View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Pancolart wrote: |
I guess we are talking here about demystification of the idea that differences are anywhere more then subtle. |
Yes, this is true especially for 50mm lenses, because as we saw, most of them are basically the same lens, and the counstruction principle is so standard, and the glass requirements are so easy (no big magnification, and no wide perspective stretching, therefore no need for expensive high refraction glass or aspherical elements to correct aberrations), that we can really say most are de facto the same lens.
But if you test 20mm lenses or 300mm lenses, of course, things change, considerably. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MoonPix
Joined: 26 May 2011 Posts: 43 Location: United States
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MoonPix wrote:
zXzXZX
Last edited by MoonPix on Thu Apr 27, 2023 2:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hemisferico
Joined: 24 May 2011 Posts: 14 Location: north and south america
|
Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hemisferico wrote:
I think you would also see more noticeable differences comparing 50mm F1.4 lenses, a much more difficult design to execute. _________________ "Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde." -voltaire |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Seele
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 Posts: 741 Location: Sydney Australia
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seele wrote:
In terms of design the Primoplan is the oddball here, as it is not a Double-Gauss type, but an advanced Triplet development.
For the longest time it has been much maligned, but when seen individually it is not half bad. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
andrej
Joined: 06 Oct 2011 Posts: 7 Location: Belgrade, Serbia
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
andrej wrote:
I've found a nice condition Helios 77m-4, like the one reviewed, however with a slightly different label. It's in Russian ГЕЛИОС, and since it's my first manual on a digital body, I'm a bit afraid of mounting it to a 5d mk2.
I couldn't find 77m-4 mc Helios in any compatibility charts for 5d, so just to make sure - will it fit? It works very nice on a eos rebel 450D, but will it damage the mirror on 5d? By the looks of it, it seems it should work, and it mounts well, I just didn't click the shutter.
edit: for some reason it doesn't show the pic: forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201110/4776_helios_1.jpg |
|
Back to top |
|
|
indianadinos
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 1310 Location: Toulouse, France
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
indianadinos wrote:
andrej wrote: |
edit: for some reason it doesn't show the pic: forum.mflenses.com/userpix/201110/4776_helios_1.jpg |
Hi and welcome to the forum ... This is an anti-spam feature for users with one post only ...
I'm not sure about the 5D, but on the 5D MkII you have a 0.7mm clearance between the bottom of the lens and the mirror ... _________________ Please visit my blogs Shooting with a Pentax K10D / FF Visions
Takumar: 24/3.5, 28/3.5, 35/2, 35/3.5, 50/1.4, 55/1.8, 85/1.8, 105/2.8, 120/2.8, 135/3.5, 150/4, 200/4
Pentax-K: M28/2.8, K28/3.5, M50/1.4, A50/1.7, M50/4 Macro, K85/1.8, K105/2.8, K135/2.5, M200/4, M70-150/4
Zeiss: Flektogon 20/2.8, 20/4, 35/2.4, 35/2.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Biotar 58/2, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer: Primagon 35/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Trioplan 100/2.8, Orestor 100/2.8, Orestor 135/2.8
Schacht/Steinheil: Travenar 90/2.8, Travenon 135/4.5, Quinar 135/2.8, Quinar 135/3.5
Russian: MIR 37B, Industar 50/3.5, Helios 44M & 44M-2, Jupiter 37A
P6: Flektogon 50/4, Biometar 80/2.8, Orestor 300/4
Nikkor: Nikkor-O 35/2, Micro 55/3.5, Nikkor-S 50/1.4, Nikkor-Q 135/2.8
Fuji: EBC 28/3.5, EBC 55/3.5 Macro, EBC 135/2.5
Misc Lenses: Kiron 105/2.8 Macro, Tamron SP90/2.5
... and a few other Vivitar, Tamron, Sigma and Soligor lenses ...
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
andrej
Joined: 06 Oct 2011 Posts: 7 Location: Belgrade, Serbia
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
andrej wrote:
thanks!
yes, I searched for some more articles on whether it will cause too much damage if not suitable and finally pressed the shutter
it works all good on 5D mark II, focus to infinity and all.
I really like the 'swirly bokeh' it produces, and image quality is more than fine for the money spent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fuzzywuzzy
Joined: 18 Dec 2010 Posts: 1258 Location: Down East, Canada, eh?
Expire: 2013-11-30
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
fuzzywuzzy wrote:
MoonPix wrote: |
I love these kinds of comparisons... they are indeed very similar to one another. Yes, I can see slight differences between them... but for the most part, they give the same impression. What is interesting is the price differences between them. Isn't the Biotar much more expensive than say the Helios? |
The Helios 44 was the kit lens on the Zenit cameras and the Soviets made a LOT of them. There were probably a hundred Helios 44 manufactured for every Biotar.
Lucky for us it's such a well-made Biotar clone and so cheap! _________________ I welcome C&C, editing my pics and reposting them on the forum is fine.
NEX-F3
~~~~~~~~~
CZJ Sonnar 135/4, Biotar 58/2, Pancolar 50/2, Tessar 50/2.8, Flek 35/2.8, Flek 25/4
Super Takumar 135/2.5, 135/3.5, 100/4 bellows, 50/1.4, 28/3.5
Helios 58/2, 3M-5A 500/8, Mir 20M
Vivitar Series 1 70-210 - - - - - - - - Nikkor 200/4
Rikenon 28/2.8 - - - - - - - - Zeiss 50/1.7 Planar
PB 50/2.4, 135/2.8
Yashica 50/1.9, 28/2.8, 135/2.8
Hexanon 28/3.5, 50/1.4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hasan
Joined: 12 Mar 2007 Posts: 313
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
hasan wrote:
thanks for the comparison.
the differences are only visible by seeing them side by side.
still, imo the pancolar renders nicer than the others.
regards |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4748 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
The Pancolar gives a good account of itself. _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Thank you for a very clear comparison. Subjectively, for colors and image rendition, I liked the most Pancolar and Oreston. Taking into account that Oreston is barely the cheapest among your test set! It makes me wonder, who set that Primoplan should be the highest in price? Was it an initial price tag, in the production period, or was it a "popular marketing" coming from forums and extremely well done pictures on flickr? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 2877
|
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Rarity + collectors + hype somewhere, the recipe is the same for all lenses. I am sure more good pictures were taken with Oreston than with Primoplan.
Really, if one wants a technically good lens, take any Japanese top brand from the beginning of 80' (Nikon/Canon/Konica/Zuiko/Pentax/Minolta does not matter) and you have it. But those lenses are so ubiquitous that after awhile people stop being excited by them and start to search for "character". That's where lenses with flaws such as Primoplan deliver. I am sure 99% of Primoplan owners were overjoyed to upgrade it for Oreston and Trioplan for Orestor. _________________ Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Main thing this test shows is the differences between good 50mm double gauss type lenses are rather slight. The Biotar and Primoplan, being older and designed before electronic computers are a little less highly corrected so have a little swirl to the bokeh caused by spherical aberration and coma. That is only apparent wide open though and stopped down, they will all perform about the same with only very minor differences. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Fermy, you must be right!
Me personally, I appreciate Fujian CCTV that I use sometimes on NEX just because it delivers some difficulties to shoot. I think, digital photography almost exempted users from that minimal effort they had to do with manual cameras. So when you find a lens that delivers you some imperfection, that turns you back to the ultime sens of photography: you start overcoming that imperfection in search of reality. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
iangreenhalgh1, from what you say follows that a lens imperfection costs more. Funny! I saw Primoplan prices on ebay, it's higher than Takumar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Yes Alex, that is often the case. Some people seek out lenses with 'character' and those lenses are the ones with residual aberratons present. The reason why they are more expensive is supply and demand - there are so many later lenses with higher level of corrections but the older less corrected ones with character are simply not available in the same numbers. Primoplan is expensive, there aren't many of them around. A Helios 44 is a good substitute for the Primoplan imho. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|