dwojr
Well-known
I don't have any interchangeable lens mirrorless but a Pentax K-01.
Been thinking about getting an X-Pro1 or X-E1 for legacy lenses but haven't gotten one yet.
Lomography M Minitar 32/2.8 Lens
- Thread starter Huss
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 113
- Views 27K
I don't have any interchangeable lens mirrorless but a Pentax K-01.
Been thinking about getting an X-Pro1 or X-E1 for legacy lenses but haven't gotten one yet.
Huss
Veteran
I'd get something like a Sony A7 for that (if you don't want a Leica). The Fuji's would apply a crop factor to the lenses. 50mm become 75mm etc
dwojr
Well-known
Good point but I don't think I can afford an A7 at the moment. They are still kind of expensive used.
I can wait a few years
Huss
Veteran
Another option, in the Fuji vein, is the Sony A6000. Excellent sensor that is 24mp vs Fuji's 16 (?). Those are cheap used.
Personally I'd pick up an M mount film camera to use it on.
Huss
Veteran
"Spooky Bookstore"
Leica MdA, Lomo Minitar, Kodak Lumiere 100
Leica MdA, Lomo Minitar, Kodak Lumiere 100
danielsterno
making soup from mud
I'm in….. ordering from your site as we speak….. I have a preference of "perfection of imperfection" and this lens will fulfill that nicely…. D.
Xax
Established
Some samples of this lens on a Fuji Xpro-1.
Huss
Veteran
Leica M7, Fuji C200.
What is interesting is how this lens varies its look depending on lighting and of course aperture setting. None of these images were 'cooked' in pp.
All from the same roll of film.
What is interesting is how this lens varies its look depending on lighting and of course aperture setting. None of these images were 'cooked' in pp.
All from the same roll of film.
robert blu
quiet photographer
That "three dogs nocturne" is absolutely special! It's art, you and the lens...
robert
robert
kena
Established
Minitar on an M-E & M2
Minitar on an M-E & M2
I just got my M-E back from New Jersey. I thought I'd try out my new Lomo lens I picked up from Cameraquest. Its a tiny little lens and a bit quirky in handling and results, but its supposed to be. Thankfully I dont see as much color cast as some other examples online
These M-E allshot at f8 @ iso640
Minitar on an M-E & M2
I just got my M-E back from New Jersey. I thought I'd try out my new Lomo lens I picked up from Cameraquest. Its a tiny little lens and a bit quirky in handling and results, but its supposed to be. Thankfully I dont see as much color cast as some other examples online
These M-E allshot at f8 @ iso640
danielsterno
making soup from mud
First batch back from the lab, love this lens. M5, CineStill bwXX pushed to 800 Lomo Minitar:
Huss
Veteran
Leica M240, Lomo Minitar 32mm 2.8
"The Break Up"
I had to apply distortion correction manually to straighten things up, but it worked out well.
Today was a rainy day, and this lens allowed me to carry my camera under my jacket maintaining a very low profile as it is the size of a body cap. If I didn't have this lens, the camera would have been left at home.
"The Break Up"
I had to apply distortion correction manually to straighten things up, but it worked out well.
Today was a rainy day, and this lens allowed me to carry my camera under my jacket maintaining a very low profile as it is the size of a body cap. If I didn't have this lens, the camera would have been left at home.
dwojr
Well-known
Nice. I guess you have gotten over your aversion to using it on a digicam?
Huss
Veteran
Yep in as much I wanted to use my M240 today, and as it was raining this was the only lens that would allow a flat profile and make it easy to carry under my jacket.
On the digi M you have to play around to get rid of the coloured edges. On film you don't. But I had a lot of fun w it today.
Huss
Veteran
M240, Lomo Minitar 32mm 2.8
nightfly
Well-known
Really like the look of those photos Huss. Nice work. Both the B&W and colors especially are really lovely.
Is there an annoying amount of post required on a digital M to take away obvious flaws? The thing about having the camera with me vs leaving it home really resonates with me as do the images.
Is there an annoying amount of post required on a digital M to take away obvious flaws? The thing about having the camera with me vs leaving it home really resonates with me as do the images.
Huss
Veteran
Thank you!
There was some work required, but pretty much there is PP required with all my images using any lens if I want to get the end look I desire, so I am used to it.
B&W is much easier, as I do not have to deal with the smearing colour borders (especially on the right side). All I do is apply distortion correction (-8 in LR) and adjust exposure/contrast.
With colour I initially was happy that LR had a profile for the lens but after using it a couple of times realized it was junk. All it does is bleach out the border areas removing colour and detail. So if I want to remove the pink tone, I use the adjustment brush in LR and just desaturate it. Works every time. Then it is -8 on the distortion, adjust exposure/contrast. Everything takes maybe a minute.
On film there is no colour smear, so it would be just distortion and exposure/contrast. What is interesting is that this lens has a wavy distortion pattern, with emphasis on pin cushion. So you can fix it somewhat, but this is not an architectural lens, but more for people and 'stuff'.
Anyway, I do not see any of this as a fault of the lens. Every single lens I have 'needs' correction - you can see this by clicking on the profile in LR (if it has one) and watch the image change. For me I finally found the true calling of the Minitar lens - and that is to make the camera as discrete and pocketable as possible. So yeah my Summicron 35 is much much 'better'. But is is about 5 times the size (and the Summicron is a small lens!) so you are not comparing the same thing. If the Minitar gave the performance it does, and was the same size as the Summicron, then yeah I would maybe have reason to complain. Before I realized it is still a $350 lens, new, versus $2500+!
One thing that was cool was that I left the lens cap at home (tiny little thing that needs to be unscrewed) so I wouldn't lose it or have to fiddle with it. The front element of the lens is deeply recessed so there was no issue of anything rubbing against it, so no worry there.
nightfly
Well-known
Thanks for the detailed answer. Much appreciated.
mich rassena
Well-known
I'm sure you can make fine images (and some of the examples here are quite good). Like all things lomo, it's just too much money for what it is. The lens body reminds me a great deal of the Olympus 15mm f/8 body cap lens for micro 4/3 which is marketed as a toy lens at $50. I think the amateur on a budget would be better off gluing a lens from a Kodak point and shoot onto an m39 body cap with a hole in it and calling it a day.
Huss
Veteran
You are comparing a fixed aperture f8 lens for a different camera mount/system with an M mount f2.8 lens multiple aperture lens? Ooookaaaayy....
As for your Kodak lens idea. Go ahead, make it. Remember it needs to be rangefinder focus coupled, aperture controlled and in the M mount. While your at it, give it a 2 year warranty and high standard of build.
Pop quiz, name all the other pancake M mount lenses, available with warranty, that are available? Next after Lomo is the MS Optical series that start at about $1000 and give 'worse' optical quality.
I get it, you don't like Lomo. But that's ok because Lomo Loves Leica.
😀
Similar threads
