Plaubel Makina 670 photos with wide angle conversion lens

DrTebi

DrTebi

Slide Lover
Local time
4:25 AM
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
306
Location
San Francisco, CA
View My Gallery
I love my Plaubel Makina 670, but sometimes I want "more angle." The W67 is just out of my price range for now, so I decided to give a wide angle conversion lens a try.

The Raynox 0.66x wide angle conversion lens with a 58mm thread fits onto the Makina quite well. I haven't taken many shots yet, and my opinion is mixed. I am not sure if aperture settings play a big role in the outcome?

Please judge for yourself (shot on Fuji NPH400):

Golden Gate Bridge in fog, pretty happy with the lens here:


A shot without the conversion lens:


... and one with it:


Pelican... not too excited about the image quality in this shot:


English car, here I think the wide angle did quite a good job:


You can see bigger pictures on flickr

Any comments are greatly appreciated!

DrTebi
 
Interesting. Never thought about using a conversion lens for the 670 or 67. These shots don't look bad online, though I do notice some softness @ the edges (perhaps inevitable w/the conversion lens?).
 
Given the edge blur visible already at this low magnification, the edges look rather worse than on any point&shoot I own - maybe there is some wide-angle converter that harmonizes with the Nikkor 80/2.8, but this particular one does not seem to be it.
 
sevo said:
Given the edge blur visible already at this low magnification, the edges look rather worse than on any point&shoot I own - maybe there is some wide-angle converter that harmonizes with the Nikkor 80/2.8, but this particular one does not seem to be it.
Click to expand...

Can't argue, except that without it, he wouldn't get the photos he got. And they aren't that bad for effect. I say keep experimenting and learn when it will give you what you want, and when it won't. You may not have the best solution, but you do have a solution.
 
There is definitely some softness in the edges in all images I have taken with the conversion lens. I was hoping for better results. The vignetting is easily fixed digitally, which however doesn't help me if I project the slides analog.

It seems to me that using this lens will rather be like using a toy that gives me Holga-like effects. But as "oftheherd" said, without the lens I wouldn't have gotten the photos I got.

So now I wonder if I want to keep it (a $160 purchase) and be happy with the imperfections, or return it and wait for the day that I can find a W67 under $3000...
One advantage to keeping this lens is that it weighs less than a second camera, which makes hiking with it a bit easier.

However, does anyone know if using a smaller or bigger aperture would improve the image quality?
 
$3k for a W67? I just got one for $2200 from our own classifieds!
I like the pelican shot, my house is just to the left, over the hill in the background.

Bob


DrTebi said:
There is definitely some softness in the edges in all images I have taken with the conversion lens. I was hoping for better results. The vignetting is easily fixed digitally, which however doesn't help me if I project the slides analog.

It seems to me that using this lens will rather be like using a toy that gives me Holga-like effects. But as "oftheherd" said, without the lens I wouldn't have gotten the photos I got.

So now I wonder if I want to keep it (a $160 purchase) and be happy with the imperfections, or return it and wait for the day that I can find a W67 under $3000...
One advantage to keeping this lens is that it weighs less than a second camera, which makes hiking with it a bit easier.

However, does anyone know if using a smaller or bigger aperture would improve the image quality?
Click to expand...
 
DrTebi said:
However, does anyone know if using a smaller or bigger aperture would improve the image quality?
Click to expand...

That will depend on the nature of the error. It is more likely to improve, as the most relevant optical aberrations diminish with smaller apertures. But any flaw you could (theoretically) focus on (like dirt, scratches or unpolished margin areas) will become worse.

If you haven't tried, do so before you return it.

In any case, there might be better matched converters out there - the (presumably perfectly matched) factory converters on some of my compacts don't show any visible flaw apart from distortion at a similar image size.
 
It might be a good idea to try another converter, instead of giving up or sticking with this one. Unfortunately Plaubel did not offer any factory WA converters for the Makinas.

Can anyone recommend another converter that's available with a 58mm thread?
 
I tried a Raynox on a GF670, I'd say results were worse than yours, very distorted at the edges, although razor sharp in the centre. A nice, quirky look, but not for every day.

MT
 
Actually, I'm really impressed with the results that you got. As previously stated, you got the picture which would otherwise be impossible. A little crop will give a good compromise. Did you try the same shots at all apertures?

I sold my 670 because I just wasn't using it. I am also not using my w67, but couldn't bear to let it go so it sits in the drawer. I happened to get it cheap because the light meter wasn't working and it is a user. I have cleaned it up and fixed the meter so all is good now. Not bad for $450, but I got lucky.

I think that if I were to do it all over again, I would get the Mamiya 7 and lenses, but I've done lots of hiking with the Plaubels and they never let me down.

Joel
 
@Joel, please let me be the first to know when you decide to sell the W67!

Regarding the wide angle converter, the differences in image quality with as opposed to without it are quite big. It's hard to see online I guess, and I did already do some correction to the posted images (no cropping though). I might try a different converter, if B&H will let me return this one. The Century Precision Optics converters are supposed to be really good, but cost a bit more.

I haven't done a series of images with different apertures yet, it's something I really want to try though. There must be some mathematically intelligent person out here able to explain what aperture should work better?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom