For the last while I’ve been in a bit of a creative funk. Troubles at work and the the weather have made it difficult to concentrate on the things that I like. Anyways, perhaps while I have some time off I might make use of it to do some stuff. Don’t know really.
That brings me to my next topic. What I should do.
Firstly, I think I’m going to start taking more pictures of Edmonton again and post them on Panoramio again. Frankly, this is the reason I started taking pictures in the first place was to provide images of Edmonton for whoever wanted to look and explore both the nice parts and boring parts of our city.
Secondly, I’ll finish that fucking clock. Really not much more to do it it, just make it so you can set the time.
Thirdly, focus on building a working vibratory viscometer. It’s the ideal way to measure Krebs units in an environment as harsh as paints and it will be substantially cheaper.
Well, after spending a bit of time collecting prime lenses, I’ve decide to give them a brief review of sorts. The only way that can be objectively done is with a photographic test. Not being one for planning things out, I oped to use an old magazine and a couple of gameboy games as the test, this at least will be less a test of my focusing abilities and more a test of the clarity of the optics at a specified distance. So with no further ado, let’s introduce the lenses.
All of these lenses were purchased off EBay. Some of them were cheap, the AF’s however were not so cheap. So, Let’s introduce each lens shall we?
Minolta 28mm F2.8 AF Lens:
This lens thus far has been a pretty good lens. It’s dead sharp and it’s nice and stout.Â It has a minimum F of 2.8 and maximum of 22.
And here are the shots taken from the lens. Keep in mind that these are directly from the camera and may look a tad dark. Click on the links to see the full size image, usually your browser will allow switching between sizes.
On this lens it’s pretty obvious that at F8 it becomes pretty clearÂ but at F1.7 and F22 there is some blur at the edges of the text. Again, the color rendition is pretty good and the clarity is a bit better than the 28mm AF lens. Something to take note of I guess.
Minolta 28mm F2.8 MD Lens
Something to note on all of these MD lenses is the fact that I used an adapter to facilitate mounting them on the camera. Something else to note is that they’re manual focus lenses and the focus is limited by my own vision, which is good, but not perfect. I tried to focus them via trial and error, however, I may not have gotten everything in focus at the lowest F number.
Here is the 28mm Minolta MD lens,. It feels really nice to focus and is of entirely metal build. It feels solid. Looking at it, it is almost entirely the same as the later model AF lens, certainly the majority of the design was retained for the later lens.
Here are the test images, remember, the color/focus may be different due to the adapter.
Based on what I can see, there is little difference between the MD and the AF versions of the lenses. I suspect that my focus was folly in the F2.8 test, though I got it as close as I could over several exposures. There was slightly more chromatic aberration in the F22 test in the MD Lens as well. All in all,Â a comparitive lens if you like manual focus.
Minolta 50mm Rokkor F1.4 Lens
I have to say, I really like the look of this lens. The overall appearance of it looks as though it’s of high quality. Again, quality may be skewed due to the adapter. It’s also interesting to note that its maximum aperture is F16, lower than the other lenses.
I have to say, with this lens at F1.4, everything seems washed out to a large degree however at F8 it appears as though it is somewhat sharper than its AF cousin despite the fact that the exposure is a tad darker. Even at F22 Vs. F16, the Rokkor appears a tad bit clearer, again, it could be the lower exposure time.
Star-D 135mm F2.8 Lens
I bought this lens because I wanted to try a manual focus lens and because it was cheap. Frankly, it’s a piece of shit. Taking a picture in any sort of light washed out the colors and any sort of night photography (with lights) results in halos and U.F.O like apparitions all through the image, though it does have the benefit of being fast. Though it is a prime lens that I own and as such, I figured it’d be worth testing.
Clearly, this lens is inferior to the other lenses. While it is somewhat clear at F8, the contrast is lower than the other lenses. It’s not a bad lens of there is no other option but I’m going to try and find an AF verison.
Well, I can’t really draw too many conclusions from the images provided. I would need to take pictures in the real world and take images of more three dimensional objects in order to get a better idea of their true qualities. Truly, this is nothing more than a cursory test.
Please, if you have a comment to make, please do so
Also, here is the gallery of images used, for reference:
Well, I’ve been thinking about deleting the gallery that’s been installed since I started this site. So far I haven’t even paid any attention to it since it recieves very little traffic and frankly, I don’t pay any attention to it.
I was thinking about deleting it… Instead, I’ve decided it’d be better to revive it, keep all the images that are on there and use it as a backup for all of my raw images. I’ll keep anything sacred close to the chest but other than that, I’m gonna make it public.