    F2Bthere Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Location:
    Austin

    -Return to Top-

    The only limit with lenses on focal reducers I know of are that some lenses project back in a way which is not compatible--part of the lens keeps it from being physically able to be installed. This is rare.
     
  11. beakhammer

    beakhammer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,804
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    Location:
    Salish Sea

    -Return to Top-

    What I do is search on Flickr, where you can see hundreds of examples of images made with just about any lens/camera combination. You will have to decide for yourself if any apeal tp you. The advantage of looking at a zillion samples is that you can a sense of the possibillities. There are so many variables other than the lens that go into the images that you need a lot of examples to average out other factors, such as processing.

    I like the way certain lenses render on digital sensors, but the more I work with any lens the better I get at using it and processing the results, so as time goes by I like a wider and wider range of lenses.

    Minolta, Pentax, some Vivitar and Nikon lenss all work for me. I have some excellent Canon FD lenses. Zeiss is great, so look into Contax or other Zeiss-made lenses. Cosina makes excellent lenses under the Voigtlander name. If you are willing to use big medium format lenses there are even more options. Mamiya for one is extraordinary. Some of the old Soviet lenses are very good. As I develop more ways to adapt lenses, especially for stitching, I am starting to use large-formaat lenses with my digital camera.
     
    Luis Costa likes this.
  12. Luis Costa

    Luis Costa New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal

    -Return to Top-

    Solid advice, I will do that. Thanks again!
     
  13. F2Bthere

    F2Bthere Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Location:
    Austin

    -Return to Top-

    Have you started using Shift for panoramas?

    I started with an old Nikon 28mm PC shift lens and just recently got a Kippon adapter which supports shift (and tilt).

    I've noticed they have similar adapters from, say, Hasselblad to Nikon, which could, conceivably, be paired with my adapter to allow simultaneous rise or fall and swing, tilt and shift.
     
    beakhammer likes this.
  14. beakhammer

    beakhammer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,804
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    Location:
    Salish Sea

    -Return to Top-

    I am building a field camera (with bellows and adjustable standards) specifically designed for shift-stitching with digital cameras in order to start working more with movements as well as stitching to create larger formats. I have started shooting through my Crown Graphic, but that has very limited movements. Of course stitching limits you to stationary subjects, but I am also starting to see possibilities in shooting single frames through view cameras, particularly for macro and close-up work. With single frames even the image circle of SLR lenses is big enough to allow some movements, so my field camera is going to allow me to mount just about any lens to it. Shooting with a digital camera you don't need to use a lens that is mounted in a shutter.

    Another advantage of using even moderate digital stitching is that it allows you to work with a wider range of aspect ratios without loosing resolution, as happens when you merely crop an image.

    One issue is that even a Mirrorless camera puts the sensor a bit farther back from the film plane on a view camera, which can make it impossible to reach infinity focus with shorter focal lengths, and the adapter I am currently using is for Pentax K-mount, which puts my Fuji even farther back than need be (with a FujiX to K-mount adapter). In addition the shadow cast by the mirror tunnel and the adapter means you need to leave a lot more overlap out near the edge of the image circle in order to stitch really large areas. In order to accommodate somewhat wider lenses, I have procured a used Bag Bellows and am designing the field camera to compress as much as possible, though this may limit movements somewhat when compressed nearly all the way down. I will also be trying to perfect a recessed lens-board. None of this matters with macro work though, since you don't need infinity focus, and macro is one area where using movements to control DOF, as well as using small apertures, can be really helpful. My best shift-stitching lens right now is a Mamiya 645 80mm/4 Macro lens that provides a great image circle for either movements or for digital stitching, or for both.

    I know there are shift-stitch lens adapters out there as well. Something else to look into, but my modular field camera is going to take a while to put together and I will start with that. I have most of the parts assembled now, and am refining the drawings. It is designed for a large range of rise, fall and shift in the rear standard (for expanded shift-stitching). It has a Graflok back that can be rotated. The front standard will offer at least tilts and swings with center-axis pivots, for DOF adjustments. I will be bale to swop between bag bellows and longer regular bellows. I could simply be using an inexpensive mono-rail view camera, but my DIY camera is going to allow me to branch out into more oddball configurations as well as being designed to mate with my Crown Graphic lens boards and with elements of the Mercury "universal" camera system (see Kickstarter). In addition my DIY field camera design will break down for easy transport, and the parts can be used in much simpler and more portable configurations (I hope).

    Cambo makes an elegant miniaturized system for turning DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras into little view cameras, but it is very expensive.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
    F2Bthere likes this.
  15. beakhammer

    beakhammer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,804
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    Location:
    Salish Sea

    -Return to Top-

    Back to the OPs question. The whole subject of image quality hinges on each person's subjective idea of what "good" image quality is for a particular image. There are some old lenses, and off-brand modern lenses, that can come close to or equal native Fuji glass for sharpness and contrast, however there a great many more that cannot equal the Fuji-XF lens performance in terms of sharpness, contrast, flare resistance, and so forth, but offer some sort of interesting character qualities that for some of us compensate for these deficiencies, at least for some kinds of image. Many of the lenses that are more-or-less equal to modern Fujinon glass are either expensive (Zeiss, Leica, etc.) or are bulky (medium format lenses), and of course they will not work with Fuji's electronic connections. However there is another class of lenses that are almost, but not quite, as sharp as Fuji glass, but the drop in sharpness is not enough to stop them from making wonderful images. This is generally the sort of adapted lens I work with most. A good example of this can be found in many older macro lenses.

    In general I look for adapted lenses that offer a really different look, an unusual focal length, or a much lower price, than Fuji-XF lenses. Otherwise you might as well stick with the excellent Fuji glass. Another reason to use adapted lenses is so that they will also mount on other brands of camera. I use a lot of film cameras, so this can be a real advantage to me. If I was looking at off-brand lenses, such as Rokinon, I would consider buying them in a non-Fuji mount and then using an adapter to connect them to the Fuji, so that one can also use the lens on other brands. A lot of these off-brand lenses were designed for full-frame cameras, so the adapter is more or less built-in anyway.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  16. Luis Costa

    Luis Costa New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal

    -Return to Top-

    Just to clarify, I'm not at all obsessed with image quality and the latest and greatest tech specs - I love my Canon FD 50 1.4 and it's certainly much softer than any of my Fuji lenses.
    In this particular case I'm looking for a very particular characteristic: bigger, better, more bokeh! :D But of course if the lens is terrible in every other area I probably won't be able to use it, so it's always a compromise.
     
    beakhammer likes this.
  17. specLegacy

    specLegacy Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    155
    Location:
    Houston

    -Return to Top-

    The Camdiox/Roxsen focal reducer seems to perform decently well, based on the pictures I'm seeing, and they do offer an FD > FX mount version.
     
    Luis Costa and beakhammer like this.
  18. beakhammer

    beakhammer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,804
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    Location:
    Salish Sea

    -Return to Top-

    I have been really pleased with the bokeh on some of my Pentax Super Takumar screw mount lenses. In particular the Super Takumar 105mm f/2.8 is great. The longer focal length helps of course. The 50mm and 55mm Super Takumars look to be great too, if you aren't bothered by radioactive glass. Another good one for Bokeh is my Minolta Celtic 50mm f/3.5 macro lens. Also my Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8, and a Vivitar 90mm f/2.8 macro as well. The Pentax SMC-M 50mm f/1.7 lens is another good one for Bokeh, as are most of the Minolta Rokkor lenses.
     
    Luis Costa likes this.
  19. Snodge

    Snodge New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Bristol, UK

    -Return to Top-

    If you have GAS - go for it! While I don't have the Mitakon myself (like you it is also tickling my GAS, perhaps to a lesser degree) but I have other manual focus lenses, and despite having the same field of view, the lenses are different enough that it makes it worth having multiple lenses of the same/equivalent focal length. It's that subjective lens "character" that does it. With the Mitakon you'll get a bit more light in (useful in low light) as well as having a shallower depth of field, and the fun of using a manual focus lens.
     
    Luis Costa likes this.
  20. Luis Costa

    Luis Costa New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal

    -Return to Top-

    Just to let you guys know I pulled the trigger on the Mitakon yesterday, the price dropped from 475€ to 395€ on eglobalcentral so I didn't even think twice!
     

Share This Page