Hanimex 400mm wonder tube

[ManualFocus-G]

This is the second 400mm Hanimex lens I've owned...the first can be seen here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/the-big-soligor-thread-t33736,highlight,+soligor++thread.html

That model was clearly a Tokina made lens. I imagine this one is probably the same lens re-packaged as it behaves the same and has the same minimum focusing distance etc.

Here's the tube:



Some samples, all at around f7.1 - f8:













Some 100% crops:





The jagged edges are probably due to some RAW processing sharpening and use of the CA removal tool.

Summary:

Very similar to all the other 400/6.3 lenses of the era! Resolution is OK, though not amazing. There are blue and red fringing issues, but all in, they are very good value for money

[luisalegria]

Yes, you are right, Tokina made. The same lens was sold as a Mamiya, Soligor, Petri and etc., it was of course sold under dozens of brands.
The 300/5.5 of the same preset series is even more common.

This may be one of the better wonder tubes.

I still have to get one of the Kawanon/Astranars to check it out, I have heard it is quite good.

Very nice colors in #4 !

[Olivier]

You have a good sample !
I have a 6.3/400 Soligor but it's a different design.

[newton]

Yes, Graham! Exactly what I was preaching. Thanks for corroborating this.

BTW, I lover laser sailboats. So fun. What body are you using this on? A 5D, eh? That is nice!

I have two 400 mm lenses that look exactly like this. One Mamiya and the other Petri. They both shoot about the same and produce 'quality' pics like you posted!

Yeah. Thanks for corroborating with me..

Newt

Someone called them as lacking in value, useless, without demand, junk. Well, I am happy with my junk that is cheap and has no value except to me. --beaming!--

Nice pics!!!!!

[ManualFocus-G]

Thanks for the comments all

It's not a terrible lens at all, and certainly not "useless" but it does need decent light. And the CA is likely to be a problem if you crop a lot.

However, my Canon 300/4L + 1.4x TC blows it away. But then it should at 10x the cost of the Hanimex on the 2nd hand market

[cooltouch]

If your Canon 300/4L blows away this Hannimex, I'd really like to see pics from it. Years ago, I owned an FD 300mm f/4, and wished I'd have paid the extra bucks for the L version.

The above photos look like they were shot with a very good medium format camera/lens combination. Excellent detail, really.

[ManualFocus-G]

[luisalegria]

I think it may take 1:1 crop comparisons to see the real difference between these lenses.

The Tokina/Hanimex/Petri/mamiya/etc. 400/6.3 is a pretty good lens indeed for its kind, and from what I have seen (I have the Mamiya branded version), they can give results as sharp as one would want on many DSLR's, and even make images that would be hard to distinguish from the best modern stuff, for most practical purposes.

[estudleon]

Very good question, what about the tokina and the Canon L differences. There is a mito here.

Has the cheap lens tokina a similar rendering like the Canon L ?

As I watch in the thread, the canon seems to be the clear winner. By far.

But who knows.............

Rino

[luisalegria]

The Canon pictures here are very fine indeed, but:

From what I can see this is mainly from the choice of subject and photographic skill, not the quality of the lens.

The only way to see that the lens used for this is sharper than a cheaper lens (at similar aperture of course) is to see the magnified results. I am sure there will be some difference.

I made my own test, on similar lenses, I should post the results one day. Previously on my Pentax K100D (6mp APS-C) I thought my Komura 400/6.3 was as good as my Schneider Tele Xenar 360/5.5

But with my Pentax K-x (12mp APS-C) the Schneider was clearly superior.

I figure going from the K100D to the K-x, and pixel-peeping, was effectively like printing 35mm film at 11x14 instead of 8x10 - thats the same scale change as going from 6 to 12mp on the same size sensor.

A negative good enough for 8x10 blowups may show problems at 11x14.

But if you never blow anything up to 11x14 ?

[ManualFocus-G]

Oh, don't get me wrong, the Hanimex is a really good performer for the price. Photos need a fair bit of sharpening in pp, but contrast is good. The fringing annoys me, but as you say, if you're not going to blow the shots up, who cares?

Here's another one from the Canon, this time with a cheap Kenko 1.4x teleconverter attached to make 420mm...please excuse the blown highlights!





I'll do a proper comparison sometime (this weekend?)

[newton]

We are comparing lens technology with a 30 to 40 year difference. If the Canon L requires that level of fine distinction to tell, then there is a clear winner when weighing in cost. I doubt that L series will last as long either. I am getting rid of all my manual crap---garbage can. I had it with the b.s. It does not help me professionally but I am keeping my long tele's, including all my Mamiya. I had to vomit a couple of times with how much I wasted on manual lenses. Graphics intended. Still like my telescopes, tho'. Can't wait to see the comparison. 30 to 40 years and holding it's own! Not bad at all and definitely in the running!

[ManualFocus-G]

Newton, as ever, I'm confused by your post Are you telling us that:

a) You are ditching all your manual gear, shortly after telling everyone that you think menual lenses are as good as expensive AF lenses?

b) You are a professional?

Just for clarification

[cooltouch]

@MFG, what is there a Weird Bird Park in the UK or something? Where do you find those subjects?

Also, Kenko has been making TCs for many years, including TCs for Hasselblad. I wouldn't hesitate for a moment using a Kenko TC with any of my lenses.

@Newton, if you are really, seriously thinking about throwing away your mf gear, then please throw it in my direction. I'll even pay shipping. That includes old telescopes. I like old telescopes.

Canon first started producing its lenses with low dispersion glass (weren't calling them "L" yet) back in the mid-70s, well over thirty years ago. I'll bet you that the vast majority of these lenses are still in regular use, too, if bidding activity is any measurement of desirability, which I think it clearly is.

[ManualFocus-G]

Ha! The Canon shots were all taken at a Hawk centre The Hanimex shot was of a Little Egret, a bird found in the wild in the UK. I actually went to shoot pictures of boats and beach huts, but this good looking bird was too good to miss

[newton]

Yes, it is a contradiction. My manual lenses are simply not fast enough for me. I cannot afford to miss shots and the next pro photog uses L series AF lenses. You cannot compete professionally. My new Canon gear has saved my ass so many times I cannot tell you. It is a time, IQ, CA, and low light issue, all packed into one, making newer lenses superior; however, when you break this apart individually, the manual lenses can hold their own. I used my manual 1.2 Nikkor last night and produced some spectacular shots but at the cost of throwing away 99% of them. One idea may be that I am not skilled enough with all my manual gear right now. May be with more practice I will totally master it. I did get some awesome shots with my Nikkor so I may be getting better, but at this point I cannot rely on my manual gear alone; otherwise, I will be out of a job. Yes, at times, I wish I could trade all my stuff for a line of L series lenses. One day, I hope to be able to afford these. I feel I absolutely must have them for my work, even though I was extremely resistant to the idea with the hope that older gear could be of equal merit, all *packaged into one*.

[Olivier]

So where are you from, Newton ? Which part of USA ?
I read you are a photographer. What kind of photographies do you take ?
For instance last night, what kind of reportage were you on ?
You say that maybe you're not skilled enough. How old are you and how many years of experience do you have in MF lenses photography ?
What is your equipment ?

I ask these questions because I feel the answers should help us to understand your sayings and maybe could be useful to us to help you.

[newton]

I own Canon EOS and use manual lenses. I would appreciate the help because at this point I am strongly favoring AF lenses and wishing I owned L series glass, instead of borrowing them. I do not like the bokeh of L series glass, but that doesn't matter so much primarily for my needs....low light, fast photography. I have been shooting since I was eight. That was well over almost four decades ago. I haven't used manual lenses on dslr too much *and* in low light applications; that is the difference. The mistake I made is assuming based on readings here and elsewhere that manual lenses could be just as good as AF L series glass or Nikkor AF series, etc. I think there is a reason why pros don't unanimously use manual focus lenses for the same applications I do. Everyone in this business seems to use modern AF glass. I am all across the U.S. and travel a lot for work, but am primarily in one of the biggest of big cities. I do not know how many pros use manual lenses for the same apps, elsewhere around the world. The only solution I see is more use of flash and quickness in employing skills, but I do not think manual focus lenses can compete successfully with the best AF glass, as a complete package. There is a reason the technology advanced to this stage and I do not regret it or speak badly of it. I just need to trade-in my expensive manual lenses, unless someone can tell me better how to equal par.

[ManualFocus-G]

Newton, you are correct in that AF lenses are more convenient for pros, when shooting sports / shots of stars where they jump out of a car quickly etc.

For landscape and studio work, AF isn't necessarily needed. But you'd know that as a pro, I would presume.

But...IQ wise, in my opinion, there are manual lenses which are better than the best AF lenses from Nikon and Canon. For example, I don't expect the 70-300/4-5.6L to produce such beautiful colours and incredible pop as the Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300/4.5-5.6. I don't know, as I don't have one, but the other L lenses don't seem to do it enough for me. In fact, I find the images produced from many Canon lenses to look "flat" to me. But that's a personal thing.

One thing which perhaps you could clarify though, for the past month you told everyone that you have loads of crap MF lenses. Now you say you have expensive MF lenses. Which is it?

[martinsmith99]