Pentacon Six/Kiew 6C lenses on a adapter

Postmaster

Postmaster

Dark Side of the Camera
Ha anyone ever tried the Pentacon Six (Pentacon, Kiew 6C/60) Lenses on a adapter?

As far as I know, on the medium format lenses
-the DOF is less shallow,
-the focal lenght is about half as 35mm lenses ( like a 100mm medium equals a 50mm 35mm lens)
- and they are much faster (like a 2.8 medium is like a 1.8 35 mm lens)

I can get my hands on a nice (and tempting cheap) set of Zeiss Pentacon Six plus one Kiew lenses. Would it make sense to put them on my LEX?

How are they compared to 35mm Nikons or the modern Zeiss?

Thanks, Frank


 
I had heard that MF has a more shallow apparent depth of field than 35mm. Just like 35mm lenes have a more shallow DOF than 1/3 inch lenses.
 
Im looking to do the same thing, I just need to decide which adapter I need for EOS. I see several including a tilt shift adapter. Im havent decided if Im going with the Pentacon 6 or Rollei lens. Your in Germany, you should be knee deep in Pentacon lens. Should be easier for you than myself... hint hint
 
Yeah, knee deep is the right term. Most of them go way under $80, :-) I got a Zeiss Biometar 2.8/80 on a fleamarket for 10 bucks - mint condition.

Have a look at German Ebay - Zeiss/Pentacon Six wonderland.
There is a seller called "Lord-of-the-Rings" that sells them adapters for about $24.
http://cgi.ebay.de/ADAPTER-CANON-EO...ryZ30059QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Some of the russian Kiew glass must be great, but I heard they quality differs a great ammount from lot to lot.

Frank
 
thanks for the tip... I found your "the lord of rings" on GBay
 
Last edited:
:violin:
Postmaster said:
As far as I know, on the medium format lenses
-the DOF is less shallow,
-the focal lenght is about half as 35mm lenses ( like a 100mm medium equals a 50mm 35mm lens)
- and they are much faster (like a 2.8 medium is like a 1.8 35 mm lens)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that you get DOF less shallow, if you still use SLR size groundglass.. It is the same if you use 2/3 lens via adapter on 1/3 chip; you won't gain that way DOF less shallow ( same as at 2/3 chip ).

Let me put another example.. I have adapter to put NIKON SLR lens on my 1/2" chip JVC DV500. If I put normal 50mm NIKON lens I get the same DOF and FOV like when I put my Fujinon (without adapter ) lens at 50mm..

If you are not using larger groundglass ( MF format ) there is no benefit in MF lenses.. They are just bigger and heavy-er.

That's mine oppinion; but maybe I am wrong..
 
many zeiss for less might be consideration... as well as others
oh... and sharper corners
 
The problem with a medium format lens is you need like 3 inches from the back of the lens to the focal plane. This is like an inch more than what is needed for a lens used for the 35mm film format which is 2 inches distance. You can't just throw a medium format lens on an adapter made for 35mm film camera lenses. You'd need to achieve the precise distance with a spacer of some sort, and then the next problem is the further away the lens is from the focal plane, the more light falloff you have.

.
 
Just to clear up some general and common misconceptions: A 100mm lens just for example is always a 100mm lens whether it's on a 16mm camera, 35mm camera or medium format camera. The dof is identical. What changes is the FOV (field of view) and magnification. The apparent dof changes but not the actual dof. A 100mm is a pretty long lens on 16mm, longish on 35mm and almost a normal lens on 6x7 format. Its all about the target (image) size and the fov. As I said, dof doesn't change.

Medium format lenses in general are significantly slower than lenses for 35mm. I think the fastest is the Mamiya Sekor 80mm f2.

This is not to say that lenses for medium format can't be great on 35mm adapters. I use both a Zeiss Jena 180mm f2.8 and a 300mm f4 in P6 mount with an OCT-19 to P6 adapter on my LEX and they are excellent.

My 2 cents.....
 
At this time my only fear with the crop factor [similar to any full frame film lens on a aps-c sensor] would be sharper corners, as my image would be the result of the center of an oversized lens. The center having better resolution for most lens seems nothing to really fear at all.
 
This is true. You are using the sweet spot of the lens so you'll get even resolution and light distribution across the frame.
 
Sounds like the way to go. Can´t wait to get tha lens adapter ring and the lenses.
 

Attachments

  • Zeiss1.JPG
    Zeiss1.JPG
    83.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Zeiss2.JPG
    Zeiss2.JPG
    17.1 KB · Views: 0
  • Zeiss3.JPG
    Zeiss3.JPG
    21.4 KB · Views: 0
  • mir1.JPG
    mir1.JPG
    27.6 KB · Views: 0
One thing, though is that I've found it's really only practical to use the longer medium format lenses 80mm and up. The Zeiss 50/4 Flektagon and the Russian Mir 45mm are good lenses, but Nikon, Zeiss, Canon, etc 50mm lenses for 35mm are much better suited to the small target area of adapters and are faster and sharper than medium format lenses.

Otherwise medium format lenses are a great value.
 
IanD said:
There's no multiplication factor. The adapter has no optics.
Click to expand...


Say for example you put a "normal" focal length lens designed for medium format on a lens adapter. The coverage is a circle that is about 75mm in diameter. Yeah, you're using the center most portion of the image, but you are also using a much smaller area of that image than it produces, right?

Which means "multiplication factor" as in - a 75mm medium format lens is more like a short telephoto lens on a lens adapter unless you're able to focus on a larger part of the image circle which also in itself sort of negates the whole "sweet spot" issue, doesn't it?

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top