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

Teleplus MC7 2X Macro Converter
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
The Canon mirror is a decent optic. As for 135s, that Canon 135/3.5 is a real sleeper. And if you have the Vivitar 135/2.8 with the 62mm front filter, ie the close-focus model, that's an outstanding lens. Dunno about the others. But I think I read it here years ago that nobody's made a bad 135. Not my opinion, just reporting.


I have the FL 3.5/135 and it is outstanding as well
I posted some images from it somewhere here under "the other sonnar".
Will see if I can find them
T


The breech lock FD 135mm f3.5 is very good and so too the Vivitar non CF 135mm f2.8..but as already mentioned there aren't too many bad 135mms around and if you have a thread of the not so good ones and one particular one is mentioned, there would probably be someone who will say "well my copy is very good" Sad


PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
The Canon mirror is a decent optic. As for 135s, that Canon 135/3.5 is a real sleeper. And if you have the Vivitar 135/2.8 with the 62mm front filter, ie the close-focus model, that's an outstanding lens. Dunno about the others. But I think I read it here years ago that nobody's made a bad 135. Not my opinion, just reporting.


I have the FL 3.5/135 and it is outstanding as well
I posted some images from it somewhere here under "the other sonnar".
Will see if I can find them
T


The breech lock FD 135mm f3.5 is very good and so too the Vivitar non CF 135mm f2.8..but as already mentioned there aren't too many bad 135mms around and if you have a thread of the not so good ones and one particular one is mentioned, there would probably be someone who will say "well my copy is very good" Sad


Yes that is quite likely so. Smile
I have owned a lot of 135mm lenses over the years and there was a time when they were sooooo cheap that they were basically given away.
I tried all of them and never ever found a truly bad one. It came down to degrees of goodness.
It really must have been quite difficult to make a bad 135mm lens
Smile
Tom


PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've had a few bad 135s, usually branded with names like Prinz, Prinz Galaxy and Hanimex. The worst of the lot was a Vivitar 2.3/135 Series 1, it looked mint, like it had never been used but shot like the bottom of a beer glass so it must have left the factory like that, obviously QC was not the best.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I've had a few bad 135s, usually branded with names like Prinz, Prinz Galaxy and Hanimex. The worst of the lot was a Vivitar 2.3/135 Series 1, it looked mint, like it had never been used but shot like the bottom of a beer glass so it must have left the factory like that, obviously QC was not the best.


Interesting that you should say that Ian.
I owned one of these some time back, and I had bought it based on its reputation and speed, as well as seeing some images taken by others with it.
Mine wasn't "bad", but it wasn't great.
It was particularly poor wide open.
I had other 135's that were better - some very much better - so I sold it.
Yes - it too looked to be near original - but it was a disappointment for me in use.
And heavy - I forgot to mention that
Tom


PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:

I have owned a lot of 135mm lenses over the years and there was a time when they were sooooo cheap that they were basically given away.
I tried all of them and never ever found a truly bad one. It came down to degrees of goodness.
It really must have been quite difficult to make a bad 135mm lens


I've made a comparison of 10 different 135mm lenses earlier this year and my conclusion was that almost every lens is able to deliver sharp and contrasty pictures as soon as stopped down accordingly. In essence the real differences are visible when used wide open. There the differences are sometimes very big and obvious. My conclusion therefore: When used wide open there are indeed some "bad" 135mm lenses around. When used stopped down around F8 there are only good to excellent lenses. Wink
However, I don't have any "no-names" in my collection.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I've had a few bad 135s, usually branded with names like Prinz, Prinz Galaxy and Hanimex. The worst of the lot was a Vivitar 2.3/135 Series 1, it looked mint, like it had never been used but shot like the bottom of a beer glass so it must have left the factory like that, obviously QC was not the best.


Interesting that you should say that Ian.
I owned one of these some time back, and I had bought it based on its reputation and speed, as well as seeing some images taken by others with it.
Mine wasn't "bad", but it wasn't great.
It was particularly poor wide open.
I had other 135's that were better - some very much better - so I sold it.
Yes - it too looked to be near original - but it was a disappointment for me in use.
And heavy - I forgot to mention that
Tom


Yes, it is a very heavy beast. I suspect the QC of the producer was spotty at best, mine was probably improperly assembled, it was so bad it must have had something seriously wrong with it.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Don't get me wrong in regard to the Vivitar Series 1 2.3/135, it produced very good images from around f5.6 onwards.
But so did almost every other 135mm lens that I had owned.
The only reason for purchasing it was for its supposed excellence at wider and open apertures.
Mine did not deliver on that hope, and it was very heavy to boot.
From f4 onwards it was no different from others that I had, and worse than some.
There was no point in my keeping this copy and so I sold it.
Now, like Ian's, this may not have been the case in all examples of this lens, and I have to say that I have seen some excellent results from other shooters.
So Ian's thoughts on spotty QC are probably correct.
Tom


PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is as unscientific as it gets, I had a few minutes and went int the garden with the Sony A6000, two Teleplus MC7 Macro, a Canon 135 / 3.5 and a PK mount Vivitar 135 / 2.8. The sun went behind the clouds, and my mate turned up so we drank beer instead of researching lenses.
All these were shot at f8 I think, with both lenses wide open was poor, difficult, as was fully stopped down. Hand held, different IS0's as the light changed. No sharpening, just Auto Colour in Faststone and resize.

Canon




Vivitar




The Teleplus is OK, it's something that can get decent enough results for someone that isn't shooting macro seriously and needing the very results. And I'm sure that better light, a tripod and more care in taking the picture would produce better results. I wouldn't discount these converters.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looking about for another lens of mine that had a Nikon adapter.
Here are a couple of shots taken with a P6 mount Biometar 120mm f2.8 and the Macro Teleplus MC7
T


#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Thomas, and all. Very Happy
As I saw your great results, I searched for one. Here it is in front of me in Canon FD mount waiting for a trial.
For 10£ I coulnd't find better.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Olivier wrote:
Thank you Thomas, and all. Very Happy
As I saw your great results, I searched for one. Here it is in front of me in Canon FD mount waiting for a trial.
For 10� I coulnd't find better.

Well done Olivier.
Yes they have been very cheap in the past - I am glad that you found one
Tom
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2