A Radioactive Lens With INSANE Bokeh - Large Format Look on a Full Frame Camera!

[@PitlordWeedsmurph]

Regarding the radioactive lenses, if you don’t hold the naked lens next to your eye for extended periods of time, don’t sleep with it and if you break the glass you don’t snort the dust and just use it as a normal lens it’s completely safe. Another caviar is don’t leave and forget it attached to a digital camera for a long time since it will kill the sensor. I have a Konica Hexanon 50 1.4 that’s radioactive and it’s one of my favourite lenses to shoot with.

[@EddyMaynard]

Interesting point about it damaging the sensor, is this true?! Never heard that but it would make sense to be honest

[@PitlordWeedsmurph]

@@EddyMaynard To be honest, it’s kind of rare. There are so many people using these radioactive lenses for years on a digital body without even knowing. When I’m done with the lens and don’t plan on shooting more I take it out just to be safe.

[@dougmacmillan1712]

Nice work! Love your photos. For those looking to buy one, first the problems with the copies that are radioactive is exaggerated. Normal handling presents no threat. Remember most copies are not radioactive. I agree with Eddy about making sure you get a clean version. I just picked one up, along with the Minolta SRT 101 for $75.00. I also have the Canon FL 58mm f1.2. Early tests have me favoring the Rokkor, which is sharper and has better contrast. Both have wonderful bokeh.

[@joannenicolekelly]

This lens is a nice change to the photos you see! Love it 😁❤️

[@thornvictoria3254]

Sooo cool!! So metal that it’s radioactive too

[@ChasWG]

Cool lens for sure! Ive been collecting vintage lenses for a bit now and when you are dealing with vintage lenses, its hard to find those perfect copies of a lens without haze or fungus or oil on the aperture blades. A lot of these lenses are, like you said, 40 to 60 years old! And in a lot of cases, like the Helios lenses, the grease in them breaks down, dust gets inside and fungus starts forming, but that doesn't mean the lens is ruined. Quite the contrary, it just means the lens needs to be cleaned and re-lubed in some cases. Yeah, you can pay a premium and buy the copies that are either in perfect condition, new old stock or have already been CLA'ed, but I like to find the lenses that have a small bit of an issue and fix them myself. Lately I've been buying Canon FD SSC lenses and I recently found a 100mm f2.8 SSC lens that had a small bit us fungus right in the middle of the inner rear element. Not a great place for fungus to form. But after learning how to dismantle the lens, I had it cleaned, checked and reassembled in about 45 minutes and not the lens would be considered in Excellent condition and sell for a lot more than what I bought it for. And the image quality from this lens is just stunning. I did the exact same thing with my Canon FD 50mm f1.4 SSC. A bit of oil on a couple of the blades and I had that one fixed in an hour. That lens is so amazing to shoot! Its not hard at all to fix these lenses if you have the proper tools and understanding about how to work on these lenses. I have done this to all of my Canon, Minolta, Konica, Pentax Helios, Industar, Takumar and other lenses. I've saved so much money and I have some amazing lenses now!

[@emmdod]

True, many of the old lenses were infused with Thorium as it handled light particles better, and at some point it was also used in viewfinder glass, it was safe in the lenses, but not in the viewfinders.

[@chandrateja8683]

These lenses are amazing! I've pretty much got the full kit. Except a few. The 1.2 is good but the best ive tired on a vintage lens is a Konica Hexanon 57 AR 1.2. Its a amazing piece of glass!

[@leahwells4861]

Love the passion 🔥 some beaut photos

[@valuedcustomer9614]

Some early copies of this lens are radioactive, but most are not. Lenses with serial numbers starting with 200 through 255 (and possibly 256) may contain some radioactive elements made with thorium oxide in the glass. The only way to confirm is with a Geiger counter.

[@christopherleecowan]

I like thorium lenses. If you don't want to have the warmer yellow look. You can do a custom white balance with that lens and it clears right up. I don't own this one I might pick one up to compare it with the Konica 57mm f1.2 that I do own.

[@Democratiser]

I really like your setting and grading. I was going to say you might want to consider a pop filter for your microphone but then I realised i was hearing the bass best in the music, which sounds like a plosive!

[@classic.cameras]

Id would love to get this lens and the Konica version but I have the Canon FD 55 f1.2 SSC and Nikkor 50mm f1.2 AIS and I am happy with those, they are great as well. Love the look.

[@dlyon9673]

Thank you for this interesting informative video. I also really like the Minolta 58mm f1.2. Another nice super fast 50mm-ish of similar vintage and similar price is the Nikkor 50mm f1.2. Obviously a bit wider than the Minolta. Both lenses are very nice, with similar high quality build, and, mf, of course!

[@jimmay8627]

One possible risk of radioactive lenses is that it might scramble the firmware/NAND of any devices sitting close enough to it if stored at close proximity for extended periods of time, via bit flips (similar to what cosmic rays can do to RAM without ECC). Don't leave them attached to any modern electronic hardware when not in use - store them away from any devices with firmware, and any solid state storage. I strongly suspect that storing a known radioactive Super Takumar 50/1.4 mounted to a Metabones adapter for a year or so messed up the firmware on the adapter. It had worked fine for years on my G7 and various lenses (including the Tak), but malfunctioned in dramatic ways as soon as I mounted it on a new G9 with a Canon 135mm f2. It crashed with random color pixels all over the screen that reminded me of 8 bit computer crashes. Firmware update fixed it right up, but as the G7 and G9 are close cousins as cameras go, the difference shouldn't be that extreme. So now I keep the Tak in its own container, and only have it in the bag when I know I'll be using it.

[@omarassadi2455]

For what it's worth, I've mostly read research that says radiation, probably within reason, is barely harmful, if at all, to offline flash storage. The cosmic ray issue is much more of a problem when it comes to [online] non-ECC memory. Who knows, though. But personally, if firmware is involved, I would usually bet on the firmware itself being the source of evil -- I don't think I've ever used a system with proprietary firmware that did not behave pathologically and wasn't horrifically broken in one way or another.

[@vitorpavan5630]

didi you tried on the gfx?

[@lensman5762]

You are correct that the lens use a lens element that is radioactive, but it is by no means unique. The first use of a lens element using the radioactive Thorium element was first patenetd in the early 50s. Many of the high grade lenses of 50s, 60s and early 70s used Thorium, or even Lanthanum in the much earlier lenses. One of the most famous ones is the early Leica 50mm F2 Summicron, Many of the Canon FL lenses and the legendary Pentax 6X7 105mm F2.4 ( Takumar markings ) used Thorium. The Yellowing of the glass is due to the use of Thorium, but a prolonged exposure to a strong source of Ultraviolet C light should help clean it up a bit.

[@doctorstrobe]

You might like the Tair 11A. 19 blades bokeh weapon.

[@sclogse1]

I have no problem shooting wide open and then stopped down, and combining the two for the best of each. If you're on a budget, pick up the Minolta 1.7 lens. You'll be knocked out by it. The 1.4's in 50, 55,and 58 are all creeping up. Maybe the 55 isn't a 1.4....

[@jean-hugueslasbatre7655]

It seems that only the early versions of this model were radioactive; after serial number 2571225, there is no radioactivity. So, yours should be fine (2577734). Nevertheless, great shots by the way!

[@Mike_to_the_k]

Idk why you say you can’t afford a large format camera. They can be had for around $300 with a lens. That’s about 70 more than a 50mm 1.2 in ok condition. Also the film isn’t that expensive unless you’re buying ULF or ultra large format. I shoot everything from 110 micro film to 4x5 large format and pretty much everything in between. 120 format in 6x6 is my preferred format. You can get great depth and separation and it’s very affordable.

[@jimmoss9584]

No, the lens that is the closest to this is the Olympus OM-System G.Zuiko Auto-S 55mm f1.2 and the Olympus is much better. However, I have them both and like them both. I don't get the lens flare that you are getting with mine. Must me something in your lens.

[@alicerosella8197]

Hold the phone, what camera body did you pair the lens with?

[@EddyMaynard]

Sony a7iv! 😌

[@sclogse1]

What isn't discussed is what happened to the camera company employees who worked with thorium.

[@Dostinsp7]

LUCK REALLY REALLY NEW, WHERE DID YOU BUY IT?

[@EddyMaynard]

ebay, from a japanese seller! (one of the ones that always put 'from JAPAN [exc ++++]' or something haha)

[@celienigoumi5923]

Great video! Love the look of these images and agree that the lens flair doesn’t really fit into the pro or con list. Have you got any advice, or could do a video about manual focusing? It’s my main downfall when I’m shooting with my Pentax K1000 and I’d love to improve.

[@PINOYROCKTRAX]

Put it under the sun for 2-3 days and it clears the yellow tint. It remains clear for about 3 years and you can repeat the process again.

[@tridentroy]

400 usd😢

[@EddyMaynard]

Unfortunately yes, I was lucky to get a mint copy a bit cheaper than that. Id say it’s worth it though if you can get a clean one with no dust, haze or fungus. It will hold its value if you ever want to re-sell it, since it’s a very unique lens

[@tridentroy]

@@EddyMaynard yes but I brought 55mm 1.7 MD

[@EddyMaynard]

@@tridentroy 55 is a great lens! 😌 enjoy!

[@WhoIsSerafin]

Nothing says photography like radioactive and contaminated for your art.

[@sclogse1]

Tripod. Shoot the scene without subject at 1.2. Then the scene and subject at 2.8. Then paint in the 1.2 background to the other in Photoshop. A ten minute job.

[@Markplaats-x1h]

Chromatic aboration is nice, I like it. I kinda get it if clients don't want it - because clients are facktards. but I buy my lenses on character

[@sonomoha3832]

Definitely not worth 300. The Canon FDn is greater an option, though 50mm.

[@bbones3318]

that bokeh is so distracting tho

[@ScreamingEagleFTW]

those flares are totlaly unacceptable. not charming. not mystical, it negates all the effort and cost of everything else in the production of the image imo.