(None)

​Pentax Super-Takumar 50 1.4 ii

[Note: This also is using an M42 screw mount to Nikon F adapter, in addition to the Nikon F to M43 SHIFT adapter noted.] I will have to admit this lens has a lot of character but it, like so many of these vintage lenses, is inconsistent in terms of how it renders light.

(None)

Nikon 80-200 2.8 D

This used to be a top-of-the-line telephoto zoom (it was the first AF 80-200 2.8 Nikon produced) and the build quality is excellent. However, it's heavy and slow to operate. It's slow because of the push-pull zoom, and because of the focus (there is a focus limiting feature that helps with that). Optically, it's a great lens, and though each lens-sensor combo usually needs some work to look its best (this one did) I think these settings are rendering a pretty nice image, one that is "REAL" in almost every respect.

(None)

Nikon 80-200 2.8 D

This lens is too sharp for this sensor, as with the SHARPNESS turned all of the way down (to -5) plus the NOISE REDUCTION turned all of the way UP (to +5, which I do to reduce sharpness even more when needed) the image still has a lot of aliasing. This sensor also renders more compression-related artifacts when a lens is too sharp (which adding NR can help with) but since we've maxed out those 2 settings, we're left with a lens-sensor combo that is bound to be a problem in certain lighting situations. This used to be a top-of-the-line telephoto zoom (it was the first AF 80-200 2.8 Nikon produced) and the build quality is excellent. However, the "focus breathing" is not good for video (image changes size as you focus, etc.) and lenses such as the Promaster 70-300 I've been using, are MUCH better for video (even though the aperture is not constant, but with this breathing, you can't zoom while shooting ANYWAY!) it's also heavy and slow to operate. It's slow because of the push-pull zoom, and because of the focus (there is a focus limiting feature that helps with that). Optically, it's a great lens, and though each lens-sensor combo usually needs some work to look its best. NOTE: With a non-optical adapter, I set the contrast to -2 (instead of -1).

(None)

Nikon 80-200 2.8 D

This used to be a top-of-the-line telephoto zoom (it was the first AF 80-200 2.8 Nikon produced) and the build quality is excellent. However, it's not super good for video because the "focus breathing" is so bad (the image changes size as you focus, etc.). Lower cost 70-300 lenses such as the Promaster I've been using, are MUCH better for video, as some are even parfocal. (One thing to note about those, is that even though they don't have a constant aperture, you don't normally zoom while shooting.) This lens is also heavy and slow to operate. It's slow because of the push-pull zoom, and because of the focus (there is a focus limiting feature that helps with that). Optically, it's a great lens, and though each lens-sensor combo usually needs some work to look its best.

(None)

Nikon 80-200 2.8 D

This used to be a top-of-the-line telephoto zoom (it was the first AF 80-200 2.8 Nikon produced) and the build quality is excellent. However, it's heavy and slow to operate. It's slow because of the push-pull zoom, and because of the focus (there is a focus limiting feature that helps with that). Optically, it's a great lens, and though each lens-sensor combo usually needs some work to look its best (this one did) I think these settings are rendering a pretty nice image, one that is "REAL" in almost every respect.

(None)

Canon 50 1.8 ii

It works pretty well to just set the "Highlight Shadow" to -2, +2 and call it good, but I added NOISE REDUCTION to keep the sharpness (and contrast) looking more "REAL". As I mentioned in the other reviews of this lens, it has a pretty decent close focus distance, and while the manual focusing ring is very thin (probably too narrow for focus gears to be added) it's easy for me to use by hand.

(None)

Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6

This lens is AMAZING...it delivers so much contrast and color that I had to tone those down (to get a "REAL" image) and the SHARPNESS is almost a perfect match for this sensor (not to sharp, etc.) though I had to use some NOISE REDUCTION to keep things looking real.

(None)

Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6

This lens is AMAZING...it delivers so much contrast and color that I had to tone those down (to get a "REAL" image) and the SHARPNESS is almost a perfect match for this sensor (not to sharp, etc.) though I had to use some NOISE REDUCTION to keep things looking real.

(None)

Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6

This lens is AMAZING...it delivers so much contrast and color that I had to tone those down (to get a "REAL" image) and the SHARPNESS is almost a perfect match for this sensor (not to sharp, etc.) though I had to use some NOISE REDUCTION to keep things looking real.

(None)

Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6

This lens is AMAZING...it delivers so much contrast and color that I had to tone those down (to get a "REAL" image) and the SHARPNESS is almost a perfect match for this sensor (not to sharp, etc.) though I had to use some NOISE REDUCTION to keep things looking real.