View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
tf
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:46 pm Post subject: True pancake Minolta 45mm f2.8 - the Tessar from 1964 |
|
|
tf wrote:
Hi there ))
I didn't find a dedicated topic about this lens, so opened new with the link to review.
The main idea - almost the same behavior with Carl Zeiss 45/.28 with all the weaknesses of this design, but looks like a good toy for advanced guys )) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
RokkorDoctor
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1389 Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
I have this lens.
A key feature to be aware of is that this lens is not unit focusing.
In order to keep the lens flat there is not enough room for a conventional helicoid for unit focusing with a decent MFD, so this lens focuses by only moving the first (front) element. Even then the MFD isn't great. This trick was often used with these Tessar designs as an engineering "fudge"; as the power of the first element is stronger than the rest of the lens, a usable focus range can be attained by only a very marginal movement of the front element only.
This focus topology comes with a significant drawback though: whilst aberrations are reasonably controlled at infinity (although far from perfect), for shorter focus distances the correction for aberrations becomes severely compromised due to the changing spacing of the first element relative to the other three elements.
At the MFD the lens becomes quite soft with significant SA at f/2.8, and there is also a very significant apparent focus shift near the MFD when stopping the lens down. For short focus distances it is really not recommended to do the focusing at the wide-open f/2.8, and then stop down to take the shot. Setting focus near the MFD needs to be done at f/5.6 or even smaller working apertures. Since the Minolta SR cameras were set up to do the focusing at a wide-open working aperture, I would hazard a guess that the practical focus problems of using this lens near the MFD contributed to this lens' ultimate demise in Minolta's line-up (to be "replaced" some years later in 1978 by the optically much better MD ROKKOR 45mm f/2 ) _________________ Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
lattesweden
Joined: 05 Sep 2017 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 5:00 pm Post subject: Re: True pancake Minolta 45mm f2.8 - the Tessar from 1964 |
|
|
lattesweden wrote:
tf wrote: |
Hi there ))
I didn't find a dedicated topic about this lens, so opened new with the link to review.
The main idea - almost the same behavior with Carl Zeiss 45/.28 with all the weaknesses of this design, but looks like a good toy for advanced guys )) |
Anyone knows how it stands vs an Industar 50-2 50 mm f3.5 M42 lens (that also can be mounted on Minolta bodys via the Minolta P-adapter)?
Last edited by lattesweden on Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
tf
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tf wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote: |
I have this lens.
A key feature to be aware of is that this lens is not unit focusing.
In order to keep the lens flat there is not enough room for a conventional helicoid for unit focusing with a decent MFD, so this lens focuses by only moving the first (front) element. Even then the MFD isn't great. This trick was often used with these Tessar designs as an engineering "fudge"; as the power of the first element is stronger than the rest of the lens, a usable focus range can be attained by only a very marginal movement of the front element only.
This focus topology comes with a significant drawback though: whilst aberrations are reasonably controlled at infinity (although far from perfect), for shorter focus distances the correction for aberrations becomes severely compromised due to the changing spacing of the first element relative to the other three elements.
At the MFD the lens becomes quite soft with significant SA at f/2.8, and there is also a very significant apparent focus shift near the MFD when stopping the lens down. For short focus distances it is really not recommended to do the focusing at the wide-open f/2.8, and then stop down to take the shot. Setting focus near the MFD needs to be done at f/5.6 or even smaller working apertures. Since the Minolta SR cameras were set up to do the focusing at a wide-open working aperture, I would hazard a guess that the practical focus problems of using this lens near the MFD contributed to this lens' ultimate demise in Minolta's line-up (to be "replaced" some years later in 1978 by the optically much better MD ROKKOR 45mm f/2 ) |
omg.
RokkorDoctor, can I add these your words as quote to the review? With any credentials or links to your resources of course. If not - everything is OK, no questions.
I can't believe I didn't notice focusing with the front lens (twice! The first my case was with Yashika 45/2.![Cool](images/smiles/icon_cool.gif) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
eggplant
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 27 May 2020 Posts: 517
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eggplant wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote: |
I have this lens.
A key feature to be aware of is that this lens is not unit focusing.
In order to keep the lens flat there is not enough room for a conventional helicoid for unit focusing with a decent MFD, so this lens focuses by only moving the first (front) element. Even then the MFD isn't great. This trick was often used with these Tessar designs as an engineering "fudge"; as the power of the first element is stronger than the rest of the lens, a usable focus range can be attained by only a very marginal movement of the front element only.
This focus topology comes with a significant drawback though: whilst aberrations are reasonably controlled at infinity (although far from perfect), for shorter focus distances the correction for aberrations becomes severely compromised due to the changing spacing of the first element relative to the other three elements.
At the MFD the lens becomes quite soft with significant SA at f/2.8, and there is also a very significant apparent focus shift near the MFD when stopping the lens down. For short focus distances it is really not recommended to do the focusing at the wide-open f/2.8, and then stop down to take the shot. Setting focus near the MFD needs to be done at f/5.6 or even smaller working apertures. Since the Minolta SR cameras were set up to do the focusing at a wide-open working aperture, I would hazard a guess that the practical focus problems of using this lens near the MFD contributed to this lens' ultimate demise in Minolta's line-up (to be "replaced" some years later in 1978 by the optically much better MD ROKKOR 45mm f/2 ) |
Very interesting- seen a few that do this before, but never this wide. Infact, slightly wider SLR lenses that are still triplets/D-Gauss seem to struggle with aberrations (see Konica 40mm f1.8 ), so pairing it with front focusing bit of a recipe for disaster. Although not as bad as I envisioned in the review, it's clearly at the limits of acceptability even for the time it was made.
Of course with modern mirrorless you could stick this on a nice helicoid and unit focus it. I would love to see someone do this and document how the performance improves... |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
RokkorDoctor
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1389 Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
tf wrote: |
RokkorDoctor wrote: |
I have this lens.
A key feature to be aware of is that this lens is not unit focusing.
In order to keep the lens flat there is not enough room for a conventional helicoid for unit focusing with a decent MFD, so this lens focuses by only moving the first (front) element. Even then the MFD isn't great. This trick was often used with these Tessar designs as an engineering "fudge"; as the power of the first element is stronger than the rest of the lens, a usable focus range can be attained by only a very marginal movement of the front element only.
This focus topology comes with a significant drawback though: whilst aberrations are reasonably controlled at infinity (although far from perfect), for shorter focus distances the correction for aberrations becomes severely compromised due to the changing spacing of the first element relative to the other three elements.
At the MFD the lens becomes quite soft with significant SA at f/2.8, and there is also a very significant apparent focus shift near the MFD when stopping the lens down. For short focus distances it is really not recommended to do the focusing at the wide-open f/2.8, and then stop down to take the shot. Setting focus near the MFD needs to be done at f/5.6 or even smaller working apertures. Since the Minolta SR cameras were set up to do the focusing at a wide-open working aperture, I would hazard a guess that the practical focus problems of using this lens near the MFD contributed to this lens' ultimate demise in Minolta's line-up (to be "replaced" some years later in 1978 by the optically much better MD ROKKOR 45mm f/2 ) |
omg.
RokkorDoctor, can I add these your words as quote to the review? With any credentials or links to your resources of course. If not - everything is OK, no questions.
I can't believe I didn't notice focusing with the front lens (twice! The first my case was with Yashika 45/2.![Cool](images/smiles/icon_cool.gif) |
Sure, no problem! ![Friends](images/smiles/friends.gif) _________________ Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Ernst Dinkla
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 391
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
eggplant wrote: |
RokkorDoctor wrote: |
I have this lens.
A key feature to be aware of is that this lens is not unit focusing.
In order to keep the lens flat there is not enough room for a conventional helicoid for unit focusing with a decent MFD, so this lens focuses by only moving the first (front) element. Even then the MFD isn't great. This trick was often used with these Tessar designs as an engineering "fudge"; as the power of the first element is stronger than the rest of the lens, a usable focus range can be attained by only a very marginal movement of the front element only.
This focus topology comes with a significant drawback though: whilst aberrations are reasonably controlled at infinity (although far from perfect), for shorter focus distances the correction for aberrations becomes severely compromised due to the changing spacing of the first element relative to the other three elements.
At the MFD the lens becomes quite soft with significant SA at f/2.8, and there is also a very significant apparent focus shift near the MFD when stopping the lens down. For short focus distances it is really not recommended to do the focusing at the wide-open f/2.8, and then stop down to take the shot. Setting focus near the MFD needs to be done at f/5.6 or even smaller working apertures. Since the Minolta SR cameras were set up to do the focusing at a wide-open working aperture, I would hazard a guess that the practical focus problems of using this lens near the MFD contributed to this lens' ultimate demise in Minolta's line-up (to be "replaced" some years later in 1978 by the optically much better MD ROKKOR 45mm f/2 ) |
Very interesting- seen a few that do this before, but never this wide. Infact, slightly wider SLR lenses that are still triplets/D-Gauss seem to struggle with aberrations (see Konica 40mm f1.8 ), so pairing it with front focusing bit of a recipe for disaster. Although not as bad as I envisioned in the review, it's clearly at the limits of acceptability even for the time it was made.
Of course with modern mirrorless you could stick this on a nice helicoid and unit focus it. I would love to see someone do this and document how the performance improves... |
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4505782 shows images and a discussion on intended spherical aberration effects obtained with a front cell focusing triplet Agfa Apotar 105mm 4.5 mounted on bellows.
If the aim is to get a better image quality of the front cell focusing Tessar or Triplet design by making it unit focusing then the front cell could be set at a distance of 40x the focal length of the lens and fixed there. That seems to be the object distance these front cell focusing lenses are optimised for and deliver acceptable results when focused closer or further away.
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/front-cell-focusing-optimal-distance-setting.58647/ _________________ Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
tf
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
tf wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote: |
Sure, no problem! ![Friends](images/smiles/friends.gif) |
Thank you a lot!
Posted |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
RokkorDoctor
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1389 Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote: |
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4505782 shows images and a discussion on intended spherical aberration effects obtained with a front cell focusing triplet Agfa Apotar 105mm 4.5 mounted on bellows.
If the aim is to get a better image quality of the front cell focusing Tessar or Triplet design by making it unit focusing then the front cell could be set at a distance of 40x the focal length of the lens and fixed there. That seems to be the object distance these front cell focusing lenses are optimised for and deliver acceptable results when focused closer or further away.
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/front-cell-focusing-optimal-distance-setting.58647/ |
Wow, that's quite a thread!
Optimising the image quality like that is also affected by residual field curvature.
E.g. from the notes in the Minolta service manuals for their ROKKOR lenses it is obvious that not all their lenses have exactly the same focus/mount register, but rather the target register is "tweaked' by up to 20 microns depending on the lens model to allow for the residual field curvature. That is, for some lens models the paraxial (center) image point is allowed to focus by up to 20 microns beyond the film plane (i.e. beyond "infinity").
Obviously that correction only works with the focus set for infinity; for shorter focus distances the user is likely to set focus by means of the focus aids in the center of the focus screen anyway, thus completely "undoing" the register tweak designed to accommodate the residual field curvature.
In theory for those relevant ROKKOR lenses with significant residual field curvature, focusing for a flat subject should be done with reference to some circular band surrounding the center of the image rather than the center of the image itself. In practice it will suffice to use the center focus aids, but then turn the focus ring a minute amount towards the infinity mark in order to achieve the approximately 10-20 micron register shift. But one has to be sure first that the lens model in question needs that shift; not all of them do.
This is now getting well off-topic though..., apologies to the OP! ![Wink](images/smiles/icon_wink.gif) _________________ Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
tf
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tf wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote: |
This is now getting well off-topic though..., apologies to the OP! ![Wink](images/smiles/icon_wink.gif) |
I do not understand how such interesting and necessary information can be offtopic. Thank you very much for the explanation! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
iangreenhalgh1
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Schneider Xenar 2.8/45 is a wonderful lens, as is the Zeiss Tessar 2.8/45, both were common on fixed lens cameras. the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 2.8/45 is a cracker too. So there is no reason why a 45mm lens (although I suspect most are closer to 43.2mm) shouldn't be excellent. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
RokkorDoctor
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1389 Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
The Schneider Xenar 2.8/45 is a wonderful lens, as is the Zeiss Tessar 2.8/45, both were common on fixed lens cameras. the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 2.8/45 is a cracker too. So there is no reason why a 45mm lens (although I suspect most are closer to 43.2mm) shouldn't be excellent. |
Of course.
The issue with this Minolta Rokkor TD 45mm f/2.8 for the SR mount is that they clearly tried to make the form factor as flat as possible, to get a true "pancake" lens, which involved a compromise focus topology.
The same Minolta Rokkor TD 45mm f/2.8 was also used in a number of their fixed-lens rangefinder cameras. From what I have seen it performs much better there, so probably those were made unit focusing, giving a much better IQ over a wide range of focus distances. This however is conjecture rather than me knowing for sure. _________________ Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Ernst Dinkla
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 391
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
The Schneider Xenar 2.8/45 is a wonderful lens, as is the Zeiss Tessar 2.8/45, both were common on fixed lens cameras. the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 2.8/45 is a cracker too. So there is no reason why a 45mm lens (although I suspect most are closer to 43.2mm) shouldn't be excellent. |
Odd, I measured several fixed 45mm lenses of compact cameras and two were a bit shorter, more with longer focal lengths though.
I love the Color Skopar 50mm 2.8 of a Vito BL on my A7RII but I was not aware that there are compact cameras with a 45mm 2.8 or 3.5 Color Skopar, could not find them either.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63926652 for some images _________________ Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
iangreenhalgh1
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Brain fart, I should have written Color-Apotar 2.8/45, commonly seen on AGFA cameras.
Unit focussing is definitely superior, moving the front two elements apart for focussing changes the level of corrrections, especially of SA and softens the image somewhat due to a diffuse glow. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
D1N0
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2530
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Pentax's take
SMC Pentax-M 40mm 1:2.8 by The lens profile, on Flickr
SMC Pentax-M 40mm 1:2.8 by The lens profile, on Flickr
It is rear focussing. Looks like an adapted tessar with extra rear element.
![](https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/data/27/smc_Pentax-M_40_2_8_070106_65k_optics.jpg) _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Ernst Dinkla
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 391
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Brain fart, I should have written Color-Apotar 2.8/45, commonly seen on AGFA cameras.
Unit focussing is definitely superior, moving the front two elements apart for focussing changes the level of corrrections, especially of SA and softens the image somewhat due to a diffuse glow. |
That is a Triplet, not a Tessar type. _________________ Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
RokkorDoctor
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1389 Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
Judging from the proportions the Minolta is still quite a bit thinner than that. Hence the need for a compromised focus topology. Honestly, I'm not sure why the Minolta designers went to such extremes to try and make it that thin. I mean the end-product was obviously compromised optically... _________________ Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
D1N0
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2530
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
1 mm difference. The minolta is 17mm, Pentax 18mm. _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
RokkorDoctor
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1389 Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
D1N0 wrote: |
1 mm difference. The minolta is 17mm, Pentax 18mm. |
Ha!, I only just realised what I thought was part of the Pentax lens was actually part of the rear lens cap
So yes, not much difference... ![Wink](images/smiles/icon_wink.gif) _________________ Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
D1N0
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2530
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Must get some low profile caps ![Wink](images/smiles/icon_wink.gif) _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Sakyaputta
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 01 Feb 2022 Posts: 59 Location: Beijing, China
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sakyaputta wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote: |
A key feature to be aware of is that this lens is not unit focusing................
|
You ROCK, Mark! 🤘🤘🤘 You're an excellent example of a true collector who does make images with and knows the myriad technical intricacies of the gear.
Thank you for the education. RESPECT! 🙠|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
iangreenhalgh1
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Brain fart, I should have written Color-Apotar 2.8/45, commonly seen on AGFA cameras.
Unit focussing is definitely superior, moving the front two elements apart for focussing changes the level of corrrections, especially of SA and softens the image somewhat due to a diffuse glow. |
That is a Triplet, not a Tessar type. |
I have one that is a Tessar, AGFA had lots of lens names, they might not have been so strict about what was called what and used the names to denote price bands more than anything else. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
|