# Your most "exotic" lens ?



## JumboShrimp (Apr 6, 2016)

I know for a fact that some of you have some pretty exotic stuff out there. Just for fun ... What's the most "exotic" lens (or camera) that you own? Pictures welcome, too !


----------



## andrei1989 (Apr 6, 2016)

seeing i'm the first to reply...and before people start throwing huge white canons around.. )
my most exotic would be a sigma 70-210 f/2.8 modified to work with the newer digital bodies (70D)
the focus is not the fastest and it's not as sharp wide open as a 70-200 from canon but in good light with a fast enough shutter it gives good results
second one would be also a sigma: 400mm 5.6 (no APO/HSM, also modified for new digital bodies). again, not the fastest or the sharpest but in the right conditions i believe it would give good results (didn't get to try it in proper lighting yet)

maybe it's worth mentioning that both these lenses were around 150 euros each )


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 6, 2016)

andrei1989 said:


> seeing i'm the first to reply...and before people start throwing huge white canons around.. )



Haha, same here. I'm too cheap to have anything too expensive (and therefore truly exotic).

From a big lens standpoint I got the Tamron 150-600.

From a nicer, more high end lens viewpoint I got a Sigma 35mm Art and a Canon 135mm f/2L.

So nothing too ridiculous or crazy.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 6, 2016)

Depending on what the criteria for exotic is, the answer may differ as expensive and exotic are necessarily synonymous. As far as exotic goes, it would either have to be a Contax N Zeiss 50/1.4 modded by conurus (tied to metabones) to EF mount retaining AF on Canon bodies, or my Zenitar ME-1 in m42 screw mount which is a 50/1.7 with a two-bladed aperture as they are both odd and/or not very common. Most expensive would be a big white (200/2), but I'm certain there are plenty of those roaming around so I wouldn't necessarily consider it as exotic as the two others mentioned above.


----------



## JMZawodny (Apr 6, 2016)

Right now I am in the middle of assessing a Kilfitt (Zoomar) 250mm F/1.3 lens circa 1970. The lens is very much a restoration project. I have managed to adapt this lens to the Canon EF mount and taken a few photos with it. This particular serial number did not have an adjustable aperture (as far as I can tell) - it is just a wide open f/1.3. Initial testing is showing a large amount of chromatic aberration and coma suggesting that it may have been disassembled and reassembled incorrectly in the past. Go ahead and Google this lens and you'll find almost nothing about it. It is a very rare lens, the highest serial number I have seen is 0009!


----------



## kaihp (Apr 6, 2016)

JumboShrimp said:


> I know for a fact that some of you have some pretty exotic stuff out there. Just for fun ... What's the most "exotic" lens (or camera) that you own? Pictures welcome, too !


Hummm. Does an EOS 10D qualify for being exotic these days ? 
For lenses, there areou only two of my lenses that are even near-exotic: TS-E 90mm and 300/2.8(II).


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 6, 2016)

Soligor C/D 650/8.5 Mirror Reflex in universal T-mount. Complete with original case, hood, filters. Condition 10/10. Very light and compact. Not super sharp, but just fun.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 6, 2016)

The rarest thing I have is a nikon D40 w/kit lens. Actually might be pretty rare since this is a canon forum


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 6, 2016)

An original ef 50mm f1.8 metal mount, with the first year of EOS date stamp. It came supplied with my Dad's EOS 650. My 400mm f2.8 LIS...is still pretty exotic to most, maybe my TSe 17L or my 8-15L fisheye. All exotic for their rarity and capability.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 6, 2016)

Zawodny wins by a mile!

My "exotic" is a Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 1:1 macro, Canon EF mount. Not old, not very rare. My really old lenses are M42, AIS Nikkor, and FD mount lenses, the Nikkors and FD mount lenses given / abandoned to me. I am pretty sure that the Canon AE1's nifty 50 is one with trace radioactivity (these often have strong yellowing, clearable with exposure to UV light). The few FD lenses are useless to me, since I don't shoot mirrorless. I have some moderately uncommon Mamiya-Sekor brand M42 mount lenses. (Mamiya eventually dropped 35mm to concentrate on its MF line, and Sekor concentrated on light meters (Sekonic, still in business).


----------



## kaswindell (Apr 6, 2016)

NancyP said:


> Zawodny wins by a mile!
> 
> My "exotic" is a Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 1:1 macro, Canon EF mount. Not old, not very rare. My really old lenses are M42, AIS Nikkor, and FD mount lenses, the Nikkors and FD mount lenses given / abandoned to me. I am pretty sure that the Canon AE1's nifty 50 is one with trace radioactivity (these often have strong yellowing, clearable with exposure to UV light). The few FD lenses are useless to me, since I don't shoot mirrorless. I have some moderately uncommon Mamiya-Sekor brand M42 mount lenses. (Mamiya eventually dropped 35mm to concentrate on its MF line, and Sekor concentrated on light meters (Sekonic, still in business).



You could just pick up an old FD mount body for cheap money and have some fun with your FD lenses... of course then you would have to use film. We don't need to cover the pros and cons of film here, that debate rages in other forums.


----------



## d (Apr 7, 2016)

NancyP said:


> Zawodny wins by a mile!
> 
> My "exotic" is a Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 1:1 macro, Canon EF mount. Not old, not very rare.



Five or so years ago when I was shooting Nikon, I was offered an F-mount version of the Voigtlander 125mm 2.5 APO for not much more than $1000 from memory. Boy, do I regret not going through with that one - they're a very special lens.

d.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 7, 2016)

It's not very exciting compared to others, but I guess the MP-E. I have a big white, but it can still take regular pictures, whereas the MP-E can *only* do 1:1 up to 5:1 macro. I've owned loads of random old lenses, many from the film era, but they were mostly what was common and cheap back then. I had a Canon 28-80mm lens from the early 90s which doesn't seem all that common, and still have a ~25 year old EF 35-70mm zoom with a metal mount otherwise.


----------



## retroreflection (Apr 7, 2016)

JMZawodny
Your third picture clearly shows an aperture ring. It could be jammed, but it was designed to go to f32.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2016)

Mine would be the Macrophoto Lens FD 35mm f2.8, it was the precursor to the MP-E65 as with the bellows it has a magnification ratio of 1.96X-5.84X. I used to use it for small product photography, principally close ups of watch faces. 


Here is a link: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdmacro/2035macro.htm


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2016)

I don't think any of mine are 'exotic' but some have unique attribites among Canon's _current_ lens lineup...


Physically longest 'in use' lens (600/4L IS II with hood)
Largest physical aperture diameter (600/4L IS II)
Physically shortest lens (tie between 40/2.8 and M22/2)
Highest native magnification (MP-E 65mm)
Widest tilt-shift lens (TS-E 17L)


----------



## j-nord (Apr 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't think any of mine are 'exotic' but some have unique attribites among Canon's _current_ lens lineup...
> 
> 
> Physically longest 'in use' lens (600/4L IS II with hood)
> ...



The exotic part is how diversified your collecting is 8)


----------



## Zeidora (Apr 7, 2016)

Lens: Zeiss F-Distagon 16 mm C/Y with Haoda adapter for Canon-EOS. It is a full-frame/rectangular fisheye (180 degree diagonal), made in Germany. Auto-exposure does not work with those lenses, aperture has to be pre-set, so it is setting to M, shoot one, then adjust. I bought it new for my old Contax RTSIII. Not a frequently used lens, but is fun on occasions. Zeiss does not offer it at present in the modern mounts/versions.

Exotic camera is a Zeiss Axiocam HRc. It is a microscope camera with peltier cooled sensor, but only a measly 13 MP. Still more than enough for taking microscope images. 
http://www.zeiss.com/microscopy/en_us/products/microscope-cameras/axiocam-hr-.html#introduction
Not too many of those around, and particularly not owned by private persons.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> Exotic camera is a Zeiss Axiocam HRc. It is a microscope camera with peltier cooled sensor, but only a measly 13 MP. Still more than enough for taking microscope images.
> http://www.zeiss.com/microscopy/en_us/products/microscope-cameras/axiocam-hr-.html#introduction
> Not too many of those around, and particularly not owned by private persons.



I had 6 of them in my prior lab, along with a couple HRm cameras for fluorescence and some of the little ICc cubes for simple documentation. But definitely not personally owned, nor the Zeiss scopes to which they were attached. 

However, I do have a Zeiss Stemi DV4 8-32x stereomicrocsope at home (picks up where the MP-E 65 leaves off), and with the 2.5x eyepiece adapter I can mount my 1D X on it for a 20-80x zoom lens – and I guess _that_ qualifies as an exotic lens!


----------



## J.R. (Apr 7, 2016)

While I have a number of lenses, the 'exotic' ones, to me, are (a) the 40mm f/2.8 pancake; and (b) the 11-24mm f/4L


----------



## J.R. (Apr 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't think any of mine are 'exotic' but some have unique attribites among Canon's _current_ lens lineup...
> 
> 
> Physically longest 'in use' lens (600/4L IS II with hood)
> ...



What happened to the 70-200 II?

Edit - Oh ... just realized there are only the primes :-X ;D


----------



## niels123 (Apr 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't think any of mine are 'exotic' but some have unique attribites among Canon's _current_ lens lineup...
> 
> 
> Physically longest 'in use' lens (600/4L IS II with hood)
> ...



Where are your otii? :


----------



## great9 (Apr 7, 2016)

zeppo said:


> My two exotic lens... 50 1.0 and 200 1.8



Wow. That 50mm 1.0L is very rare and expensive. Do you happen to know how Canon produced? I dont like the fact its not weather-sealed.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 7, 2016)

I have an Izumanon close up lens






The only problem is that I can't remember ever buying one.. Up until recently, I really did not have the money to casually invest in photography equipment so pretty much every lens I bought was a big thing.

But this is in my bag. What is funny is that on some of the forums, other photographers have written the same thing about having this lens but not remembering ever buying it. (cue creepy music)

Not that there is any real reason why anyone would want to buy this lens as it is pretty crummy


----------



## JMZawodny (Apr 7, 2016)

retroreflection said:


> JMZawodny
> Your third picture clearly shows an aperture ring. It could be jammed, but it was designed to go to f32.



That was why I posted that photo and included the parenthetical comment. I'm not going to force anything until I more completely understand this lens. Given the rarity, it seems most unlikely that I would have a second copy of this lens. Nevertheless, I do. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, that second copy has been mercilessly gutted (the front ring is missing so I do not know its serial number). Only the last lens of the original six is present. Most of the mechanics are still present and will offer the opportunity to study the mechanism and the development of an approach to assembly and disassembly. Whatever I do, the process will be documented and eventually shared.

Update: I had a brief moment of clear thinking that revealed just how little I know about this lens. I removed the Kapton tape and freed the aperture adjustment ring. The iris is indeed present and fully operational. I've only had this lens for a few days, most of which was spent on figuring out how to mount it on my 5D2.

Update 2: I've added a photo to show both the size and the fact that the aperture is indeed adjustable. The camera attached to the lens is my 5D2 with battery grip. I needed a 12mm extension to get the flange distance just about right.


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Apr 7, 2016)

My most exotic lens would be the EBC Fujinon-T 135mm f/2.5.

It's a vintage oldie, but in great condition. Fully manual with an M42 thread. I use an adapter to mount it on my 6D. I glued a chip on the adapter so I have EXIF info and AF confirmation on the camera.

I bought it to experiment a bit with the 135mm range, and to see what all the fuss is about with these old lenses. It cost me only € 70,- which isn't bad for such a lens I think 

I'll see if I can come up with some pictures.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 7, 2016)

Over the past few years I've bought quite a few pre-AF era MF lenses, and I use them more than anything else - they're one reason I like Sony FF mirrorless. I'm not sure if any of them are really exotic (certainly not by the standards of JMZawody's!) but if the relative scarcity of e-mount adapters is any indication it's probably my Zeiss Jena Prakticar 80mm 1.8, an optically marvelous little lens -- albeit in ways that aren't at all exotic (unlike, say, some of the swirly-bokeh Zeiss and Russian lenses or the Tair 11, with its 20-blade aperture).


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 7, 2016)

Olympus OM-System 50mm f/1.2. Near perfect condition. Purchased from KEH. Canon EF chipped adapter (shown). Incredibly small and light for an f/1.2, but MF for this thing is a bit tricky, to say the least. Absurd and beautiful bokeh.


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Apr 7, 2016)

That's a nice one, it looks like new!


----------



## JMZawodny (Apr 8, 2016)

JumboShrimp said:


> Olympus OM-System 50mm f/1.2. Near perfect condition. Purchased from KEH. Canon EF chipped adapter (shown). Incredibly small and light for an f/1.2, but MF for this thing is a bit tricky, to say the least. Absurd and beautiful bokeh.



I was wondering why it was rated as "near perfect" and then I found the speck of dust on the lens.
Beautiful photo of a fine lens.


----------



## verysimplejason (Apr 8, 2016)

Soligor Tokina 135mm F3.5, m42 mount, adapted to 6D with fotodiox adapter.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 8, 2016)

JumboShrimp said:


> Olympus OM-System 50mm f/1.2. Near perfect condition. Purchased from KEH. Canon EF chipped adapter (shown). Incredibly small and light for an f/1.2, but MF for this thing is a bit tricky, to say the least. Absurd and beautiful bokeh.


Still got mine.... mounted on my OM-1  

FANTASTIC LENS!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Apr 8, 2016)

Go on! You know you want one!


----------



## RGF (Apr 15, 2016)

nothing truly exotic. 600mm for wildlife and 65 MP-E for extreme close ups.

All in a days work.


----------



## slclick (Apr 19, 2016)

Mine seems to be the 24-35 Art since no one else is buying it


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 19, 2016)

J.R. said:


> While I have a number of lenses, the 'exotic' ones, to me, are (a) the 40mm f/2.8 pancake; and (b) the 11-24mm f/4L



Now that I have a full frame camera I wish I had the 40mm pancake back.

I keep seeing it listed as exotic, but I never thought of it that way. It must be, I guess. 

I don't think I have anything exotic... well, my 5D Mark III is.

Well, I guess the Canon EF 135 f/2L.


----------



## Zv (Apr 20, 2016)

I don't have anything all that exotic. I think the closest thing might be my Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC. I mount it on my EOS M via FD-EFM adaptor (see below). I also have a FD 100mm f/2.8 but it's not as good as the 50. 

Does a fisheye count as exotic? I have one of those!


----------



## RGF (Apr 22, 2016)

Just canon stuff - 65 extreme macro, 11-24, 17 TS - all run of the mill


----------



## scyrene (Apr 22, 2016)

RGF said:


> Just canon stuff - 65 extreme macro, 11-24, 17 TS - all run of the mill



Heh. Something in me rebels at the description of such magnificent lenses as 'run of the mill'!


----------

