Tim, Today I made my first pictures with the newly acquired Novoflex 600. http://360.leende.net/novoflextest click on the pictures for a larger file. All shot wide open (f8) or one stop down, 800 and 1600 ISO on a tripod with the ball head unlocked for quick shooting. Minimal unsharp mask in photoshop. I am impressed: no visible chromatic errors and razor sharp (including the edges). The 20-30 year old design specs of Novoflex perfectly match a digital body (allready cropped). Highly recommended. The only minus is the size and weight of this beast. The price makes everything light as a feather :) Toine
On 3/13/06, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I decided not to go for Novoflex. Not because I think they are bad, but > because of the problems with adapters. > But on my way to this conclusion I read a bit. If I'm not mistaken Novoflex > had a rather odd, but sensible designing philosophy. They are mainly > designed for shooting wildlife. Wildlife photographers wanted better > focusing. A focus system that made the photographer able to follow a fast > moving subject. (That's an enablement;-)) They also wanted to make high > quality glass. High quality glass is expensive. To prevent prising > themselves completely out of the marked they based the design on the idea > that wildlife shooters most of the time cropped the frame. And this is where > it gets odd. Based on this Novoflex decided didn't have to think about edge > performance. The result is, state of the art centre performance, and crappy > edges. Does this sound familiar? Yeah, it does to me. Now digital lenses are > designed after the same criteria. > > If this is true, this is most likely the reason why the lenses have very > good reputation among some old-timers, and other will not touch them with > gloves. > > Anyway. The "elders" on list know a lot more about this than I do. > > I have decided against Novoflex for the moment. But I am curious about how > they perform, both optically and "focuscally". Please drop a line, and show > some results. > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds > (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Toine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 12. mars 2006 20:43 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Novoflex any good? (Was:Advice on long glass for, "photodoc > > on beachbirds") > > > > Tim > > It was my lucky day today and found a Novoflex Pigrif C 600mm. The one > > in your ebay link is older. The biggest problem is finding a pentax > > novoflex adapter (it's labeled penta). My first test in the backyard > > looks very promising. In fact I'm impressed so far. On a istD I don't > > see any big lens errors during "pixelpeeping". I don't have any long > > pentax glass to compare this oldie against. > > Now I only need to find time to shoot some wildlife. > > Toine > > > > On 3/4/06, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > John Forbes recommends looking for a Novoflex lens. I know nothing about > > the > > > system except that it looks like a prototype Russian "sniper shotgun". I > > > also have vague memory of seeing some adds in some older magazines. To > > me > > > they looked like toys then. > > > > > > Is John onto something, or has he lost it? > > > No offence, John, just trying to add some humour to a rather boring > > post. > > > > > > He is referring to something like this > > > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Novoflex-5-6-400mm-T-Noflexar-Fast-shot- > > lens_W0QQitemZ > > > 7595235104QQcategoryZ3340QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem > > > > > > Follow up question. What should I look for? As I read the ad above, it > > needs > > > an adaptor. Am I right. > > > > > > > > > Tim > > > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > > > > Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds > > > (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
