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

Tele Universar 6.3/400
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many of the old preset 400 6.3's were made by Tamron (ergo T mount) & were re-branded & sold under many different names. I had one for my old Minolta SRT 101 back in the mid 70's (was stolen in 1980) & I got one just a few years ago (Spiratone branded) to use with my Nikon D70s...Unless it's very sunny, you will need a sturdy tripod & you can get decent results....I paid about $20 for mine off of eBay. It was listed under an obscure mount (can't remember which) & did not note the fact it was a T mount...The versions listed for Nikon & Pentax used to go for more money but I think as more & more people realize that all they have to do is change out the T mount, prices have kinda equalized


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Scott,

I've heard of the Tamron origin of some 400/6.3's, but I have never been able to verify this.

Tamron definitely was early in the market for cheap long teles with their T-mounts, but the ones that Tamron is known to have made were f/6.9's and f/7.5's - I have and have had several of these. Many were sold under the "Spectra", "Taika", and "Aetna" brands, using the "Coligon" trademark. Others were sold by Soligor and Hanimex. Tamron also made a 400mm f/5.5, also sold under other brands; I have one of these also. But no f/6.3's.

Other makers picked up the T-mount specification very quickly - hence Tokina, Sankor, Kiron, Komine and a dozen other Japanese makers had full lines of T-mount presets out in the 1960's.

The 400/6.3 specifications origin is quite obscure. The first one that is clearly a 400/6.3 T-mount preset of the classic sort is in an ad I saw from about 1963, clearly a Tokina (Tokyo Koki)-made lens, sold under the Taika Cinconar brand. Taika was a distributors brand, generally taken over or related to Aetna. Aetna took over Taikas trademarks like "Coligon", "Rokunar", etc.

Known makes of common 400/6.3's -

Tokina - A very distinctive design, sold under many brand names including Accura, Aetna, Taika, Hanimex, Lentar, Vemar, etc.; plus Mamiya, Ricoh, Petri and Yashica. I think I saw one once as a Soligor. There is also an Auto 400/6.3 Tokina (commonly seen as a T4 Soligor or Vivitar) that looks very different, and possibly a preset version of the Auto Tokina thats also different.

Kawanon (Kawakami) - Another distinctive design - look for the long, smooth, slightly curved forward barrel, the little brother of the 600mm and 800mm's also made by Kawanon. Sold in great numbers apparently under the Astranar brand, primarily by mail order, but also found under other names.

Kalimar/Kaligar - Unknown maker, Kalimar was an importers brand. Some were prest, some Auto-T. Some were sold as Soligors.

Spiratone - Unknown maker, Spiratone was a mail order dealer and distributor. This is of course the classic cheap 400/6.3, and the one pictured on this thread, but it was not the first - the Tokina lens was seen earlier - nor probably the most common. Kawanon/Astranars are actually easier to find. Many brands of course besides Spiratone - Prinz/Galaxy, Cambron, etc.

Komine, Kiron, Itoh, Sankor, and who knows who else also probably made 400/6.3's at some point.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, all very interesting information.
luisalegria wrote:
Physically shorter probably because of a more complex optical formula.

The cheap 400/6.3 lenses are usually four element true telephotos (optical length is shorter than physical length), but they are not extreme telephotos. Uncomplicated and unambitious design often means that good optical results are easier to achieve.

That definition is new to me. Can someone elaborate (or direct me to somewhere it's discussed)? So a lens that's physically shorter than the optical length isn't a true telephoto? What's it called then? I always thought they were all telephotos, and the physical length was a separate issue. Sorry for hijacking the thread.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The term "telephoto" referred to a range of optical designs that achieved a long effective focal length with a shorter actual length of lens.

These were designed originally for view cameras, to allow a long focal length without requiring very long bellows. I have a Wollensak 400/5,6 for 4x5 thats of this type.

So many 400mm lenses are considerably shorter than 400mm measured from the film plane to the front element (or the optical center of the lens formula). Usually a 400mm telephoto requires 4 elements at least.

A lens with a long focal length that requires the full real length is just a long lens.

I have a very long Piesker 400/5.5 for instance, that is not a telephoto. It has two elements in front, and thats it.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Sven.
My Soligor 6.3/400 needs good light too.


My first shots were like yours. Then I managed to take better ones.
Here are some shots taken with it :





wide open


closed few stops


wide open


closed few stops


wide open


closed


and a last one taken in the fields from my car (foggy morning)


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivier:
Thanks for showing some samples. I like the cat photo.
I'm nowhere near the sharpness and contrast you are getting and I doubt if I ever will be with this lens.
It's supposed to be sunny tomorrow. I will have another go at it.

Telephoto or not?
This lens is very close to 400 mm in physical lenght. I look like the neighbourhod papparazzi walking around with it.
It has one lens in the front and a lens group close to the tripod mount. Could be one or two lenses in that rear assembly.