M CaNikon Part 2 - The Shots

I guess the ultimate way to know if the adapter was worth the $30 or so that I paid it for was to see the actual shots.  I'll go thorugh the lenses I have and shot a few frames with it to test.  Most of them are dirty from the inside due to lack of use over the decades. Just in case you would like to know more about each lens, you can click on each lens title and that will direct you to the specific lens page of the best resource for these lenses which is mir.com.

Just as a full disclaimer, all the photos in this post were unedited, straight out of the camera shots (unless specified).  The shot above was with the Canon 24mm f/2.8 FD lens.  I tried my best to replicate the field of view for each shot below.

The 50mm f/1.4 FD

I was really excited to try out this lens, as I love my Nikon 50mm 1.8 and was looking forward to using this Canon extensively. This lens focuses as close as 8inch from my test, which is a few inches better than my Nikon. My copy of this lens had a lot of fungus inside it, and I didn't really know how that will affect the image.

50mm @ f/1.4 - not good

I guess all that dirt did show up on the image.  This was shot wide open at 1.4, and it really was very soft at that opening.  The softness went away by the time I got to f/2.8 and f/4, but still had some of the ghosting effect, but fortunately that was easy to remove by just adding some contrast and increasing the exposure by just a bit.

50mm 1.4 wide open at 1.4 edited  - still soft but looks better

Same lens at f4 and edited - a lot better

The 70-210mm f/4 

I think this one is the daddy of those popular white tele-zooms of today.  It's a pull-push lens with the same barrel used for focusing.  So this means you really have to push and twist it out to zoom out and pull and twist to zoom in.  This had some dirt inside as well and  I guess affected the photo below.  I only shot at the 20mm end which was the reason for the different perspective.  Like the 50mm, the fogginess went away at the next f/stop or with a little contrast adjustment.  Unlike the 50mm, this lens is not soft wide open or in any aperture setting.   This has a "Macro"setting, which is not really much of a macro, but it does let you focus at around 8inches from the subject when you're at the 70mm focal length.

70-210mm @ f/4 - very foggy

same lens @ f/4 with edit - much much better

The 35-70mm 3.5-4.5 Macro

This lens was the lightest of the group, and I am guessing that back in the day, was the equivalent of a kit lens.  Like the previous lens this has a Macro setting all throughout the zoom range, but it isn't really Macro, as it only focuses as close as 15 inches from the subject.  It was also dirty from the inside, and that also affected the image below.  As with the other 2 lenses, the fogginess went away after applying some contrast adjustments, and it was not soft in any aperture zoom combination,

35-70mm @ 70mm f4.5 - smeared with fungus

same lens and aperture/zoom combination wit hedit - useable, but not the best

The 24mm f/2.8

This is the best lens amongst the 4 I have. It was sharp at all aperture stops and has better color rendition too.  It had dirt inside like the others, but for some reason, it wasn't affecting the photo.  It focuses up to about 12 inches, which was great .  The photo at the top of the post  was an unedited 24mm shot and it was sharp all throughout the frame up to the corners, even when wide open.

24mm @ 2.8 wide open - very useable

Maybe the other lenses will do better when they get some cleaning, but for now I'm happy.  I think  I could really find some good use for these focal lengths and the flexibility they offer me.  Hey, that's four lenses added to my bag, can't say no to that.


rb