Regarding the yellowing, I've effectively eliminated it by 1) placing lens front side down on a piece of aluminum foil and 2) projecting LED light from a small, inexpensive IKEA clip desk lamp into the rear element. Place the lamp light as close as possible to the rear element. Leave on for a week. Cheers.
Great video as always. Got mine from Japan for not too extortionate a price and loving it, interesting to hear that the non metering prisms are brighter, might look out for one. Thanks for the 35mm film by the way at Analogue Spotlight!
Hey Jonathan! It was great to meet you, really made my day. Glad you were able to get a copy for a nice price! I'm not sure how much light is lost to the TTL system but it's noticeable compared to a standard prism.
to my knowledge the closest stop-down aperture is f3.3...and the way it was explained was that since it lacks f2.8....it is basically f2.8 - half a stop (which is f2.4) and then f2.8 + half a stop (which is f3.3)
I love this lens and honestly, it rarely comes off my 67. The DOF is its greatest strength and similarly greatest drawback for me though since I wear glasses. While I do own a prism finder, I just can't get close enough wearing my glasses to get a nice enough view through the prism to focus reliably. Because of this I shoot exclusively with the WLVF to take advantage of the magnifier which unfortunately prevents shooting in portrait orientation. Thought about the attachable magnifier for the prism, but it seems a bit expensive and potentially cumbersome. As silly as it sounds.....it's that lens alone that has me considering contacts! haha
There are worse reasons to want contacts :) The eyepoint of the prism is an issue. Not the worst I've used by a long shot but it's far from excellent. I also find the stock microprism lacks clarity which doesn't help!
Lenses: The 105 is actually quite a better lens than the 110 in some regards. The slightly longer focal length and much wider max aperture of the 110 make for a nicer background if you nail focus, but it feels much much tighter than "just 5 mm more" because of the 6x6 aspect ratio. The 110 also has really poor flare resistance when the light is just out of frame. It does focus much more closely than the 105 though. Bodies: Neither one likes the cold, and I've long since switched to silver oxide batteries (4SR44) because they hold their voltage better. The faster flash sync of the Hassy is nice, but I just use a C lens when I want that. Ergonomically the P67 is a much nicer camera. The Hassy wins when it comes to accessories and modularity, at the expensive of many features being optical extra parts (€€€). The Hassy is more sensitive to battery drain than the Pentax - I've taken "dead" batteries out of the Hassy and used them for a couple of rolls in the Pentax before them "dying" again and working fine for many rolls in my Canon!
Hey there, if I were to pop this on a GFX, would it represent roughly a 50mm (on 35mm) too? I own mitakon 65mm f1.4, which has similar characteristic, so weighing purchase up. Great review as always 😊
Sorry me again. Was reading an article this morning, and this chap outlined that you also have to add the depth of the gfx adaptor into the calculations of 0.7. Then x 0.78 of the lens, so after that the 105mm is in fact a 35mm equivalent of 58mm. He showed examples next to a d5 with a 58mm prime. Which makes it so similar to the 65mm Mitakon. Mmmm. To many numbers :) thx again
Hey, no worries at all! That only applies to a specific type of adapter called a "focal reducer" or "speed booster" which contains glass elements! The depth of the adapter doesn't play into it. They're similar but opposite to a teleconverter. A normal "dumb" adapter has no glass so there's no extra 0.7x in that case, but yes if you use a focal reducer it would work out vaguely similar to a 50ish mm lens on 35!
I have enjoyed a few of your videos but you are off the mark with this one. The radiation topic with these lenses should not be minimized, and everything you stated here is incorrect. These thoriated lenses do not just emit alpha particles, and this specific lens is one of the most significant emitters of any due to its exceptionally high thorium content. These lenses emit a significant amount of gamma radiation in addition to alpha and beta particles. I have personaly tested a few Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 lenses and they can see levels as high as 22uS/h. This quickly diminishes with distance or material. On a camera this is closer to 3.5uS/h. The danger comes from carrying these around in your camera bag for hours a day regularly. I measured 2-5uS/h with the lens in a bag, with lens and rear caps on, and with the meter placed between my back and the bag. This is lower if the lens in on a camera or in a lens case but it is still between 1-3uS/h. All of these numbers should be higher with the 105 f2.4, as it's thoriated element is larger and contains about double the concentration of thorium. Carrying the lens in your bag for 30 hours is equal to a chest X-ray. Sure the area exposed is much smaller but this is still not worth ignoring. Comparing using these lenses to eating a banana is wildly incorrect and continues to spread a dangerous misconception about these lenses. Maybe you could buy a nice meter and conduct an experiment yourself and make a video about it? This topic deserves some proper attention that lets people know what they are playing with.
Regarding the yellowing, I've effectively eliminated it by 1) placing lens front side down on a piece of aluminum foil and 2) projecting LED light from a small, inexpensive IKEA clip desk lamp into the rear element. Place the lamp light as close as possible to the rear element. Leave on for a week. Cheers.
Great video as always. Got mine from Japan for not too extortionate a price and loving it, interesting to hear that the non metering prisms are brighter, might look out for one. Thanks for the 35mm film by the way at Analogue Spotlight!
Hey Jonathan! It was great to meet you, really made my day.
Glad you were able to get a copy for a nice price! I'm not sure how much light is lost to the TTL system but it's noticeable compared to a standard prism.
to my knowledge the closest stop-down aperture is f3.3...and the way it was explained was that since it lacks f2.8....it is basically f2.8 - half a stop (which is f2.4) and then f2.8 + half a stop (which is f3.3)
Gotcha! Hard to tell for certain given the nature of the meter but that makes sense in its own way. Thanks :)
I didnt even realize you used to own a Pentax 67 😉 nice video!
whyyoulittle.png
I love this lens and honestly, it rarely comes off my 67. The DOF is its greatest strength and similarly greatest drawback for me though since I wear glasses. While I do own a prism finder, I just can't get close enough wearing my glasses to get a nice enough view through the prism to focus reliably. Because of this I shoot exclusively with the WLVF to take advantage of the magnifier which unfortunately prevents shooting in portrait orientation. Thought about the attachable magnifier for the prism, but it seems a bit expensive and potentially cumbersome. As silly as it sounds.....it's that lens alone that has me considering contacts! haha
There are worse reasons to want contacts :) The eyepoint of the prism is an issue. Not the worst I've used by a long shot but it's far from excellent. I also find the stock microprism lacks clarity which doesn't help!
Great video. Educational
RS. Canada
this is a great video, thank you!!!
How do you find it compared to the Hasselblad 2000?
Do you mean this lens vs the Planar 110 f/2, or the P67 vs the 2000FC/M? Very different answers!
The system more than the particular lenses to be honest! But feel free to answer the more interesting option :) @@Shaka1277
Lenses:
The 105 is actually quite a better lens than the 110 in some regards. The slightly longer focal length and much wider max aperture of the 110 make for a nicer background if you nail focus, but it feels much much tighter than "just 5 mm more" because of the 6x6 aspect ratio. The 110 also has really poor flare resistance when the light is just out of frame. It does focus much more closely than the 105 though.
Bodies: Neither one likes the cold, and I've long since switched to silver oxide batteries (4SR44) because they hold their voltage better. The faster flash sync of the Hassy is nice, but I just use a C lens when I want that. Ergonomically the P67 is a much nicer camera. The Hassy wins when it comes to accessories and modularity, at the expensive of many features being optical extra parts (€€€). The Hassy is more sensitive to battery drain than the Pentax - I've taken "dead" batteries out of the Hassy and used them for a couple of rolls in the Pentax before them "dying" again and working fine for many rolls in my Canon!
The SMC Pentax version is not plastic; it has a rubber focus ring finish rather than all metal focus ring.
Thanks for the correction - bad assumption on my part as every SMC I've held was plastic.
Hey there, if I were to pop this on a GFX, would it represent roughly a 50mm (on 35mm) too? I own mitakon 65mm f1.4, which has similar characteristic, so weighing purchase up. Great review as always 😊
Nope! The specific value for "crop factor" is dictated solely by the sensor/film. If you use 0.8x for GFX, it's always 0.8x regardless of lens!
@Shaka1277 thank you for trusted knowledge. I bought the 135mm and 200mm f4's after your reviews, so this might be the hat trick :)
Sorry me again. Was reading an article this morning, and this chap outlined that you also have to add the depth of the gfx adaptor into the calculations of 0.7. Then x 0.78 of the lens, so after that the 105mm is in fact a 35mm equivalent of 58mm. He showed examples next to a d5 with a 58mm prime. Which makes it so similar to the 65mm Mitakon. Mmmm. To many numbers :) thx again
Hey, no worries at all! That only applies to a specific type of adapter called a "focal reducer" or "speed booster" which contains glass elements! The depth of the adapter doesn't play into it. They're similar but opposite to a teleconverter. A normal "dumb" adapter has no glass so there's no extra 0.7x in that case, but yes if you use a focal reducer it would work out vaguely similar to a 50ish mm lens on 35!
@@Shaka1277 Lucky I'm not at the controls to often! Dumb adaptor for dumb owner! I bid you farewell. For now... 🙈
I have enjoyed a few of your videos but you are off the mark with this one.
The radiation topic with these lenses should not be minimized, and everything you stated here is incorrect. These thoriated lenses do not just emit alpha particles, and this specific lens is one of the most significant emitters of any due to its exceptionally high thorium content.
These lenses emit a significant amount of gamma radiation in addition to alpha and beta particles.
I have personaly tested a few Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 lenses and they can see levels as high as 22uS/h. This quickly diminishes with distance or material. On a camera this is closer to 3.5uS/h. The danger comes from carrying these around in your camera bag for hours a day regularly. I measured 2-5uS/h with the lens in a bag, with lens and rear caps on, and with the meter placed between my back and the bag. This is lower if the lens in on a camera or in a lens case but it is still between 1-3uS/h. All of these numbers should be higher with the 105 f2.4, as it's thoriated element is larger and contains about double the concentration of thorium.
Carrying the lens in your bag for 30 hours is equal to a chest X-ray. Sure the area exposed is much smaller but this is still not worth ignoring.
Comparing using these lenses to eating a banana is wildly incorrect and continues to spread a dangerous misconception about these lenses.
Maybe you could buy a nice meter and conduct an experiment yourself and make a video about it? This topic deserves some proper attention that lets people know what they are playing with.
the 105mm is overhyped, the 90mm is as good !!!
With the benefit of hindsight, the 55 and the 90 would have been ideal for me!
hallo