Five INCREDIBLE Soft Look Lenses - With The Dreamy, Creamy Feel!

[@jkcarter436]

You mentioned “glow”. As someone just getting started with vintage lens, it would be great to see a video about lens that have this quality. Thank you for making these videos, I enjoy them very much.

[@zenography7923]

Thanks for the suggestion, and glad you're enjoying the videos!

[@OccultDemonCassette]

There is a 135mn f2.8 sears lens that has a "macro zone" feature where the front lens barrel has a separate ring on it that extends the front lens block out a bit. If you juuuust barely activate that "Macro Zone" mode you will maintain an almost-infinity focus with a verrry nice glow effect. In addition, there are vintage Sigma-XQ lenses in the 135mm and 200mm focal lengths that have a similar front macro ring feature that also give a very nice glow when used experimentally.

[@onurakkulak3979]

You could always opt for a diffusion filter to get some nice glow on your pictures

[@DrumToTheBassWoop]

I actually fell asleep watching one of your videos, in a good way. Dude needs to start doing audiobooks, or ASMR, such a soothing voice.

[@zenography7923]

Glad you find it relaxing, thanks!

[@VintageInsightPhotography]

Wonderful content here. I really enjoy working with vintage lenses and your channel helps me decide what to hunt for next. I’ve been using my Minolta Rokkor 55mm f/1.7 quite a bit lately. Nice saturated colors and a beautiful gentle background blur. I do some close work with it and alternate between extention tubes and closeup filters. Thanks again for doing these vintage reviews.

[@zenography7923]

Many thanks, glad you're enjoying the videos!

[@rolltrollroll]

My Jupiter 9 (1958) is VERY sharp (and warm)

[@zenography7923]

One of my favourites, for sure!

[@gorfm1047]

very excited I found your channel. Excellent info presented just right

[@GeorgeK356]

Nice gentle start to a new year, Nigel, and some great, and classic, lenses there. Interestingly, the Helios 40 is being adopted, and adapted, for film makers around the world, such is the quality of the glass and the construction. It has been used on many feature films over the past few years.

[@zenography7923]

Yes, I've heard it's often used in film making, and I've sometimes noticed a bit of the swirly stuff going on in the background. The Helios is a unique piece of kit and I don't know of anything quite like it!

[@danielbelik]

Also there were special soft-focus lenses: Kenko MC soft 45mm f4.5 and 35mm f4. They're multi coated and have very interesting look with good sharpness, vibrant colours and wonderful glow at the same time.

[@zenography7923]

They sound nice - I'll look out for them!

[@zerlox525]

I love watching these videos before bed, it really helps me to sleep since it's so calming 👌🏻

[@zenography7923]

I'm glad when people find these calming, thanks for tuning in!

[@darviniusb]

I am doing photorealistic renderings each day and the looks these lenses have is the right one we all try to achieve. These new lenses are so good that the image looks almost synthetic. In my field, mperfections makes things real, perfect not a smooth and perfect surfaces.

[@zenography7923]

I couldn't agree more - glad you're enjoying the older lenses!

[@michaelfieser]

When the video started, of the lenses in front of you, right away I recognized 2 from my kit: Helios 85mm f/1.5 & Pentax 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar. Over the years, I‘ve had quite a few the the Minolta 58mm f/1.4 cross my desk, and I‘ve always been curious about it. Based upon this video, I may have to pick up one I find in good condition. As for the two I do own, according to the paperwork in its box, my Helios was manufactured in 1990. It is still pristine and came with its original case and filter set. My Super Takumar is an 8 element version. I was lucky enough to find 2 copies at the same time, so I bought both and gave one to a friend who was also looking for an 8 element copy. I also have a range finder lens that would have gone quite well with today‘s “dreamy“ lineup: Canon 50mm f/0.95. If I lived near enough, I‘d gladly let you borrow it just to get your opinion (and see the resulting video).

[@zenography7923]

Those 8 element Takumars were a lucky find, for sure! I'd like very much to borrow your Canon lens - at f.95 it must be quite something! I'm assuming you're not in the UK though?

[@michaelfieser]

@@zenography7923 Correct, I‘m across the pond in the US. But I do have a old friend who now lives in Edinburgh, so if/when I can get over to visit... perhaps we can have a pint and talk about cameras.

[@Old_Man_Jay]

I have the Minolta 58mm (though I don't think it's radiated.) And I shoot with it wide open all the time because I love the softness and the glowiness. A beautiful lens indeed!

[@zenography7923]

It's one of my favourites!

[@joshhugo323]

Thank you for listing the lenses in your video this time. Cheers

[@zenography7923]

No problem!

[@neilpiper9889]

I love my Pentax super Takumar 55mm 1.8. Beautiful rendition of colour. Not radioactive, The only thing it rotates to focus in the opposite way to my Nikkor lenses. The Nikkor P 105mm f2.5 lens is my favourite on my Nikkormat ft2. I do have a 50mm f3. 5 coated Industar on my Zenith C Barnack loading slr from 1958. My first camera I bought when I was 14 in 1959.

[@zenography7923]

I've a soft spot for the Zenit C - very small and compact, with nice lines and proportions, and a good little camera too!

[@donwallace7354]

Your evaluation and explanation of the characteristics of these lenses keeps me coming back for more. The Super Takumar 50/1.4 drew me to a used Spotmatic that I managed to pick up for US$30. I'll be using it on my Sony A7R. As a bonus, the SP came with a pair of Asanuma f2.8 lenses, in 28mm and 135mm, and a Vivitar 85-205. Unfortunately, the Vivitar is a project, consumed by fungus, and the 28mm has a tiny spot at one edge. The Vivitar is so bad, I don't mind using it as my "practice" project, as it is not usable in its current condition.

[@scrptwic]

I agree about the Takumar my favorite 50mm lens I have the 7 element lens

[@zenography7923]

A very nice lens indeed!

[@Riccardo_Mori]

A very happy 2021, and congratulations on reaching 15,000 subscribers! Keep up the great work!

[@zenography7923]

Many thanks, and happy new year!

[@joekestrada9476]

Im thrilled to hear about the lens radiation, i would love to hear more about that, since not everyone, me included, could know about some lenses being radioactive 🤯 Great content as always Zeno!

[@jameswburke]

I agree - you don't need razor sharp lenses. I have several older lenses which need a bit of High Pass filter / Soft Light blend mode sharpening in Photoshop, especially for Instagram. More important is the look you get from those old film-era beauties ;-)

[@zenography7923]

I couldn't agree more - sharpness is not always important!

[@jameswburke]

@@zenography7923 BTW I found this simple guide to adding Time Stamps on your videos. Great if you are reviewing a bunch of lenses. Makes it easy for viewers to jump to a particular item: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r5eolZuid9qrebc

[@jaymichaels5187]

I really liked the bokeh and the colours from that 58mm f1.4 Rokkor lens at full aperture, it produces a beauty to the image that is somewhat absent in modern super sharp lenses, great lens review as always !

[@zenography7923]

It really is a lovely lens, no doubt about it!

[@labandedancefing]

A tip: you can use a M42-M39 step down ring for the M39 mount, but you won't be able to reach infinity, there's also the possibility to mount an old soviet macro ring with the exact flange focal distance needed (16,4mm) on a L39. Its findeable on ebay for about 20 $

[@zenography7923]

I find no problem with infinity, but thanks for the tip!

[@ronaldsand3000]

Great lenses and very beautiful images

[@zenography7923]

Many thanks!

[@OccultDemonCassette]

Awesome video, thank you for the soft style lenses list!

[@zenography7923]

Glad you enjoyed it - and thanks for the suggestion!

[@jmoss99]

My Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm f1.4 is not radioactive. I have a Geiger counter. Some lenses have a gold lens coating which can look like yellowing. Did you check yours with your Geiger counter? In my tests, with my Geiger counter, I found that only thick Plexiglass will stop lens radiation, not the cap, filter, or anything else. I have 2 half inch sheets of Plexiglass over each side of the radioactive lenses and that does the trick. That stops MOST of the gamma rays that the Geiger counter detects. The worst being the FUJINON 50mm f1.4 Radioactive 3706 CPM, uSv/h 22.77 lens. Yes, I said, 22.77 uSv/h. That times 4 will be killing you slowly.

[@bob-sb2zu]

The jupiter 9 was avaiable in M42 ,L39(rangefinder),& M 39 (Zenit slr ie Zenit 3M) , putting a 39-42 mm ring on a M39 lens would make it fit on a M42 slr but it can't focus on infinity as it is not close enough to the focal plane ,not far off but not quite.

[@zenography7923]

I've heard that, but I've personally never had that problem with an M39 lens on an M42 adaptor ring.

[@meta4101]

Another fine review ... all great lenses for art photography ... I am fortunate enough to own all five. I personally do not consider the FED 10 (coated or uncoated) 50mm rf3.5 to be dreamy or creamy, but I guess it does have a softish look since even at 3.5 only the very center is in focus due to its ancient optical design. The uncoated version is pretty hard to find these days, I got mine by buying a 1937 FED 1 , but those are becoming rare too. The later coated versions don't flare as much as the uncoated version, but both have a great 1930s film era look and are recommended if that is your thing. The Minolta MC 58mm f1.2 is perhaps the "king" of creamy, dreamy bokeh. $300 on eBay is you are lucky ... so not cheap. However, the Jupiter 8 50mm f2 sonar design is very affordable -- I picked up both my copies for less than $50. It is fast, tiny, has amazing bokeh due to that superb Sonar optical design and is very dreamy wide open (sharp closed down which makes it quite versatile) with stunning rendition due to its (like the J9) sonar design. By the way, the 8-element Tak is between $250 and $300 on eBay these days, would love to pick up one or two for 120 pounds. That said, although it can be a superb art lens when used with an understanding of strengths and weaknesses, the 8-element Tak flares like crazy and can be quite challenging to shoot. Often, I use my 7-element, radioactive SMC Takumar (which has the best coatings of all versions yet still retains the amazing TAK 50mm 1.4 look with more micro-contrast and minimal flaring. Except for the flaring, these two versions can be fairly hard to distinguish in a blind comparison. Your Jupiter 9 is a later version (post 1976, I believe). The earlier versions have single coating which makes them even dreamier under the right conditions. That said, I also own the later version too (same as yours) -- both are excellent lenses with that great sonar look ... they definitely fit the bill. Keep up the great videos ... love your soothing voice and poetic descriptions of lens' rendition.

[@zenography7923]

Many thanks, glad you're enjoying the videos!

[@prasannademel2602]

I absolutely love your work and keep up the good work, Could you please do a video on Tomioka lenses, especially the 1.2 series as there's not much information out there. Thanks

[@jmoss99]

The Helios 40 85mm f1.5 is going for up to $649 on ebay USA. Maybe they are selling these based on the weight.

[@mosswareproaudio6328]

Since my latest purchase, I now have 2 Auto Rikenon 55mm f1.4 lenses. One is a 5 digit serial number and the other is a 6 digit serial number. The 6 digit serial number lens is not radioactive. The 5 digit serial number lens IS radioactive. I have cleared this lens with a UV CFL lamp. I want to run some tests that will compare the two lenses. I am thinking that the best test will be for Chromatic Aberration. What other tests would be interesting that would show differences between these two lenses?

[@HeeCheeFox]

Fabulous... Useful information rendered in great style...

[@zenography7923]

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!

[@stasmasa9147]

Thanks for the great content! I subscribed to your channel, I watch it with subtitles. I myself use manual lenses from your review - Jupiter 9 and Minolta Rokkor PF 58mm f1.4. Since lenses of the USSR are often in your favorites, I want to recommend you a rare Soviet lens with a very interesting picture - something in between Rokkor and Jupiter 9. From 1968 to 1973, the Arsenal plant produced the best Soviet rangefinder Kiev-5, a standard lens for it served as a Jupiter 8NB and I strongly advise you to try and find this lens in good condition. The lens has a very soft picture at open aperture, correct, saturated colors and soft, creamy bokeh, strong spherical aberrations and very weak chromatic aberrations. The picture is not similar to other Jupiter 8s. Highly recommend!

[@zenography7923]

The Jupiter 8 is one of my favourites and this sounds like an interesting variation. Thanks for the tip, I'll look out for one!

[@michael-d7114]

Hello- great video as always! Really appreciate your content. Question for you- I shoot with a Fujifilm GFX 50sii, and absolutely love it. But I find myself wanting some alternate lens options to give that dreamy creamy, nostalgic feel...do you have any recommendations for something in this realm that would be compatible with the gfx sensor? Thanks!

[@alexandermenzies9954]

First class, as always.

[@zenography7923]

Thank you!

[@laurencegoldman4639]

Thank you! Love to try. I’d like to add Canon FL 55mm 1.2. This lens is magic, the 55 as opposed to 50, and 1.2 with FL glass is a one off beauty. It has that “look” with portraits.

[@zenography7923]

I haven't tried it - would very much like to though!

[@patriziodalessandro1693]

I own the seven elements FL 55mm 1.2 and unfortunately it is in a completely different class (pricewise as well...) when compared with its bigger brother, the 8 elements with one aspherical element and a floating rear lens FD 55mm f/1.2 Aspherical (three versions available)

[@laurencegoldman4639]

@@patriziodalessandro1693 Thanks. I’ve never tried the FD, after falling in love with FL images. I’m not sure what you’re saying: You think the FL sucks in comparison to FD? I’d like to hear your experience with the three FD versions. Maybe I’m missing something I should try.

[@patriziodalessandro1693]

@@laurencegoldman4639 I own one Canon FL 55mm f/1.2, one Nikon AI 50mm f/1.2, one Minolta MD 50mm f/1.2, one SMC Pentax 50mm f/1.2, one Olympus 55mm f/1.2, one Porst (Fuji) Color Reflex UMC X-M G 50mm f/1,2 (ibb.co/z8hWFG2 self-deleted after one month) and they all "suck" (as you say) if you compare them with the optical performance of the Canon 55mm 1.2 aspherical lens - do not confuse this lens with the simple FD 55mm F/1.2 (same as FL). The early two versions of the aspherical lens had a golden ring around the barrel and the letters AL appeared in cyan color. The last version was without ring and with ASPHERICAL in yellow color. This lens has a 10x price, when compared to the price of a standard 1.2 lens (let's assume 250€ a fair price for an old 1.2 lens) and unfortunately I do not own it, so I can only see the MTF curves, pictures taken by others and their comments. Apart from "blowing" or "sucking", then there is "character": how much of that is caused by uncorrected coma and chromatic aberrations? This becomes a question of personal taste and general aesthetics. If you ask me, I would prefer to see the lights in the corners of my night shots looking like points (albeit starry), not flying UFOs. If you are taking portrait shots, it's another story and not so easy to turn to your advantage the razor thin shallow focal plane which you can obtain with a 1.2 aperture (but you could find some other "advantages" with these lenses: for example the story goes that the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 when stopped down at f/2 was the sharpest lens Nikon ever produced...).

[@laurencegoldman4639]

@@patriziodalessandro1693 Thank you for informative reply. Sorry for my crude language. I really know nothing about technical lens performance. Just what images look like. It sounds like the FL asph is too good for me. But I’ll certainly look into it and see if I can find samples. Sounds like it can rival Leica glass.

[@geoffreymendelson]

You did not mention the minimum fstop on the FED lens, and I could not tell by looking at the video. If it is f18, it is a prewar lens, if it is f16, it is a postwar lens.

[@zenography7923]

Yes, it's f18 - this one's from (I think) 1936.

[@geoffreymendelson]

@@zenography7923 great. I have a 1940 one, complete with the camera built for it in the mail.

[@taterandy3958]

The Nikkor 58mm is a lens i am looking for!!! I heard that they are almost as good as the Super Takarmar

[@zenography7923]

Good luck with the search!

[@grahvis]

Interestingly, looking at Ebay listings for much the same amount as the lens on its own, you can get the Pentax 50mm f1.4 with a fully working MX or ME super attached.

[@zenography7923]

Thanks for the tip!

[@DenisStosic]

Amazing examples thank you for these ones. I'm just in search of a dreamy bokeh lens with pastel colors for portraits between 70-135 mm. Did you ever try the Tair 11 KMZ 2,8 133mm? Is it possible to adapt these lenses on Nikon Z cameras with working infinity? Thank you.

[@zenography7923]

The Tair 11 is lovely - I shot one a few months ago and was very impressed. Others you might want to consider are the 100mm Zuiko lenses - the f2 is expensive but the f2.8 is almost as nice and much cheaper. For pastel colours check out the Pentax lenses - the 135mm f3.5 is lovely, and really cheap! The Jupiter 9 is lovely too, and well worth a look. And don't worry, your Nikon mirrorless will shoot them all!

[@DenisStosic]

@@zenography7923 Thank you for the very informative and quality answers from my heart! I disassembled Helios 44 M f2 58mm and turned the first two lenses upside down toward each other. At f2 I have an intense bokeh effect that decreases with a smaller aperture.

[@Magnetron692]

There‘s a Minolta 3.5/80-160mm zoom lens, which is supposedly also very soft wide open.

[@zenography7923]

Thanks for the tip!

[@volkanbadem6489]

I have the uncoated fed 10. It is not as soft as Nigel mentions. Nigel made an operation of cleaning, on his lens in one of the previous videos he posted.

[@zaeusidaeus6475]

Thank you very much!

[@Magnetron692]

Hi Nigel, a happy new year! Best wishes, Magnetron

[@zenography7923]

Many thanks, and a happy new year to you!

[@Magnetron692]

@@zenography7923 Thanks a lot!

[@marekpyka5432]

Due to your videos I have become vintage lens addict. Thank you so much. I would like to get some glow in the out of focus lights in the bacground (streets, blossoming trees ..) Which lens could I try?

[@zenography7923]

The best lens for glow is an uncoated one, like the Fed 10 in this video. There are plenty of pre-war uncoated lenses you could try!

[@kainbre]

Beta and Gama radioactivity can not be stopped by filer or lens cap. Great video btw

[@zenography7923]

Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!

[@wishingluck]

Thanks for this video - especially with respect to the Jupiter-9, I can fully support your recommendations; it is a wonderful lens. Just one question with respect to the Helios-40 85 mm f/1.5: As far as I know, it is a more or less straightforward copy of the Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 75mm f/1.5. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) The 75mm Biotar, I found to be really “glowing” up to f/2, but already at f/2.8, it turned out to be a workhorse; reliable, forgivable, and a good companion through Eastern Germany on a two weeklong bike tour this summer. What is your opinion?

[@zenography7923]

Can't comment I'm afraid as I haven't used the Zeiss 75mm; as far as I'm aware though the characteristics of the two are pretty similar!

[@patriziodalessandro1693]

Hi. Personally I would not stick my neck out stating that yellow lenses = radioactive but use a geiger meter instead to determine radioactivity (and remember not to consider the existing background radiation): did you try that on the Minolta? First of all the yellow tint slowly disappears if you do not keep the lens stored away in the dark and secondly I found yellow lenses which do not emit any radiation. Japanese referred to the seven elements Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 as アトムタクマー (atom Takumar): you did not mention that all seven elements Super-Takumars 50mm f/1.4 are radioactive (product numbers 37800-37801-37802 - check the auto/manual button marking), as well as the Super-Multi-Coated 50mm f/1,4 (37902). Since Asahi stopped to use lenses with thorium around 1977, roughly when they introduced the SMC model denomination to replace Super-Multi-Coated, it is possible that some of the first SMC 50mm f/1.4 (37908) might have been assembled with the last batches of radioactive lenses. Please note that decay by-products of thoriated lenses emit gamma radiations and these cannot be stopped by a simple filter or a cap (unless made of thick lead...). Anyway do not worry: unless you do not sleep on your lens for quite a long period, you will not go blind.

[@zenography7923]

Thanks for the info!

[@mikelborrega5821]

Thanks again for such an interesting videos👏🏻

[@zenography7923]

Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!

[@americosequeira8670]

Hi! I'm from near Lisbon, Portugal, andI started to get into photography and you've been an immense source of information and knowledge about cameras and lenses and also about what we should look for. So let me express my recognition and appreciation. I have two questions... Is the Jupiter 9 85mm f2 radioactive? Are there any other vintage lenses in the 80-85mm range worth consider? Thank you very much.

[@zenography7923]

None of the J9 versions are radioactive, as far as I'm aware. There are lots of very nice 85s available, the very best I've tried are the Pentax 85 1.8 (£300-£400), the Olympus 85 f2 (similar price), and the expensive but sublime CZJ Pancolar 85 1.8 (about £600). Cheaper but still very nice options are the Nikon 85 f2 (£80-£100), and the astonishing Helios 40 85 f1.5 (about £300). There's a video on this channel comparing them all - I think it's called "can a £100 lens beat a £600 lens?" All the info is there.

[@americosequeira8670]

Thank you very much for your quick reply. I will watch the vídeo you sugestão. It’s a different product but have you ever came across with the Nikon Zoom-NIKKOR Ai-S 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5?

[@zenography7923]

I'm afraid not, I've never used that one!

[@spectralcav]

Another enjoyable video. I like your delivery :-) Quick question; have you ever used a lens that you really didn't enjoy? It's always more productive to find the positives in any lens but what about those (if any) where the deficiencies outway the positives? Maybe those that remain on the shelf for whatever reason? I recently got hold of an MC Rokkor PF 58mm 1.4 - a bit later than your version. A lovely lens with amazing looking coating from a purely aesthetic point of view. I haven't explored it's capabilities enough to know whether it's a keeper. I'm not saying you're wrong about the thorium content of your lens (mine is an MCII version) but during my search for a copy of the lens where I looked at all of the various versions, I didn't come across any that appeared to have yellowed in the way I'd expect from my experience with other thoriated lenses (including the MC W. Rokkor-SI 1:2.5 28mm). It doesn't produce an extremely warm colour rendition and doesn't appear yellow if looking through the lens at a white sheet of paper. I can only find one source that states with certainty that these did include thorium but it's doesn't appear to be mentioned in any other lists of conformed radioactive lenses, unlike the 58mm 1.2 which is known to be 'hot'.

[@zenography7923]

I know what you mean, I couldn't find much either. I decided to let the yellowed glass be my guide!

[@OccultDemonCassette]

I love my Minolta MC 58 1.4. It creates some amazing lens flairs and veiling flairs while being able to maintain a good contrast thanks to the coatings.

[@GeorgeK356]

Possibly a previous user has given it the UV treatment, which removes the yellow cast in the glass (thus destroying years of radiation to get it to that sweet spot)?

[@spectralcav]

@@GeorgeK356 OK. I followed up my thoughts on the radioactivity of the lens on DPR Adapted Lens forum where a regular user who prefers not to use radioactive lenses but has a copy of the both Auto Rokkor and the MC Rokkor PF 58mm and also owns a geiger counter. Neither of his lenses register as being radioactive. The fact that I can only find one online reference that states that the lens is radioactive and it doesn't appear on the other readily available lists of radioactive lenses suggests to me that it is unlikely to contain thorium. The earlier lenses do have a yellow/bronze coloured coating but I can't see any with the yellowed glass that typifies a thoriated lens that hasn't been exposed to UV for some time. Maybe thorium was used for a short run of lenses?

[@GeorgeK356]

@@spectralcav As you say, Simon, there's not much documented info about these old lenses, and I suspect that there was very little back in the day, either. The rate some of these lenses were turned out, and from various factories, the lack of information doesn't surprise me. George

[@bellatorfox8256]

I loved the video! Btw I bought a Leningrad recently and it's so different from other Russian rangefinders, have you ever tried one?

[@zenography7923]

I haven't tried one, but they are a very intriguing camera! Does the clockwork advance mechanism work on yours?

[@bellatorfox8256]

@@zenography7923 it does! It can take up to 20 photos with one "charge" or something like that. I'd love to send it to you if you wanted to make a video. It's in perfect condition.

[@benasmik1198]

hey, could you make some more videos about russian rangefinder cameras?? I absolutely love them.

[@zenography7923]

Check out the videos on this channel - you'll find quite a few on Russian rangefinders!

[@outtathyme5679]

Just love this channel

[@zenography7923]

Many thanks, glad you're enjoying it!

[@ghw7192]

I started with M39 nd M42 screw mount lenses and now 50 + /÷!/@ later I find myself back where I started, but the lenses ans cams excellent!

[@zenography7923]

Back where you started? Funny you should say that...!

[@gorfm1047]

very enjoyable

[@victoryisyourportion]

I just purchased a couple of vintage lens because I couldnt see my self paying $700 or more for more prime lenses so I I began searching for other options I came across a minolta rokkor tel 135 3.5 md and a sigma 35-70 master zoom lens they are both in good condition for what I've seen and got them both for 50 buck combined total including shipping can someone give their input on these of you have used them. Thanks💖

[@zenography7923]

You got some bargains there! I haven't used the Sigma, but the Minolta is lovely!

[@GabrielMatula]

Hello, little question here, which adaptor would you use from a M42 mouth to a F Nikon D850? Many thanks!

[@prasannademel2602]

M42 to Nikon F adaptor with an infinity correction element, There's many a debate on this regard but I personally see no loss of quality or character in having the correction element. Anyways there's not much choice for Nikon users because of the short flange distance.

[@GabrielMatula]

@@prasannademel2602 Thanks a lot :)

[@miam1074]

I looked a bit into the radioactive issue, and it turns out that these lenses emit not only alpha, but also beta and gamma radiation. The alpha can be stopped by using the lens cap, the rest can't... Also thoriated glass can contain up to 30% by weight of thorium. There are several videos here on youtube where they measure radiation levels of some of these old lenses. Worth watching. Some people suggest using sun exposure or UV lamps to remove the yellowish colouration of the lenses, but this does not make the lens less radioactive...

[@zenography7923]

Many thanks for the info, very useful!

[@farid1406]

Waiting for a review of the Canon Dream Lens :-)

[@zenography7923]

Ah, if only one would come my way...!

[@farid1406]

@@zenography7923 I stumbled on one for a ridiculously low price a few months ago and have been testing it out moreso than even using it for pure photography ever since.

[@messylaura]

what is the difference from a rangefinder lens to a dlsr lens regarding the focal lengths etc i have never been sure on what range finder ones are. Happy new year

[@GeorgeK356]

It's the back focus distance - the distance from the rear element to the film plane. On a rangefinder this is around 16mm (from memory) as there is no mirror to accommodate. An SLR, on the other hand, has to account for mirror movement and the back focus distance on those range from around 30mm to 40+mm (again, from memory) Hope this explains and helps.

[@messylaura]

@@GeorgeK356 thanks, similar to the difference between mirror and mirrorless lenses . is there a difference between the normal M42 like takumars and rangefinders also?

[@GeorgeK356]

@@messylaura The M42 refers to the size of the body thread mount, it is 42mm diameter. the important thing is to get the mount adapter suitable for your camera. Rangefinder lenses usually come in 2 variants, L39, which is 39mm diameter, and Contax/Leica, which is a bayonet fitting. The important stuff is the glass - each manufacturer has their own "recipe" for lens elements, type of glass etc. You have to buy a coulpe of different lenses to see the difference. If you have a specific question regarding a specific lens/camera combination I'm sure that there will be answers from commenters.

[@zenography7923]

All m42 lenses are made for film slrs so the same applies - the back focus distance is very different to that of a rangefinder lens, so you can't mount the one on the other.

[@KC2Lucky]

I bought my Jupiter 9 about a year ago and it's a real shame about how little I take it out now. As I started to film more ans more I prefer a wider lens.

[@zenography7923]

Might be worth taking that Jupiter out for a spin?

[@laimonasapavicius5643]

Hi, is it possible to use L39 lens from my fed4 on the RF mount?

[@zenography7923]

Do you want to use the lens on a mirrorless camera? If so, the Industar 61 on your Fed 4 will do that, using an L39, to whatever mount your camera has, adaptor.

[@bradl2636]

Thorium decay products produce alpha, beta and gamma radiation until ultimately most of them decay to lead. A regular beta/gamma geiger counter will tick quite nicely next to these lenses even with filters and fitted to a camera. I've seen up to 2000 counts per minute... about 2 x-rays worth if you shoot with it for a few hours to a day out.

[@zenography7923]

Definitely best used less rather than more then!

[@tomghzel]

I really can't be bothered about the colors a lens gives. A bit more or less saturation, a bit warmer or less warm tint, we can all fix it in camera or in post. Who doesn't get there images on a pc immidiately or eventually...

[@Stewz66]

Groovy movie.

[@zenography7923]

Thanks!

[@TheNitebinder]

Enjoy watching your videos on vintage/used camera lenses like the Pentax 3.5 135mm, 50mm F2, the Nikon 105mm 2.5 AIS, 50mm 1.2 AIS. Only those lenses cost as much or if not more than the digital counterparts. I'll just keep looking. Why do you sound like spider trying to lure a fly into the web?

[@zenography7923]

Some vintage lenses can be expensive, but there are loads of cheaper gems out there too!

[@georgekrasheninnikov6791]

FED-10 is incorrect. It's Industar-10.

[@jmoss99]

Russian ANYTHING is not very well made. Well, that is but for the Jupiter 9. I have 2. A 1966 M39 Silver with Lilac Lens Coating (Best IMO) and a 1976 M42 Black with Blue Lens Coating. They both go to infinity, but you need the right adapters. This is actually a German lens that was made by the Russians. The originals, and I think my 1966 might be included in this, were made with German Glass.

[@sanyasyniushkevych1868]

Is it just me who's using this as an ASMR channel? :)

[@zenography7923]

Judging by previous comments, I think perhaps you're not alone!

[@jonlouis2582]

People that slander Soviet lenses are bigots, plain and simple. I have been buying and selling photo equipment for years, and I've encountered far more bum Japanese lenses than Soviet, and I seldom hear of anyone badmouthing Japanese quality. Some German lenses are nothing to write home about either.The Jupiter 9 is my favorite lens, I love it so much I have three copies .If I could only keep one set of lenses, it would be a set of M-42 mount Russian lenses.

[@zenography7923]

I'm sure bad copies of Russian lenses exist, but as you say that's true of any lens, or indeed any manufactured thing. At their best though, I think they're very nice indeed!

[@urbanart7325]

Bargains are not there. Prices are up

[@zenography7923]

Asking prices are up for sure, but you don't have to pay them! Check out sold auction prices on ebay to find the actual worth of an item. Bargains are still out there but require patience, and a certain amount of luck, to find!

[@thecandcake]

Got excited to be greeted as a zenographer again. I’m disappointed.

[@Viking88Power]

1st

[@NetTubeUser]

Hello, thank you very much for this another very interesting and informative video! I have a request tho ... can you, please, smile sometimes? Because, I'm sorry, but the way you look at the camera above your glasses ... it really looks like a school teacher never satisfied, and kinda upset all the time which is not really "appealing" and not really pleasing, if you see what I mean.