View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Tesselator
Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 235 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tesselator wrote:
Hehe.. But yeah... I guess I would say it's a fun and unique performer which can produce excellent results.
An "excellent performer" to me is something more like the Canon 85mm F/1.2 L or something like that - something very consistent etc..
That's how I'm seeing it at this time anyway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Well lemme tell ya, as a guy who owns a Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical -- which is at least as good as the "L" -- I have found that it takes some work to get good images with it too. When shooting wide open with it, I have to be extremely aware of everything that's going on in terms of movement because the depth of field is so thin. Not only do I have to pay attention to the exact point of focus and whether it's moving or not, but I have to discipline myself to remain immovable as well. I've screwed up quite a few photos with that lens and the only reason why I can figure I did was because I was the one that moved -- not the subject. When stopped further down it becomes much more easy to use and then the photos really begin to shine. But I'm addicted to the images I can capture with that lens wide open -- and same goes for my FL 55mm f/1.2 -- so I continue to work at improving my technique with a lens that really can be quite a challenge to use. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tesselator
Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 235 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tesselator wrote:
Yup, a perfect example of the skill-set I was referring to. With the 58/1.2 now imagine an additional softness at f/1.2 which can be diminished or conquered all together by the contrast, lighting, and subject distance one chooses or encounters. You can see how it affects distant shots in the kitchen photo I posted - notice the edges of the metal shelf, etc.
And how it affects close proximity shots as seen on the chopsticks here - just to use my most recent examples:
In the first example imagine how that would look if I were trying to capture face and hair detail - or if the scene were nothing but those shelves and I hadn't attempted to draw the audiences' attention away from the shelves with the steam and partially hidden cook. etc. etc. I could go over each image in this thread and explain why it works or not but I guess most get what we're talking about by now.
As you point out every lens is like this is some way or ways. It's up to us as the photographer to recognize them and act accordingly. Some are easy to get as in the example of the 85/1.2 L while others take a little thought and planning as in the case of the Rokkor 58/1.2 or this FL 58/1.2 etc. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tesselator
Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 235 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tesselator wrote:
[center]
My Friend Rests
Canon FL 58mm F/1.2 (F/1.2 1/80s, ISO100)
[/center] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RTI
Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau
|
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: One for sale... |
|
|
RTI wrote:
Pardon me, but that doesn't look "mint" to me, and the price is exaggerated...
P.S.
It's strange, to me at least, seeing someone advertising a lens, and providing photos taken with a different copy. _________________ Cameras: Canon 5DIII, Zorki-4, Canon AE-1
MF:Rokkor 58/1.2, Rokkor MC 58/1.4, Yashica ML 50/1.7, M39 Jupiter-9 (silver 1955), Zuiko 35-70/3.6
AF: Sigma Art 35/1.4, Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JerryMK
Joined: 16 Apr 2009 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:57 pm Post subject: Removed. |
|
|
JerryMK wrote:
Pardon me, but that doesn't look "mint" to me, and the price is exaggerated...
P.S.
It's strange, to me at least, seeing someone advertising a lens, and providing photos taken with a different copy.[/quote]
You are right. Just ignore my offer.
P.S. I always investigate a lenses possibilities by searching for photo results on this forum or even flickr for example. Sure each copy is different but it does give you an idea. Why else are we looking at results in this forum?
Last edited by JerryMK on Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tesselator
Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 235 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tesselator wrote:
I have to agree. All this business about sample variation is 90% BS. It happens sometimes but relatively almost never. I have 2, 3 and 4 copies of some lenses (in my collection of 350 lenses) and they're all identical! I have 3 copies of this FL 58/1.2 and while the exterior conditions vary the images they produce are absolutely identical.
I agree that ebay copy isn't mint though. I used to coin-collect and the ratings go:
Mint
Uncirculated
Excellent
Very good
Good
Poor
Very poor.
Mint means never touched by human hands.
Uncirculated means maybe touched but only to place it in a jacket or something.
Excellent mean it's been touched but there are almost no signs of wear or dirt.
...and so on.
In reality there is no such thing as a lens in "mint" condition. They have all been tested and used even NIB (New In Box) ones. Lens ratings are something I distain somewhat. That ebay lens for example rates as "good" from the lost above IMO. One can clearly see the massive amounts of dirt in the ribbed knuckling of the focus ring as well as scratches and dirt in the filter threads.
The price is not too exaggerated IMO tho. A little bit maybe. They seem to go for $150 to $350. Where $150 is fully operable but in poor condition and $350 is all original parts (hood and caps), box, and all in excellent condition. When I sell mine I'll want about $250ea. for them and I'll get it too. I recently sold one actually - but it was returned - I got $290 with shipping for it. He returned it cuz he hates pre-set aperture systems and shortly after arrival it developed a spot of oil on the aperture blades. And also I'm cool that way... if the price is over about $150 I'll accept returns without question for about a month as long as they pay for the shipping. In the above case he gave me a really nice 12mm C-Mount lens (unasked!) to cover the shipping. I was happily surprised when I opened the box and found a new toy to play with! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16544 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
MODERATOR CHIMES IN:
Jerry, there is a place here for such ads, called MARKETPLACE.
Please place your ad there and remove this one here! _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Tesselator wrote: |
Mint means never touched by human hands.
Uncirculated means maybe touched but only to place it in a jacket or something.
Excellent mean it's been touched but there are almost no signs of wear or dirt.
...and so on.
In reality there is no such thing as a lens in "mint" condition. They have all been tested and used even NIB (New In Box) ones. Lens ratings are something I distain somewhat. That ebay lens for example rates as "good" from the lost above IMO. One can clearly see the massive amounts of dirt in the ribbed knuckling of the focus ring as well as scratches and dirt in the filter threads. |
Camera/lens grading is a subject that's been discussed ad nauseum since long before the Internet was around. It uses the same labels as coin condition ratings do, but definitely not the same grading system. And even that will vary between those doing the grading. I would expect any camera or lens with a "good" condition rating to actually be very ugly looking, with very heavy wear on the barrel and focusing collar and probably with prominent scratches in the lens elements. Do I agree with this sort of rating? Hell no, but that's the way it's most often done. Some dealers in used equipment, however, are very strict as to their grading systems. Take KEH for example. Their "Bargain" rating is the equivalent to most other dealers Exc/Exc+ rating, so their Exc rating is likely equivalent to others' Mint rating. And if KEH sells something as Mint, well it might have been handled by human hands before, but it will likely not show a cosmetic flaw or any sort of wear anywhere. Probably won't even have fingerprints. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JerryMK
Joined: 16 Apr 2009 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JerryMK wrote:
kds315* wrote: |
MODERATOR CHIMES IN:
Jerry, there is a place here for such ads, called MARKETPLACE.
Please place your ad there and remove this one here! |
Done! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
FluffPuppy
Joined: 11 Dec 2011 Posts: 365
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FluffPuppy wrote:
Tesselator wrote: |
I have to agree. All this business about sample variation is 90% BS. It happens sometimes but relatively almost never. I have 2, 3 and 4 copies of some lenses (in my collection of 350 lenses) and they're all identical! I have 3 copies of this FL 58/1.2 and while the exterior conditions vary the images they produce are absolutely identical.
|
Well in the earlier days (say, before about 1972), there was some variation due to factors beyond the control of the manufacturers. Variations in glass from batch to batch was a problem. Production methods were more primitive compared to today.
Some of this is discussed here:
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/44/index.htm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fuzzywuzzy
Joined: 18 Dec 2010 Posts: 1258 Location: Down East, Canada, eh?
Expire: 2013-11-30
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fuzzywuzzy wrote:
Tesselator wrote: |
My Friend Rests |
Great shot of your feathered friend! _________________ I welcome C&C, editing my pics and reposting them on the forum is fine.
NEX-F3
~~~~~~~~~
CZJ Sonnar 135/4, Biotar 58/2, Pancolar 50/2, Tessar 50/2.8, Flek 35/2.8, Flek 25/4
Super Takumar 135/2.5, 135/3.5, 100/4 bellows, 50/1.4, 28/3.5
Helios 58/2, 3M-5A 500/8, Mir 20M
Vivitar Series 1 70-210 - - - - - - - - Nikkor 200/4
Rikenon 28/2.8 - - - - - - - - Zeiss 50/1.7 Planar
PB 50/2.4, 135/2.8
Yashica 50/1.9, 28/2.8, 135/2.8
Hexanon 28/3.5, 50/1.4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
joy division
Joined: 20 Dec 2011 Posts: 59 Location: bay area, california
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
joy division wrote:
great googly moogly. i think i love this. _________________ flickr? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tesselator
Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 235 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tesselator wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
Tesselator wrote: |
Mint means never touched by human hands.
Uncirculated means maybe touched but only to place it in a jacket or something.
Excellent mean it's been touched but there are almost no signs of wear or dirt.
...and so on.
In reality there is no such thing as a lens in "mint" condition. They have all been tested and used even NIB (New In Box) ones. Lens ratings are something I distain somewhat. That ebay lens for example rates as "good" from the lost above IMO. One can clearly see the massive amounts of dirt in the ribbed knuckling of the focus ring as well as scratches and dirt in the filter threads. |
Camera/lens grading is a subject that's been discussed ad nauseum since long before the Internet was around. It uses the same labels as coin condition ratings do, but definitely not the same grading system. And even that will vary between those doing the grading. I would expect any camera or lens with a "good" condition rating to actually be very ugly looking, with very heavy wear on the barrel and focusing collar and probably with prominent scratches in the lens elements. Do I agree with this sort of rating? Hell no, but that's the way it's most often done. Some dealers in used equipment, however, are very strict as to their grading systems. Take KEH for example. Their "Bargain" rating is the equivalent to most other dealers Exc/Exc+ rating, so their Exc rating is likely equivalent to others' Mint rating. And if KEH sells something as Mint, well it might have been handled by human hands before, but it will likely not show a cosmetic flaw or any sort of wear anywhere. Probably won't even have fingerprints. |
I agree. But I agree most with your "hell no" sentiment! Most of the dealers you're talking about who use Exc/Exc+ ratings for "good" or "bargain" quality pieces are only rip-offs. Cheaters and snakes should not rule the rating game; honest men should - and let the cheaters and snakes be called cheaters and snakes as it should be.
I think it's very interesting that this kind of "cheating" is most common in the USA where cheating to get ahead is somewhat socially acceptable - the UK to some extent as well. But in other countries like Japan, Germany, Sweden, Finland, and so on where honesty is still prized above "success" by the majority of folks, the ratings go more as you and I seem to agree they should. Hmm, where is KEH located - I wonder. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tesselator
Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 235 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tesselator wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote: |
Tesselator wrote: |
I have to agree. All this business about sample variation is 90% BS. It happens sometimes but relatively almost never. I have 2, 3 and 4 copies of some lenses (in my collection of 350 lenses) and they're all identical! I have 3 copies of this FL 58/1.2 and while the exterior conditions vary the images they produce are absolutely identical.
|
Well in the earlier days (say, before about 1972), there was some variation due to factors beyond the control of the manufacturers. Variations in glass from batch to batch was a problem. Production methods were more primitive compared to today.
Some of this is discussed here:
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/44/index.htm |
Yep, all true. But when one considers both that the VAST majority of lenses in circulation today are post-1973 and, that even in pre-1973 times sample variation to a notable detriment was a considerable exception and not the rule, then my comment claiming "90% BS" falls into reasonable perspective. In my honest estimate anyway - whatever that's worth.
My only qualifiers are that being retired I read a lot and that I test most all of the 450 lenses that I've handled so far in the past thirty or so months of doing it. [The 350 is the number I've kept so far - but all are for sale and all but a few will be sold this year.] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RTI
Joined: 15 Jul 2011 Posts: 282 Location: Moldova, Chisinau
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RTI wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote: |
Tesselator wrote: |
I have to agree. All this business about sample variation is 90% BS. It happens sometimes but relatively almost never. I have 2, 3 and 4 copies of some lenses (in my collection of 350 lenses) and they're all identical! I have 3 copies of this FL 58/1.2 and while the exterior conditions vary the images they produce are absolutely identical.
|
Well in the earlier days (say, before about 1972), there was some variation due to factors beyond the control of the manufacturers. Variations in glass from batch to batch was a problem. Production methods were more primitive compared to today.
Some of this is discussed here:
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/44/index.htm |
So is Canon still in the '70s with the lens production? - http://www.slrgear.com/articles/variation_canon50f14/canon50f14.htm
There are also numerous reports on Sony alpha Russian forums, people choosing from 5 "bad" copies a "least-bad" one... I'd provide links, though I doubt many people here speak or understand Russian. "Sample variation" is still a subject to be considered. _________________ Cameras: Canon 5DIII, Zorki-4, Canon AE-1
MF:Rokkor 58/1.2, Rokkor MC 58/1.4, Yashica ML 50/1.7, M39 Jupiter-9 (silver 1955), Zuiko 35-70/3.6
AF: Sigma Art 35/1.4, Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, |
|
Back to top |
|
|
FluffPuppy
Joined: 11 Dec 2011 Posts: 365
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FluffPuppy wrote:
RTI wrote: |
FluffPuppy wrote: |
Tesselator wrote: |
I have to agree. All this business about sample variation is 90% BS. It happens sometimes but relatively almost never. I have 2, 3 and 4 copies of some lenses (in my collection of 350 lenses) and they're all identical! I have 3 copies of this FL 58/1.2 and while the exterior conditions vary the images they produce are absolutely identical.
|
Well in the earlier days (say, before about 1972), there was some variation due to factors beyond the control of the manufacturers. Variations in glass from batch to batch was a problem. Production methods were more primitive compared to today.
Some of this is discussed here:
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/44/index.htm |
So is Canon still in the '70s with the lens production? - http://www.slrgear.com/articles/variation_canon50f14/canon50f14.htm
There are also numerous reports on Sony alpha Russian forums, people choosing from 5 "bad" copies a "least-bad" one... I'd provide links, though I doubt many people here speak or understand Russian. "Sample variation" is still a subject to be considered. |
Well I'm not surprised at all. This is one of the problems with auto-focussing systems. It's one of the reasons I stay with my manual focus Leica equipment. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Tesselator wrote: |
Hmm, where is KEH located - I wonder. |
Smyrna, Georgia, USA. Smyrna is a suburb of Atlanta, basically.
http://www.keh.com/ _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
etorix
Joined: 05 Oct 2014 Posts: 209 Location: London, England
|
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
etorix wrote:
very nice results from this lens -- or this copy anyway
i found this thread while researching on a copy with the major problem that the diaphragm is not working
im not sure if its worth what is asked
but a good copy might be nice to find, there are a few about it seems |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pavko
Joined: 31 Jan 2011 Posts: 216 Location: PL
|
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pavko wrote:
Quote: |
i found this thread while researching on a copy with the major problem that the diaphragm is not working . I'm not sure if its worth what is asked |
Before you will decide to get it make sure that filter thread is in perfect condition as to service aperture you need to get to this lens from both sides (front and rear). Construction of the aperture is however bullet proof except maybe springs.
BTW. What is asking price? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
etorix
Joined: 05 Oct 2014 Posts: 209 Location: London, England
|
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
etorix wrote:
pavko wrote: |
Quote: |
i found this thread while researching on a copy with the major problem that the diaphragm is not working . I'm not sure if its worth what is asked |
Before you will decide to get it make sure that filter thread is in perfect condition as to service aperture you need to get to this lens from both sides (front and rear). Construction of the aperture is however bullet proof except maybe springs.
BTW. What is asking price? |
sorry, didnt see that you were asking the price, its about 100gbp Click here to see on Ebay
and totally not worth that much to me .. since i can see better copies for not much more |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|