View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
janandhiscamera
Joined: 18 Jul 2014 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:02 am Post subject: Maybe the worst lens of the world Hanimex Hanimar 28mm 1:2.8 |
|
|
janandhiscamera wrote:
The Hanimex Hanimar M.C. auto f=28 1:2.8 is a wide-angle lens for the M42 to screw mount, with the worst sharpness I have ever seen.
There is also a video version of this review on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/fiZAnU2FDdY
Sharpness:
At F/2.8 the images are so blurry that everything is out of focus. It gets better if you step the lens down, but it never reaches a good sharpness. In sunlight flares also reduce the contrast.
All Images are 100% crops.
Image center @ F/2.8
Image center @ F/5.6
At maximum aperture there is a huge amount of ghosting.
Image center @ F/2.8
To show you how bad this lens is, I compared it to the well known 25mm CCTV lens which can bought for 25$ new. Even at the image borders this cheapo is sharper than the Hanimex Hanimar.
Hanimex Hanimar, image border @ F/8
25mm CCTV lens, image border @ F/8
Last edited by janandhiscamera on Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PhantomLord
Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 472 Location: Szczecin, Poland
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:08 am Post subject: Re: Maybe the worst lens of the world Hanimex Hanimar 28mm 1 |
|
|
PhantomLord wrote:
Hi and welcome.
Simple post to overcome anti-spam of the forum and allow us to see your photos.
janandhiscamera wrote: |
The Hanimex Hanimar M.C. auto f=28 1:2.8 is a wide-angle lens for the M42 to screw mount, with the worst sharpness I have ever seen.
There is also a video version of this review on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/fiZAnU2FDdY
Sharpness:
At F/2.8 the images are so blurry that everything is out of focus. It gets better if you step the lens down, but it never reaches a good sharpness. In sunlight flares also reduce the contrast.
All Images are 100% crops.
Image center @ F/2.8
Image center @ F/5.6
At maximum aperture there is a huge amount of ghosting.
Image center @ F/2.8
To show you how bad this lens is, I compared it to the well known 25mm CCTV lens which can bought for 25$ new. Even at the image borders this cheapo is sharper than the Hanimex Hanimar.
Hanimex Hanimar, image border @ F/8
25mm CCTV lens, image border @ F/8
|
_________________ Mateusz
No good story ever starts with drinking tea.
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mateuszmolik/sets/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3705 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
Did you consider a defect? Can you show a lens photo? _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TAo2
Joined: 09 Mar 2012 Posts: 319 Location: Scotland
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
TAo2 wrote:
Looks like a loose element in the lens,or , the lens has been disassembled for cleaning and re-assembled incorrectly. The flower shot looks like it's inside the minimum focus distance as well... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
h00py
Joined: 17 Jul 2014 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
h00py wrote:
i don't know if this is same lens (wide angle)
but this is one i have and a few shots of,not great but way better than your own,so maybe an element is in back to front
mine is minolta md fit and used on a nikon3100 with adapter with a glass element
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Basilisk
Joined: 21 Mar 2013 Posts: 356 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Basilisk wrote:
Don't know if you intended this thread to be about the worst lenses in the world, maybe just the worst 28mm lenses. I have a Sunagor 28mm f2.8, which in later versions looks quite like your Hanimex, though I have an earlier M42 version. It is pretty bad, but I might use it for retro flary effects. The coatings are either poor or non-existent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GillCrin
Joined: 03 Apr 2014 Posts: 7 Location: Scotland
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GillCrin wrote:
Well back in the early 80's when I was in the retail trade, Hanimex was commonly referred to as "Ham 'n' Eggs" or "Hamster Eggs".
They were the worst things we sold by some distance, and they were the only thing we would'nt take back in as trade-ins.
The rep though was a nice guy, and they were as cheap as a Hoya filter wholesale, so heaps of them were bought by head office. The primes were bad, but the zooms were truly dire. _________________ "Your talk," I said, "is surely the handiwork of wisdom because not one word of it do I understand."
― Flann O'Brien, The Third Policeman
http://scotgillespie.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Nothing surprising to me here, I've had a few third party cheapo primes that were as rotten as this one. Hanimex is a brand to avoid, it was cheap and often nasty stuff. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 2167 Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
There were indeed some pretty poor Hanimex lenses but, to be fair, many of the earlier ones from the 1960s were actually quite good -so I think it's a brand to approach with caution rather than automatically avoid. _________________ Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2187 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
However, I too think this lens has issues, rather than being this bad by itself.
Not that I am a fan of third party cheapo stuff, but this is just too bad, according to my experience with similar level lenses. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GillCrin
Joined: 03 Apr 2014 Posts: 7 Location: Scotland
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GillCrin wrote:
Yip the time I'm talking about exactly matches the livery of this lens black with the almost neon green line rear the front rim. they came in glossy Green and Black boxes with a shot of the lens on the front if memory serves me right.
At that time the only new m42 lenses we sold were these, Sun and Hoya (and adaptall II mounts).
The Suns were all primes and old but fast designs, but were probably the best of the fixed mounts - they were Grey imports from the Malaysia I think, so not general European stock - they had Gold boxes. Not seen any since though, batch of probably 250-500 across all m42, nikon, canon, and pk.
Amateur Photographer liked Hoya's so they went like hotcakes, we didn't know why.
However, we never had any problem selling anyone up to a Tamron. _________________ "Your talk," I said, "is surely the handiwork of wisdom because not one word of it do I understand."
― Flann O'Brien, The Third Policeman
http://scotgillespie.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Hoyas, with a couple of exceptions are Tokinas. Some of them like the 2.8/24 and 2.8/28 are pretty good, but some like the 3.5/200, 4.5/300 and 5.6/400 were poor. The zooms were very mixed, the better ones like the 3.5/35-105 were quite good, but many were pretty mediocre, the 75-260 springs to mind. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
My mint Hanimex 28mm f2.8 is also crap on a film camera...avoid _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
janandhiscamera
Joined: 18 Jul 2014 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
janandhiscamera wrote:
Pancolart wrote: |
Did you consider a defect? Can you show a lens photo? |
Hello,
yes I considered a defect. But the lens looks perfectly fine, there is no damage on the outside and the lenses are clean and in a good condition.
Here are two pictures of the lens (I hope it works this time):
[
[/img] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
janandhiscamera
Joined: 18 Jul 2014 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
janandhiscamera wrote:
TAo2 wrote: |
The flower shot looks like it's inside the minimum focus distance as well... |
I am not sure what you mean, but I did not move the lens too close, the lens is just always that blurry at F/2.8.
The lens also shows no signs of beeing disassambled, however this is a possiblity. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Lots of little bits of money can be spent acquiring cheap lenses when just a little more can get you a very good lens. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nukemall
Joined: 24 Apr 2012 Posts: 96 Location: Blagoveschensk, Russia
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
nukemall wrote:
This 28/2.8 is a first lens manufactured by Samyang at the end of 1970s.
It's always bad and any who try to use it "considered a defect", like with other early Samyang lenses(35/2.8, 135/2..
This lenses selled under over the 9000 "garbage" trademarks like "Eagle", "Underground" etc etc, also as "Rokinon", "Hanimex", "Sears" and "Revuenon".
Other worst lenses manufactured by Samyang:
"Chinon" 35/2.8 (ordered by Chinon USA)
Real japanese Chinon 35/2.8, see "Japan" on the nameplate ring:
Other 28/2.8(late model)
35/2.8
And worser 135/2.8 ever produced:
[img][/img]
Briefly: if you see on the old lens "Made in Korea" - throw it away. Samyang start to manufacture good lenses at 2009 with 85/1.4, any earlier is crap. _________________ My blog |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
It always amazes me when you pick up a mint lens made in the 70's/80s and get bad results, e.g. Osawa 28mm /f2.8 as the formula for the lens elements were well known.....so it's either crap glass used or the elements were badly made or incorrect assembly in the factory or combo of all. In mass production you'd think they would get it right and any 28mm lens should be at least decent. _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3705 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
nukemall wrote: |
This 28/2.8 is a first lens manufactured by Samyang at the end of 1970s.
|
Valuable info, thanks. _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The only Korean made old lens that is any good is the common 2.8/135, lots of people have had good copies, myself included. The 28s and 35s are very common and crap. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gerald
Joined: 25 Mar 2014 Posts: 1196 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerald wrote:
nukemall wrote: |
Briefly: if you see on the old lens "Made in Korea" - throw it away. Samyang start to manufacture good lenses at 2009 with 85/1.4, any earlier is crap. |
Erwin Puts likes to say that "to get a good idea of how a lens performs we need to take at least 500 pictures."
Well, 5 pictures are enough for some lenses. _________________ If raindrops were perfect lenses, the rainbow did not exist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Gerald wrote: |
nukemall wrote: |
Briefly: if you see on the old lens "Made in Korea" - throw it away. Samyang start to manufacture good lenses at 2009 with 85/1.4, any earlier is crap. |
Erwin Puts likes to say that "to get a good idea of how a lens performs we need to take at least 500 pictures."
Well, 5 pictures are enough for some lenses. |
Puts was talking about high-end lenses so your comment is unwarranted in this case. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014 Posts: 2971 Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
I got a hanimex 135 with a "lot" of other camera junk I was interested in. The mount (exakta) was bent and it rattled when I picked it up.so I thought I'll dismantle it to see what is inside. Pure crap. PVC tubes, slot in inner tube as helical. plastic everything except for a few (very damn few) screws. My guess is the weight of the lens bent the mounting plate. Amazingly shoddy. The Yashica DSB 50 1.9 on the broken ML 1000 though? Very nice indeed. _________________ photos are moments frozen in time |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4745 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
Your Minolta/Nikon adapter has got a lens in it. That reduces image quality somewhat at full aperture, making an already bad lens worse. I use a silmilar adapter but I use Rokkors on my D3200, 2 stops down they are fine but yours.... _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|