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

Mamiya CS & E lenses on digital full frame?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:18 am    Post subject: Re: Few images or reviews of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
stevemark wrote:
The Oly is extremely small, and consist of only seven lenses. It would be a miracle if the Oly engineers would have been able to manufacture an excellent lens under these circumstances.


I think you have a point here. The hallmark of Zuiko lenses in the OM system has always been their small size and weight, especially when compared to their counterparts. This was a market strategy carefully designed by Olympus to differentiate itself from Nikon and Canon, which produced lenses for professionals, whose priorities were reliability, mechanical strength and optical performance, not extreme miniaturization of the lenses.

Inevitably, to make a lens very light and small, Olympus designers had to reduce the thickness and the number of optical elements used in each lens. These design constraints usually cost a price in terms of performance, which, however, has never been acknowledged by Olympus or by photo magazines and fans of the brand.

Today, Zuiko OM lenses have become a cult and the number of people interested in pointing out the performance limitations of Zuiko lenses has further decreased. To complicate matters, objectively evaluating the performance of a lens is not a simple task.


This is a prime example of the damage you have done to this forum with your constant trolling and spouting nonsense. Have you ever used any Zuiko lenses? Show us some photographic proof that you have experience of Zuiko lenses, otherwise, it's just your opinion and quite frankly, rubbish.

There are many very fine Zuikos that are in no way inferior to their counterparts from other manufacturers. I know this from owning many and having used them extensively for years on a variety of cameras, both film and digital.

So instead of bloviating about cults and arrogantly claiming people can't assess the performance of a lens, why not show us some photographic evidence to back up your claims?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Few images or reviews of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Have you ever used any Zuiko lenses? Show us some photographic proof that you have experience of Zuiko lenses, otherwise, it's just your opinion and quite frankly, rubbish.

You are definitely a guy who likes to challenge people, but unfortunately you are also very inattentive and don't pay attention to other people's posts. Laugh 1
A post of mine with some photos I took with a Zuiko lens:
http://forum.mflenses.com/olympus-zuiko-macro-20mm-f3-5-t68105.html



iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

... instead of bloviating about cults and arrogantly claiming people can't assess the performance of a lens, why not show us some photographic evidence to back up your claims?

This is a review of a Zuiko 21mm F3.5 lens that confirms its abysmal performance at the edges:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgTwG4fuPwM


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Few images or reviews of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
The Oly is extremely small, and consist of only seven lenses. It would be a miracle if the Oly engineers would have been able to manufacture an excellent lens under these circumstances.


This is a prime example of the damage you have done to this forum with your constant trolling and spouting nonsense. Have you ever used any Zuiko lenses?

Oh yes, I do own the lenses mentioned.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Show us some photographic proof that you have experience of Zuiko lenses, otherwise, it's just your opinion and quite frankly, rubbish.

It seems that wheather is clearing up here, and I can make a few images for you - maybe tomorrow, maybe on Monday - comparing e. g. Minolta MC 2.8/21mm, the Mamiya CS 2.8/21mm, the Nikkor 2.8/20mm, and the Olympus 3.5/21mm, for instance.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

There are many very fine Zuikos that are in no way inferior to their counterparts from other manufacturers. I know this from owning many and having used them extensively for years on a variety of cameras, both film and digital.

Certainly. I have been talking about the Olympus Zuiko 3.5/21mm, though.

S


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Few images or reviews of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Have you ever used any Zuiko lenses? Show us some photographic proof that you have experience of Zuiko lenses, otherwise, it's just your opinion and quite frankly, rubbish.

You are definitely a guy who likes to challenge people, but unfortunately you are also very inattentive and don't pay attention to other people's posts. Laugh 1
A post of mine with some photos I took with a Zuiko lens:
http://forum.mflenses.com/olympus-zuiko-macro-20mm-f3-5-t68105.html



iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

... instead of bloviating about cults and arrogantly claiming people can't assess the performance of a lens, why not show us some photographic evidence to back up your claims?

This is a review of a Zuiko 21mm F3.5 lens that confirms its abysmal performance at the edges:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgTwG4fuPwM


One lens out of how many Zuikos? How many other Zuikos have you used? A large number to be able to make blanket statements?

You made a very strong claim, you need to show evidence to support it, picking out an ultrawide from an era when most ultrawides had poor edge performance is nowhere near a valid body of evidence to support a bold claim.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Few images or reviews of the Mamiya Sekor CS 28mm 2.8 Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

You made a very strong claim, you need to show evidence to support it, picking out an ultrawide from an era when most ultrawides had poor edge performance is nowhere near a valid body of evidence to support a bold claim.


I own roughly 20 ultrawides from pre-1980. None of them has nearly as bad borders / corners as the Olympus zuiko 3.5/21mm.

S


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what? That doesn't alter the fact that Gerald made a stupid blanket statement that he can't back up with evidence.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
So what? That doesn't alter the fact that Gerald made a stupid blanket statement that he can't back up with evidence.

Not long ago you did "back up" your statements with obviously wrong "facts", claiming your images were taken with a Sonnar 3.5/135mm, while in fact they were taken with a Minolta AF 4/70-210mm. And you were bluntly lying in the aftermath. Please be aware that such behaviour doesn't increase your credibility.

http://forum.mflenses.com/adapted-lens-t82017.html

Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, I didn't lie, I just gave up arguing because arrogant, obnoxious people like you and Gerald would just continue to berate me regardless, so it was a waste of time.

But that's just an attempt by you to deflect from the issue, which is Gerald making blanket statements that are a load of rubbish.

If you're going to make very bold, sweeping statements about Zuikos in general, then you better have some good, solid proof to back it up, which he doesn't.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Not long ago you did "back up" your statements with obviously wrong "facts", claiming your images were taken with a Sonnar 3.5/135mm, while in fact they were taken with a Minolta AF 4/70-210mm. And you were bluntly lying in the aftermath. Please be aware that such behaviour doesn't increase your credibility.

http://forum.mflenses.com/adapted-lens-t82017.html

Stephan



Stephan, it is crystal clear to me that he cheated when he presented photos taken with a Minolta AF 70-200mm F4 as if it were a CZJ Sonnar 135mm F3.5. When his trick was revealed, he had to lie again, saying he had used the mount of a Minolta AF 70-200mm on the CZJ Sonnar 135mm to adapt to a Sony A850 camera. Unfortunately for him, "a lie has short legs".

If someone tries to replace the mount of a CZJ Sonnar 135mm lens with the mount of a Minolta AF lens, I can assure you that this is a recipe for disaster, photographically speaking. The result would be a tremendous overexposure. I say this because I know fairly well how is the digital communication between a Minolta/Sony A lens and the camera. A few years ago, I programmed the chips of various adapters for my Sony A99, with focal lengths between 16 and 800mm.

I had an even stronger and indisputable evidence that the guy cheated and lied unabashedly, but I couldn't present that evidence because the thread was locked. I can do it now if requested. Frankly, I think it is a bit depressing to expose someone's dishonesty in a photography forum, but the subject is of technical interest because someone might be tempted to use a Minolta AF lens mount on an old manual focus lens, but, as I said before, this would not be a good idea, unless someone removed the chip and all the electronics of the Minolta AF mount.