Thanks. That was fast from purchase to online photos ;-) The results showed indicates that Novoflex did know what they where doing. The centre is sharp, no dough. I detect slightly less sharpness at the edge (at the wire the bird is sitting on). But that's a non issue in this kind of photographing. What really strikes me is the bokeh. Very pleasant, IMO. And that's important when isolating a bird.
How much was your lens, complete with adaptor? And what about the focus system? Is it significantly better than regular focus mechanism, or is it just a "smart ass" feature? I was _this_ far from making a "Buy it now" bid an a Tokina 150-500/5,6. Now you have made me indecisive. LBA is a troublesome decease ;-) 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: 14. mars 2006 20:11 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Novoflex any good? (Was:Advice on long glass for, "photodoc > on beachbirds") > > 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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
