DSLR Lenses and Add-on Auxiliary Lenses. Worth it?

Gentle reader,

Wow! My last post about Ford GT and Porsche 917 race cars is quite the hit: 561 page views yesterday and more than 400 so far today. It can be seen here:

The Robb Collections: Ford GT-40s, Mark II, Mark IV and Porsche 917s at Le Mans 1965-1970  

Previously, I had written about trying a high-quality auxiliary lens Olympus made for it's top-of-the-ZLR-line: IS-3DLX camera. It can be seen here:

The Robb Collections: How to get quality wide-angle photos with a DSLR inexpensively!   As the article notes, they were made for a high quality 35mm film camera and thus fully coated with top-quality glass elements.

I was looking through pictures from over the years and saw a lens that I'd come across long ago made by Canon for their top-flight Super-8mm movie camera. It has 67mm threads on the camera-end and screws onto the front of that camera's lens or any other lens that has 67mm filter threads. I'd used it in my 35mm film days on generic "T-mount" 400mm and 500mm lenses. Seeing that lens again made me think, "What if I had another one and tried it on my Tokina (100-400mm) lens on the Nikon?" Ebay to the rescue and sure enough there were a couple of them. Snagged one and it arrived in the original box sans lens caps and leather case. But for $4.99, who can complain? Not me. Here is is on the front of the Tokina 100-400mm zoom lens.

As you can see, it is called: C-8 Tele Converter 1.4X. There are others of the same name but they appear to be smaller, yet magnify 1.6X. Completely different on the mounting end.

Now, there are special SLR camera teleconverter lenses made for decades that usually have four lens elements with the better ones having seven lens elements. They mount between the camera body and the lens you want to magnify. The trouble with these is the light loss. A typical 2X teleconverter while making the image twice as large, it cuts the light available to the film or sensor by one half. Here is an excellent article on the subject:  Teleconverter Tutorial

I've never seen that site before, but it looks like they know what they are talking about. If you look on Google or eBay for front-mount auxiliary lenses you will see THOUSANDS of them. Factories in China must be cranking them out like crazy. Many have: MACRO on them as well. Google Macro to see what that means.

So, back to THIS front-mount auxiliary 1.4X Canon lens. It is all metal and glass, so it is heavy. The glass does not appear to be coated. This will hurt the resolution of the images. The one good thing about front-mount auxiliary lenses is they do not cut the light down. In other words, if your lens is f2.8, that is what it will still be with a front-mount auxiliary lens. So, lets see some more pictures:

I bought an add-on lens-mount bracket. Since this lens is so long, getting a stable image with the camera's own tripod mount is iffy at best. This one is made for a larger diameter lens barrel than the Tokina has, but it holds the lens/camera well with the spacer I made. (Visible above.)

However, once the heavy Canon lens is added to this mostly plastic lens, it became unstable and I had to slide the bracket all they way back to the body. Here are images with and without the 1.4X:

Above is at 400mm with the 1.5 multiplication factor on an APS-C sensor equipped camera, what Nikon calls "DX", it is equal to a 600mm lens on a full frame (35mm film sized) sensor, which Nikon calls "FX". Tripod mounted the image is nice and crisp and clear.

See how much bigger with the 1.4X front-mount auxiliary lens. Yes, note it is not quite as crisp and seems to have a slight color that isn't there in reality. I think the lack of lens coatings AND that this lens was made for a Super-8mm movie film camera. 8mm film is TINY compared to the sensor in my D70S. Image acceptable? Yes, worth entering into competition, no. 

However, based upon the cost of the cheapest long lens that will mount on a DSLR, all of which are "T" mounted, manual focus and will not electronically couple with the camera's computer, then yes, getting the added reach is worth it.

Now, another of the multitude of front-mount auxiliary lenses out there, again that usually have MACRO on them, their quality is questionable at best. There is a choice. For instance, I want an 8mm fisheye, fish-eye if you prefer for my Nikon DSLR. There are many for less than $200. Again, they are manual focus and I don't think they will electronically couple with the camera. But I am not sure about that. Most appear identical despite the brand name.

Years ago, decades really, there was a camera company called SPIRATONE. Like J.C. Whitney for car parts, they sent out paper catalogs through the mail and sold all manor of camera related items including lenses and flashes with their own brand name. I can't speak for the flashes, but a lot of the lenses were made for Spiratone and other sellers by Sigma in Japan. Sigma lenses are of high quality and still made and sold today. In fact, I have a Sigma 70-300mm zoom for my Nikon.

"Fish eye" lenses are supposed to offer a 180 degree view. Depending upon the focal length, the image will be a circle with black all around or fill the picture with 180 degrees diagonally measured being 180 degrees with anything else in the "image circle" being lost. Google "image circle" for more on that. 

Available most of the time on eBay are vintage front-mount auxiliary fisheye lenses which have a negative multiplication factor or 0.15. On a 50mm lens, which is what they are meant to mount to, that equates to 7.5mm and you will get a circular image with black all around. Such as:

According to the computer, these were from 2011 and it doesn't indicate which camera I used, so it may have been a film SLR. Today, I made these images with the Spiratone lens you will see below:

I was experimenting with a slave-triggered second flash in the above image. The clearest one of the bunch is this one and I closed the fisheye lens' aperture down, thus the less crisp circle.

This one is standing on my deck which is maybe seven feet up from the ground. Note the railing, which is straight, curving away and how much there is to see. 

The same place, but taken with a 19-35mm zoom lens at the 19mm end. On the Nikon D70S, this is about 28mm on a 35mm film or FX sensor size. A lot less to see, but it is not at all distorted.

The key, and this must be followed: The larger the maximum aperture of the lens you want to mound one of these beauties on, the better:

See that: 1:1.8? That means the lens is called: 50mm f.18. The LOWER the "F" number, the wider the maximum opening, thus the "faster" the lens. This is essential with these lenses:

If you look at these cheap "super wide angle" lenses you can screw on another lens, do their front element curve outward like this one? Nope.

See that silver strip with numbers? This lens has it's own internal aperture, f3.5 being the widest. You set it to the green numbers to tell it what focal length you have mounted it to. 50mm is recommended. 

You can see just how tiny the lens' rear aperture is looking into it, above.

It adds significant length to the 50mm lens as you can see. No one buys fisheye lenses for accuracy, mostly for fun. The way they curve all straight lines near the edges of the image can make for some interesting pictures.

So, to conclude: If you can afford real, made-to-mount-on your-camera, fisheye or super wide angle lenses for your DSLR camera, buy them. But avoid buying inexpensive front mount auxiliary lenses that proliferate the Internet. The quality is bad, and since most SLR and DSLR lens bodies are mostly plastic, you could damage your lenses with the extra weight on the front of them. Those threads are for filters, not for any more glass than that. Vintage X0.15 lenses like this Spiratone are another matter, quality-wise.

Thanks for looking,

Scott

 

 

Ford GT-40s, Mark II, Mark IV and Porsche 917s at Le Mans 1965-1970

Updated June, 14, 2020

Gentle reader,

Since my brother and I were kids in the mid-1960's, we loved the idea of sports car racing. We first encountered it when our parents gave us an Aurora Thunderjet HO slot car racing set. It had two Jaguar cars, either XK120 or XK150, a coupe and a hardtop. Both had little drivers in them. 

A while later, I researched Porsches at the local library and decided then that the 912 with the simpler four cylinder engine, yet with the 911's looks, was the better and more practical car to have. I was around ten at the time. I still want a 912.

In 1971, having heard about Steve McQueen's new movie being about my favorite race; The 24 Hours of Le Mans, my brother and I were determined to see it. Mother, thinking she could discourage us, said that if we could figure out how to get ourselves to the next town, we could see the movie. I found local bus routes and schedules and figured out which bus to take, when and where to get there and back. My persistence surprised her, so off to San Rafael we rode to see Le Mans.

Needless to say, the two of us were thrilled by the film! We didn't know then that there was no real story line to the film, because the racing was incredible and so was the cinematography! And the SOUND of those 12-cylinder Porsche and Ferrari engines and all the other race cars too! WOW! It still thrills me to watch it and listen via the Blu-Ray version in surround sound.

Now that I have set the scene, I want to show you my 1/18th scale diecast car collection with the excellent replicas of Ford and Porsche racers from that awesome era. 

The Ford GT40 or GT-40, if you prefer, was made in England based upon a Eric Broadley's Lola GT which used a small-block Ford V8 engine. 
They first raced the GT40s in 1964 with poor results and 1965 season wasn't much better. Much to Ferrari's delight.

The only car model of those early GT-40 racers I have is this old 1:43rd scale Solido. 
As far as Prototype racing, the highest/fastest classes in endurance racing, Ford's Mark I GT40 cars sucked. 

Unknown or forgotten by many, the Shelby Daytona coupes had carried the American Racing colors of white and blue to glory on the world's sports car racing scene. 

They raced in the GT class against Ferrari's gorgeous 250 GTO coupes. They were on track to win the 1964 championship, but Enzo Ferrari pulled a fast one and had the last race at Monza cancelled.

However, in 1965 they did what the GT40s could not: defeat Ferrari and win the World Manufacturer's championship for FORD. 

Without further ado and much rambling, here is a replica of a 1965 Shelby Daytona Coupe designed by Peter Brock which eliminated the aerodynamic drag the Cobras experienced even with the "fastback" hardtops they made for them.

Gorgeous, isn't it?

Back in those days, car numbers were assigned at each race venue. Thus the white circles to attach the number stickers.

Lots of nice details. Even the sticker on the fire extinguisher.

So, although Henry Ford II's desire to kick Ferrari's ass after backing out of the deal to sell his company to Ford, did not happen with the GT-40's in 1964 or 1965, it still did happen, thanks to Carroll Shelby and his band of happy car builders.

Ford had hired Shelby American to fix the Mark I GT40's problems. He also hired Holman & Moody, an east coast Ford NASCAR builder, to try their hand at it too. 

In 1966, it finally happened. When it was obvious Ford was going to win, place and show, Henry Ford II wanted the first three cars to finish in a dead heat, something that had never happened before. I won't go into the details about that, but the drivers obeyed and did their best to comply. 

The rest IS history. And the film Ford v Ferrari or Le Mans 1966 does a fairly good job showing that history.

The car featured below replicates the 3rd place car. Why choose the 3rd place car? I love it's color, and I like to be different.

GT40 were built in England and many Le Mans racers, due to the many right hand corners of the Circuit de la Sarthe, had the drivers on the right.

However, one could order a GT40 as a street legal car and some people did. Thus, they could be left hand drive too.

The Chinese company that built this one mistakenly made it left hand drive.

In 1967, Ford moved production of the next GT model to Dearborn, Michigan where street Fords are still made today.

Shelby American was still involved in the process. Above is a scale model slot car of the ill-fated J-Car.

The Mark IV, based upon the J-Car (above, which killed Ken Miles, the driver that should have won Le Mans in 1966) was completely designed and built in the USA with no help from our English cousins. 

The winner in 1967 was red and #1. This car, I chose because, again, I love the color and it is NOT what most have in their collection. In fact, until recently, I never knew there WAS a blue one!

Number 2 was yellow, number 3 was white.

Quite different looking and more sleek than the previous year's cars, which, by the way are called: Mark II. 

The Mark II cars used the large-block 427 (seven liter) V8 engines where the original, and as you will see later, GT-40 used 302 (five liter) or 289 (four point six liter) small-block V8 engines.

The headers (red tubes) called "bundle of snakes" at the time, are not as well done on these cars. The carburetors are more detailed, however.

The Mark IV cars also used seven liter (427) engines but with two four barrel carburetors while the Mark II's used a single four barrel carburetor as they were basically NASCAR race engines.

Note also, the spare tire (required then as well as "luggage" the rectangular boxes behind the engine) in the Mark IV takes the place of one of the "suitcases" while in the earlier cars, the spare tire is in the front trunk.

Proper right-hand drive. Note they have the roll cages (tubular things by the "A" pillar and above the seats) in the cars for increased strength and driver safety. 

 The shape below is pure speed.

The winning car, #1, was red, (no doubt to annoy Enzo Ferrari as red was Italy's official racing color) and was driven by two Americans: A. J. Foyt and Dan Gurney. 

The first time an all-American car/team won outright at Le Mans. Perhaps the only time. By the way, Foyt had never driven the car prior to arriving in France!

The FIA outlawed the seven liter engines in the prototype class (no doubt pressured by Ferrari and the French teams) and after this race (1967) would be limited to five liters or 305 cubic inches of displacement. 

So, the Mark II and Mark IV cars were done racing. Back then, last year's race car was just an old race car and they were often destroyed or sold cheaply. Really cheaply.

By the way, there ARE Mark III cars. Only a few were made as street cars.

J. W. Automotive of England built the original GT-40s and Mark II cars in England. The company had lots of experience racing and winning at Le Mans. John Wyer wrote an amazing book about it called, That Certain Sound.

By 1968, as well more than the required fifty Ford GT cars had been built the GT40 then qualified as Sports cars (GT Class) rather than Prototype racers. 
J. W. Automotive paired with GULF Oil as their sponsor made a three car team and painted their cars in the now famous light blue and orange livery. See below:

This car, while fairly accurate in shape, lacks important details, like side windows, opened scoops behind the doors, and other things that would never be accepted in today's diecast world. But this car is many years old.

 

If you compare the overhead view of this car, which was a Mark I, but updated, the rear wheels and tires and thus fenders are much wider. Nor are there extra scoops on the rear deck for cooling. As noted, they used Ford 302 (five liter) V8 engines with four two-barrel Weber carburetors.

Dusty interior due to no side windows.

Now, a quick overview of Ford verses Ferrari: Ford finally won in 1966 at Le Mans with a 1-2-3 sweep. They won again in 1967. Ford himself, the racers and the staff, engineers and more were happy and since the big-engine cars were no longer legal, Ford took their wins and pulled out of world endurance racing. 

J. W. Automotive and other teams continued to race the then old and "defunct" GT40s for 1968 and 1969, and in fact, the car replicated above won BOTH in 1968 AND 1969. The ONLY time the same car won twice. In fact, in 1969, it was one of the closest finishes in Le Mans history with mere feet between the winning (this car) Ford GT and second place Porsche 908. 

In 1969 Porsche introduced their awesome new flat-12-cylinder 917 racer to the world. The 908 has a flat eight-cylinder and smaller engine. The 917 was VERY fast but very unstable and I don't think any of them even finished in 1969, thus the older 908 was duking it out the last several laps with the 908 passing the GT-40 and vice versa. Over and over to the thrill of the spectators! Mere seconds and less than 100 feet separated 1st and 2nd place after 24 HOURS! That is not uncommon now, but it was something special and exciting in 1969. SO, Ford cars won: 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969. After that, except for private racers, the Ford GT40 racers really were no longer racing. They were just old race cars.

1970 was the year that Porsche was determined to win Le Mans. Outright. They had won their class many times, but never outright. Their beastly 917 was what they hoped would achieve that goal. But it was a handful to drive. Only Vic Elford could truly control the car at speed.

For 1970, Porsche, impressed with J. W. Automotive and how well they were beaten by a years-old race car, hired them and their GULF Oil sponsors to field a three-car 917 team.

Again, the light blue and orange livery (weird word, but that's what they call race car's paint scheme) would be used. 
I won't go into the whole story, for an exciting but historically incorrect look at the 1970 race, watch Steve McQueen in Le Mans. 

Porsche wasn't taking any chances so they had a second team: Porsche-Salzburg of Austria for a back up team. One of their cars, coincidentally, also red, won in 1970.

Below are the two 917s that I have in 1:18th scale. #2 is the winner of the 1970 24 Hours of Daytona. #20 was driven by Brian Redman (I can't recall his co-driver) in the 1970 race and Steve McQueen's fictional Michael Delaney in the movie. 

Now, to numbers in 1970: At SPA in Belgium, the cars were #9 and #10 (I don't have a picture of the other car which may have been #8 or #11). At Daytona, the first race of the season, they were #1, #2, and #3. At Le Mans, #20, #21 and #22. 

In 1971 at Le Mans, they were #17, #18 and #19. So, as I told you above, the numbers changed with each race.

The missing car, had no orange on the front of the car. The entire roof was orange and the color continued in the lower middle section around and behind the engine. 

A limited edition set in 1:43rd scale of all three 917s from the 1970 Le Mans race, which I would love to have.
 
#2 was made by UNIVERSAL HOBBIES and is quite a bit heavier. However, nothing opens! Detail otherwise is excellent. #20 was made by AUTOart and as you will see, all kinds of things open. One can buy these 917K, or short tail and 917L, or long tail cars from AUTOart in almost all the liveries used in 1970 and 1971. IF, one has the money!

Note the spare tire, on the 917, right above the rear of the transaxle. It is a flat spare that must be inflated with a pressurized can. 
Note that #2 has slick tires which were used unless there was rain.

Front trunk lifts off and nice details inside.

Note the tiny PORSCHE crest. The red seats are correct, #2's are black. Even seems to have a wooden shift knob (below).

Yes, their shapes are different as is their shade of blue paint. Note also, that the front fender louvers on #20 are open and they are closed on #2.

"Intermediate" or perhaps rain tires on #20. No spare tire, either.

 Note the differences in the rear details.

There is no prop rod to hold the heavy engine cover up, but one finger does the trick. I missed cleaning some of the dust on the engine below. 

Note the different fan size and details (above). The fans, like the real car's bodies are made of fiberglass. 

The real car's bodies in fact are made of ONE LAYER of fiberglass! These were very dangerous cars. The driver's feet are IN FRONT OF the front tires!

In the famous photo of the start of the 1970 race (and in the movie) #25 a white 917L is faster (due to the long tail) than the 917K racers, but the K (short for "Kurtz" in German) handled much better (below).

Signed photo from the making of the film Le Mans. Vic Elford drove the same car in the film as in the movie.

Thank you for enduring this long article about things and cars from so long ago. 

Due to Covid-19, the 2020 race was run virtually and the factory Porsche team won the GT Class. Again.

Scott
Updated June 14, 2020