Weird (modified) native E-mount lenses .
While I am “studying” the world of third party lenses I can use on my NEX-7 I found a bunch of modified lenses that do fit native on NEX cameras without the use of any adapter. The one pictured on top is the Kodak Ektar 44mm f/3.5 you can find on eBay (Click here). It’s kind of sexy on a silver NEX but definitely to slow for my ambition. But the same seller modified two more Ektar lenses. The Ektar 47mm f/2.0 (Click here to see the auction) and the Ektar 50mm f/2.0 (Click here to see the auction). For real speed fans take a look at the native E-mount Kowa 55mm f/1.1 lens (Click here to see the auction).
Anyway, I will soon post an article that will explain which lens works well on NEX cameras. There are possible issues related to the use of third party lenses you should be aware of!
Jas
2 years ago |The prices for those lenses are a joke!!
Randy S.
2 years ago |Why isnt a permanent adapter still called an adapter? The lens has been hard mounted to a sony e mount flange. That sounds like an adapter to me.
Ollder
2 years ago |What the matter?!
quidam
2 years ago |I look forward to your article on third-party lenses. Hopefully the issues you are speaking of are nothing than Cornerfix can’t fix…
In terms of curious lenses – the 24mp sensor deserves only the best IMHO. I’d rather invest in some nice Cosina/Voigtländer glass. The guy trying to sell the 47mm f/2 Ektar for $700 must be crazy. o_0 At that price it should be a large format Aero Ektar!
By the way the Kodak Aero Ektar 127mm f/2.5 adapted for the Nex would look nice… ^_^
Don Cox
2 years ago |Nice idea. I have one of those adapted to Sinar. Might try to get an adaptor made to fit the NEX on the back of the Sinar.
Don Cox
2 years ago |One of the better ideas is to remove the lens from a Minox 35 (the little folding black plastic camera) and mount it on a NEX body cap. That is a good lens, 35mm focal length.
Vivek
2 years ago |NOT worth the bother. First, the Minoctar 35/3.5 has a two bladed diaphram with an odd shape. Secondly, it flares easily and the barrel distortion is very much.
All these may look cute but are downright horrible performers (including the ones the Admin points to).
Don Cox
2 years ago |I used one of those Minox cameras for years and got good 20×16 prints from it. I think the lens is better than you say. However, I am not going to take my Minox35 apart.
Vivek
2 years ago |I have used these (Minoxes) as well and on film.
Still own a couple of functional cams!
Harvey
2 years ago |@Vivek: We’re not talking about the Minoctar 35/3.5 here. I’m sure Don Cox means the 35/2.8 Color Minotar, as that one is used in the vast majority of the Minox 35. That lens does not show any distortion at all!
The two bladed diaphragm -like the Minotar, Minoxar and Minoctar (?) all have- may look odd, but is only a drawback in critical situations, just like the flare.
Its contrast may be on the low side, but in fact is very nice. Something I found on the Minoxar, the most expensive one (which is identical to the Minotar, except for the MC):
>>I took a few frames of lens test chart with Minox GT-E, loaded with Agfa HDC 100 film. It was not an extensive test, as I only tested F8. A full test should cover from f2.8 to f16. Resolution of Minoxar MC lens = 82 lines pair per mm. This figure put the Minoxar lens at top rung of 35mm lenses; If Kodak techpan film was used, the resolution figure would be even higher. Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 resolves only 78 lpmm with finer test film(Modern Photography test )<<
I second this test: the Minoxars and the Minotars are very, very good lenses. I have yet to find a better (and smaller) Tessar type lens!
Vivek
2 years ago |Minoctar = Color Minotar that is what I meant.
The lens in a Minox fold up 35mm compact cam. Yes, Tessar design. I used to use the Minox GT, and an EL with a UV cut filter plus built in hood. I also have the 2X ND filter plus the rarer Achromat (for 10cm close-ups).
The two bladed diaphram takes an alien shape when stopped down!
Harvey
2 years ago |Yes, the aperture is kite-shaped from f 4 to f 5.6. One of the two major functions of a diaphragm, reducing light, is handled well by it. The second function, reducing lens flaws by excluding lens edges, is handled only a bit less well. A third result of the aperture, giving a good bokeh -which wasn’t considered very important for decades- can be hard under circumstances, but can in those cases always be obtained by leaving the lens wide open
Still I wonder where you got the idea of the barrel distortion… The net is full of useful information on the Minox lenses:
Martin Tai: When I photograph architecture subjects, I always amaze at the almost unnoticeable distortion of Minoctar/Minoxar lens. A column is amazingly ruler straight. I know, because my 50mm/f2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar lens, even though it is not a wide angle lens, should be easier to design, yet it has slight pincushion distortion. I have an expensive 6 element F2.8 lens, yet it has visible barrel distortion ! While the 4 element Minoxar gives me straight columns !
Vivek
2 years ago |“Still I wonder where you got the idea of the barrel distortion… The net is full of useful information on the Minox lenses:”
How about actual experience? Why not try for yourself instead of quoting a Minox buff?
Harvey
2 years ago |Aaah, actual experience: I had a Minox with a broken shutter. Triggered by a Minox buff (not this one; there are many of them) I took it apart and mounted the lens on my Nex-5: absolutely stunning. Sharp from corner to corner, no distortions whatsoever. No CA, coma, fringes. I’ve used it as my standard lens from that day. So I decided to obtain some more of these beauties. I built some Minotar to Nex lenses for friends who are very happy with them, especially with the size of them combined with the optical quality. Actually, you’re the first one in history who seems to have negative experience
I’ll take that for a misunderstanding 