visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10531
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
visualopsins wrote:
Colors pop brightly!
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
chhayanat
Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 242
Location: The Cow Belt
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
chhayanat wrote:
Nearly bought an OM-1 in Hongkong in 1981. Eventually, plumped for the Pentax MX. I had to buy an entire suite of lenses including a 400mm for bird photography. The Zuiko 400mm 6.3 was more expensive than the Pentax-M 400mm f5.6. There was not enough tenure remaining in HK to stagger the purchase. Otherwise, IMHO, the Olympus system had the edge over Pentax at the time. In the long run — and we know where we are in the long run! — the Pentax system has proven to be more resistant to obsolescence. The Pentax-M lenses work on the Pentax DSLRs with riders.
With hindsight I know that the SMC Pentax lenses (aka Pentax K) were of good quality. At the time I did not. Even had I known about the Pentax K lenses at the time, I would have been hard put to find any. Let alone lenses, HK shops changed hands overnight and their product mix too. So just as well that I stuck with Pentax from inertia.
_________________
Chhayanat
Pentax-M 28/2.8; 35/2; 50/1.4; 100/2.8; 80-200/4.5; 400/5.6.
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4; Pancolar 50/1.8 (black).
Film cameras:
Zeiss Ikon Volta 135/6.3 Sonnar 9cm x 12 cm plate/sheet film;
Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 521 75/3.5 Novar (post-War) 6cm x 4.5cm
Pentax MX x 2 (black);
Digital bodies:
Pentax K200D;
Samsung GX-20; |
|
Sciolist
Joined: 29 Mar 2017
Posts: 1445
Location: Scotland
Expire: 2021-04-16
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sciolist wrote:
I wonder if lenses of that era were designed to be the best they could be, or the best they could be with film. Looking at the performance wide open, and accepting the image is created from out of date cheap film (congrats on your processing skills Pete) moved to digital (congrats again), it looks better to my eyes than shots I've seen where the wide open image was straight on to an in-camera sensor. I've read that Leica could ignore ultimate sharpness in favour of other qualities, so I wonder if Olympus was prioritising in favour of what looked best on film.
What prompted me to ask the question was the water under the bridge. It's superb to my eyes. |
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
