Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Meyer-Optik Goerlitz Orestor 2.8/100 Yet another post
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry, I meant in the Mayer line.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Lightshow"]
woodrim wrote:


Is the symbol on the ID ring of this lens(a 1 in a triangle) the same as the 1Q ?
Also, did the zebra version ever come with the red V coating? Specifically the Exakta version.



Thanks in advance.


1 in triangle is not the same as Q1. It is a step below. Must not mean the optical quality.
A product of the GDR that had the Q1, could loose it when there were not positive changings in design, improvement in production (lowewr costs, saving material...)
after a time. So you can find the same Tessar with Q1 and a later one with 1 in triangle. They simply did not change the design, production run... durimg a special time. A product had to stay innovative to keep the Q1.
There is no black zebra from meyer with a V.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
Sorry, I meant in the Mayer line.

You should go for the 135mm f/2.8 Orestor. It comes with a interchangeable mount and is a really good performer. There is also the Primotar 135mm f/3.5 but the Orestor-looking zebra version is very rare. Optically it is very soft and glowy wide open but has trioplan-like bubble bokeh. I don't know much about the zebra Orestegor 200mm f/4 (I don't use such long mflenses).


PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the replies, cheers!


PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow lens so mint my eyes hurt!

I bought this lens last year but never used it. It's also the zebra 1 triangle version.

What do you mean by "star wars" dept of field?


PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
Sorry, I meant in the Mayer line.

I would say the Trioplan 2.8/100, the Orestor 2.8/135 and the Orestegor 4/200 which is very light, handful and give good results.

Orestegor 200mm f4 to f22, Minimum focusing distance 2,40m, filter diameter 58mm, weight 594 grs, 16 blades diaph.

Orestegor 4/200 on Canon Eos 40D a few years ago :


PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Woodrim, what great punchy images you provided! The in-focus is just perfect, almost palpable. For my taste, the bokeh is a bit too charged. But when the shots spread joy and pleasure as yours, that does not matter.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
alex ph wrote:
Woodrim, what great punchy images you provided! The in-focus is just perfect, almost palpable. For my taste, the bokeh is a bit too charged. But when the shots spread joy and pleasure as yours, that does not matter.


Thank you, Alex. The focusing is made possible by the magnification feature of the Sony mirrorless. Without that, my eyes would fail more often than succeed.

Bokeh is the result of several factors. The lens is the biggest influence but distances both before and after the subject in focus also contribute greatly. I should also mention the busyness of the background too. The Orestor is capable of creamy background in the right circumstances. Some of my lenses that provide the most interesting (artsy) bokeh, will also render some of the ugliest bokeh in those bad combinations of distance and background.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the same lens m42 and exacta mount your kens better both of them


PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is the zebra better or the newerr version better (image quality)


PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vanylapep wrote:
Is the zebra better or the newerr version better (image quality)


That's a good question. I wonder myself and have intended to make that comparison. Clearly, the build quality of the newer automatic style is not as good. Specifically, the aperture mechanism is prone to sticking even though there are far fewer blades to the diaphragm.

Optical quality does not appear to suffer in the newer version and in fact is quite good. After using the auto lens wide open before I experienced the aperture stick, I was getting very sharp images. It wasn't until recently that I opened the lens and disabled the aperture (easier than disassembly and repair) that I could use it again. Obviously, I will only use it wide open. The pre-set version can be used as needed. I will try to do a comparison at wide open when time allows.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
vanylapep wrote:
Is the zebra better or the newerr version better (image quality)


That's a good question. I wonder myself and have intended to make that comparison. Clearly, the build quality of the newer automatic style is not as good. Specifically, the aperture mechanism is prone to sticking even though there are far fewer blades to the diaphragm.

Optical quality does not appear to suffer in the newer version and in fact is quite good. After using the auto lens wide open before I experienced the aperture stick, I was getting very sharp images. It wasn't until recently that I opened the lens and disabled the aperture (easier than disassembly and repair) that I could use it again. Obviously, I will only use it wide open. The pre-set version can be used as needed. I will try to do a comparison at wide open when time allows.


Thanks for the info! And please keep us updated for the comparison test!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2