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
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:08 am    Post subject: Meyer-Optik Goerlitz Orestor 2.8/100 Yet another post Reply with quote

I have just received my most recent two purchases, this Meyer and a Vivitar which I'll also post about. I was nervous about the Meyer since I had purchased the later design just before it becoming Pentacon and Attila warned of poor build quality based on his experience with several copies. I'm not usually a very lucky person, but this one is mint condition and seems to operate flawlessly. I have felt lenses that seemed lesser build quality, like the Kalejnar (which is excellent optically). I took some test shots this evening as the sun was setting; nothing special, just tests at wide open. I'll take it out on the weekend for a thorough workout. My first impression of the image quality is much better than I had expected. I think I'm going to like this lens. I only have two complaints, number of aperture blades and it doesn't have a switch for manual.

All at f/2.8





PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can almost smell the varnish on the birdie box Smile


PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JohnBar wrote:
I can almost smell the varnish on the birdie box Smile


Funny you mention that. It was just made and put there that day - as new as can be.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some more from the Orestor...







PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Impressive results


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think people will agree that this later Orestor is quite sharp based on my results posted in this thread. Another thread about Orestor vs. Kalejnar here: http://forum.mflenses.com/kaleinar-vs-orestor-t52606,highlight,%2Borestor.html discussed the lenses more and Attila commented on the poor build quality of this later version. Although mine was in as new condition and operated perfectly, it wasn't long before the aperture stopped working properly. I'll be getting it fixed, but since I learned I had purchased the later version, I've been looking for a good pre-set model. I found one recently and acquired it at a very good price. As with most of my lens purchases, it is with a friend of mine in Europe, so I won't have it for a while. My friend reports that it is in mint condition, for which I am fortunate. I am hopeful it will be as good optically as the one I have now. 100mm is probably my strongest focal length with several lenses of very high quality that are hard to rank. Makes it difficult to part with any.

The case that came with this new purchase has more wear than the lens, and also has two tags on it; one appears to be a price tag from the original vendor, and the other is a metal tag as seen in the photo below. MIR has commented that it might represent a Meopta Flexaret VIIa, but neither of us can understand the relationship with this lens. Does anyone else have an idea about the metal tag?






PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some recent images from my preset version taken at Middleton Plantation, South Carolina.




















PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That last one makes me want to go there..... and sit !

Great little lens

TFS


PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is my favorite Meyer lens, nice samples here Wink


PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow. Impressive.

Not only the lens : the pictures and the photographer.
Congrats.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lovely, the lens does justice to the location. Like 1 small


PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks to all. It is indeed a very good lens. I still want to make a comparison between the two versions when time permits.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woodrim, I wonder which camera you used for these pictures. Could you tell us ?
They are colourful, contrasty and very detailed. Did you post process them a bit ?
Have a merry Christmas.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivier wrote:
Woodrim, I wonder which camera you used for these pictures. Could you tell us ?
They are colourful, contrasty and very detailed. Did you post process them a bit ?
Have a merry Christmas.


I'm sorry. Woodrim has a website with gorgeous photos showing the camera that they made.

http://www.pbase.com/mdlempert/sony

Have a merry Christmas.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
I still want to make a comparison between the two versions when time permits.


fantastic photos. it's very interesting and very important, and I hope not only for me, to know Your opinions about the two versions orestor (may be plus two versions pentacon 100/2.8?).

merry Christmas.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivier wrote:
Woodrim, I wonder which camera you used for these pictures. Could you tell us ?
They are colourful, contrasty and very detailed. Did you post process them a bit ?
Have a merry Christmas.


Oh my, you have caught me. Your question has caused me to think and realize the impact of my processing. First, the camera is my now old Sony NEX-5N. I have only had two interchangeable lens digital cameras (and only two film cameras over the past 45 years). As for the processing, I suppose I'm in the same camp as Atilla in that I show post processed pictures to demonstrate the potential of the lens. I will on occasion show images for comparison sake, but there ae a few reasons I most often show post processed images. I love photography and do it for my own pleasure, not to demonstrate equipment, so my emphasis is almost always on the images. I prepare my images to the best of my ability, which includes the processing they need to achieve what I want for the image. Furthermore, I always shoot 2/3 stop under exposure and correct in processing. My out of camera images always need some correction. Posting them here is always an afterthought. I should also mention that although I make several adjustments in Photoshop, I have years ago stopped sharpening my images in post. I may only do that for images where I missed focus by a small amount.

Olivier having asked the questions caused me to look back and consider what I have done with each image. In doing so I realize that if someone looks at them as raw reflections of the camera and lens, it is only partially accurate. My intention is not to mislead, but to show the best from the lens. The lens does very well. I will explain the modifications so that all can understand what I have done and what they see. In fact, that can be an added benefit here other than just lens assessment which is never on an equal basis, camera to camera.

I do have a routine where I first click auto-contrast, then auto-tone or auto-color to see what I like best. It is often that I choose only contrast, followed by tone and color rarely.Drom there I make other adjustments which I deem necessary. The first image only received cropping and levels adjustment including brightness and contrast and maybe auto-tone.

The second image required more work. As you might imagine, the image has two very different exposure points. I did nothing to the window other than auto-correct, then created a background layer and exposed for the inside image, followed by erasing that area from the top layer and then merging layers. This was necessary in order to create both exposures properly.

The third image received shadow lightening for the window frame followed by a contrast adjustment.

The fourth received contrast, tone, and was cropped vertically from a horizontal image. I was happy with what I got since it was taken at 1/30th with 100mm.

The fifth was just exposure adjustment and crop. It was taken quickly as he decided to come after me.

The sixth received crop and exposure correction.

Seventh - crop and contrast.

Eighth - exposure and color tone adjustment.

Ninth - Oh my. This is a two image merge, crop, shadow lightening, brightness and contrast adjustment, and slight saturation of yellows and red.

True confessions.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sergtum wrote:
woodrim wrote:
I still want to make a comparison between the two versions when time permits.


fantastic photos. it's very interesting and very important, and I hope not only for me, to know Your opinions about the two versions orestor (may be plus two versions pentacon 100/2.8?).

merry Christmas.


I will get to it. Curious myself.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 25, 2016 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you very much Woodrim for your explanations.
It shows the potential of the lens and it has been very interesting to read about your processing.

Except for lenses comparisons, I too have a post processing routine in Lightroom and always make adjustments before posting to show the best of the camera and lens combination.
Like you, I never push post processing too hard : exposition, clarity, detail, highlights, shadows, contrast and some light cropping eventually.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been debating getting one of these lenses, and #2 & #3 have made me make a decision....I let one go last week. But now I'll be chasing the next one in good condition and at a reasonable price. Thanks - great shots, love the light and composition. Well done.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have this lens but my son does.
I borrowed it recently and took some images.
Here they are:
T


#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 small Like 1 small Like 1 small


PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Early or later version?


PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
Early or later version?


Same as yours Michael in Exakta mount
T


PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

A side question that I really should ask in a dedicated thread... which zebra lenses should I look at to go with this lens? Or those I should avoid? Again, in Exakta mount.

Thanks in advance.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:

A side question that I really should ask in a dedicated thread... which zebra lenses should I look at to go with this lens?


The Pancolar 50/2 is a great, compact 50 (because we all need more 50s, right?). Also the "Star Wars" version has a very clever depth of field scale that changes as you adjust aperture. Tuzki with lens

The Flektogon 35/2.8 is great on crop bodies, I'm told the corners aren't great on FF. It also focuses very close (almost macro) so it's a versatile walkabout lens on a crop body.

The Flek 25 and 20 are expensive and flare prone, leave them to the collectors imho.

The Sonnar 135/4 is what you'd expect, not a fast lens but has that great Sonnar rendering.

If you have any interest in super macro the reversed Pancolar is crazy sharp in the middle.