Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

What's the latest lens you added to your collection?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Damn I love this lens Reply with quote

BnG_Murphy wrote:
Super Takumar 55mm f1.8 which has amazed me so much that other lenses with less character are ruined for me now. E.g. the Nikon 1.4 above (although it was stunning stopped down), Pentax f2 is just meh now, even an 85mm Jupiter couldn't excite me yesterday. Need to find more lenses with character; I have a Mir 1b 37mm ordered from the Ukraine and a Helios 44m back in the UK, but the Helios was nowhere near as good as this Super Tak. Love the size of it too.
[/url]


Hi, I am interested to know about the Mir 1b 37mm, what do you like about it?


PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Damn I love this lens Reply with quote

vanylapep wrote:
BnG_Murphy wrote:
.... Need to find more lenses with character; I have a Mir 1b 37mm ordered from the Ukraine ..... Love the size of it too.
[/url]


Hi, I am interested to know about the Mir 1b 37mm, what do you like about it?


I read that it has character and saw images with funky bokeh. Might be a while until I get it but a friend got his today so I may be able to give it a try soon. He said it is great, crisp blacks and whites.


Last edited by BnG_Murphy on Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vivaldibow wrote:


Nice condition. Looks like in CT, goodwill stores and flea markets still have some good stuff left. In northern CA, nothing left...Smile


Well, for the Good Will it strongly depends on the location, you have to know the places. Flea markets are plenty of lenses. Our state has been rich and prosperous a couple of decades ago, now it close to the bottom of the list. An Old Glory is for sale now.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK vanylapep.

This topic has 163573 views! I'm pretty sure that does not include bots.

Congrats and Thank you! for starting it!


PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Today on flea market, do not know why, seems for altruistic reason, I took two Star-D for $15 both. It is mediocre glass, but the guy desperately asked me to take it.
135mm f2,8 and Macro zoom 28-80 f3,5-4,5 both made in Japan. Probably good for nothing, but I will try, who knows...


PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zuiko om 24mm f2 and zuiko om auto macro 135mm f4,5 with extender!!


PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My most recent finds:



2x Canon nFD 35-105/3.5 & 1x Canon nFD 24/2.8

Another 24/2.8 is on it's way along with an nFD 300/5.6. I'll have two copies of the 24/2.8, 300/5.6 & 35-105/3.5, so I'll pick the better copies (going by cosmetics if I can't find optical differences) and sell the others (one of the 35-105's is already on sale, there was very little difference between the two).

Overall, I paid ~170€ for all 5 new lenses, it shouldn't be hard to recoup that selling 3...


PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:55 am    Post subject: Re: Damn I love this lens Reply with quote

vanylapep wrote:

Hi, I am interested to know about the Mir 1b 37mm, what do you like about it?


I got to try my friends the other day. Nicely built lens, very nice. But we both disliked using it. It had a very dampened focus ring and focus peaking just didnt seem to be anywhere near as easy as the Yashica 50mm I was using. After he tried my Yashica he couldnt put the Mir back on, it just wasn't enjoyable. But when i got home I realized the photos were to my liking when converted to B&W, something my friend had advised it was supposed to be good for. Looking forward to getting mine and trying to "get into it".


PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just reacquired a lens I used to own back in the 80s -- a Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror. I picked it up from an eBay seller for $60, a decent deal. It has a couple of small spots of fungus on the primary mirror, but they're minor and nothing really to be concerned over. I'll kill the fungus with a lot of light. The Sigma 600 came new with a hood, set of filters, and a case. Mine came with just the case. I can live without the filterrs, and I can make a hood out of heavy black construction paper.

I took it out for a test a couple of days ago and I pitted it against my Tamron 500 mirror, a lens of excellent known quality. It isn't quite as good as the Tamron, unfortunately, but I think I can correct some of its issues. One thing I noticed when shooting with it was its images looked very hazy compared to the Tamron's. My old Sigma didn't have this problem. Slides I have from it are crystal clear. Just from visual examination of the Sigma, I can see some light dust inside, but I haven't yet shined a bright light source through it, which will indicate other issues, such as haze buildup. I'm thinking that this might be the case with this lens, so I plan to dismantle it and thoroughly clean it. Hopefully that will take care of this haze problem.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
I just reacquired a lens I used to own back in the 80s -- a Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror. I picked it up from an eBay seller for $60, a decent deal. It has a couple of small spots of fungus on the primary mirror, but they're minor and nothing really to be concerned over. I'll kill the fungus with a lot of light. The Sigma 600 came new with a hood, set of filters, and a case. Mine came with just the case. I can live without the filterrs, and I can make a hood out of heavy black construction paper.

I took it out for a test a couple of days ago and I pitted it against my Tamron 500 mirror, a lens of excellent known quality. It isn't quite as good as the Tamron, unfortunately, but I think I can correct some of its issues. One thing I noticed when shooting with it was its images looked very hazy compared to the Tamron's. My old Sigma didn't have this problem. Slides I have from it are crystal clear. Just from visual examination of the Sigma, I can see some light dust inside, but I haven't yet shined a bright light source through it, which will indicate other issues, such as haze buildup. I'm thinking that this might be the case with this lens, so I plan to dismantle it and thoroughly clean it. Hopefully that will take care of this haze problem.


My son has this lens and it is excellent. He uses it on full frame - Sony a7 and the results are splendid.
I'm sure he has posted some here somewhere.
Found it.
Here we go:
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20155/big_8131__DSC9255_1.jpg


PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice! Does your son have any idea approximately when it was made? And have you seen it? Can you tell me its exterior finish?

I ask because I conducted an informal survey here among owners of Sigma 600s to see if I could get a feel for when or if there was any falloff in optical quality based on age. We collected serial numbers and comments about optical quality, as well as the type of finish, since most everyone had bought their lenses used and didn't know how old they were. As you may know, this lens was made in several different color schemes, but we were able to determine that the ones made in a simple gloss black color scheme were the oldest -- based on serial numbers and at least one recollection of age -- mine. I also found out after this latest lens of mine had arrived that it was made in different sizes, the later ones being larger.

What prompted me to start that survey was a Sigma 600 in EOS mount I had bought right before then that just wasn't very good optically. Still isn't cuz I still have it. I even recently dismantled the rear area of the lens, hoping I could get to the rear optic to see if it were "flippable," wondering it if might have been flipped by mistake. As it turned out, with this iteration of the lens at least, flipping the rear most element is impossible. It's bonded to a flange that mounts into the rear standard, and because of the flange's offset design, it's impossible to flip the flange.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, my conclusion after we had collected descriptions of lens finish and serial numbers was that there didn't seem to be a clear indication of decreases in optical performance based on age, or lack thereof. Occasional poor optical performance just seemed to be a random occurrence because mine wasn't the only poor performer and not all poor ones were newer ones.

So after I unpacked my newest old Sigma 600, I tried to see if the later Sigma's lens hood would screw onto the earlier one. Turns out it won't. The newer one with the EOS mount is a larger diameter lens than the early one I bought. It's also a bit longer and generally more massively built -- probably mostly because it's bigger.

This newest to me Sigma 600 is even earlier than the one I bought new back in 1983. That one had the plastic insert that held the clear rear filter -- as do all subsequent ones. This one's insert is all metal, easily identified by its bright chrome tab that sticks out a ways. While the plastic inserts have to be squeezed to get them out, with this metal one, after it's inserted, a rear ring is rotated to lock it into place. Kind of a cool complication, methinks.


Last edited by cooltouch on Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:17 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:12 am    Post subject: Wow Reply with quote

28mm f3.5 super takumar. Amazing condition, beautiful lens. Nice rendering with the same green cast my rough looking 55mm f1.8 has. Possibly the nicest lens I have held.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Very nice! Does your son have any idea approximately when it was made? And have you seen it? Can you tell me its exterior finish?

I ask because I conducted an informal survey here among owners of Sigma 600s to see if I could get a feel for when or if there was any falloff in optical quality based on age. We collected serial numbers and comments about optical quality, as well as the type of finish, since most everyone had bought their lenses used and didn't know how old they were. As you may know, this lens was made in several different color schemes, but we were able to determine that the ones made in a simple gloss black color scheme were the oldest -- based on serial numbers and at least one recollection of age -- mine. I also found out after this latest lens of mine had arrived that it was made in different sizes, the later ones being larger.

What prompted me to start that survey was a Sigma 600 in EOS mount I had bough right before thent that just wasn't very good optically. Still isn't cuz I still have it. I even recently dismantled the rear area of the lens, hoping I could get to the rear optic to see if it were "flippable," wondering it if might have been flipped by mistake. As it turned out, with this iteration of the lens at least, flipping the rear most element is impossible. It's bonded to a flange that mounts into the rear standard, and because of the flange's offset design, it's impossible to flip the flange.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, my conclusion after we had collected descriptions of lens finish and serial numbers was that there didn't seem to be a clear indication of decreases in optical performance based on age, or lack thereof. Occasional poor optical performance just seemed to be a random occurrence because mine wasn't the only poor performer and not all poor ones were newer ones.

So after I unpacked my newest old Sigma 600, I tried to see if the later Sigma's lens hood would screw onto the earlier one. Turns out it won't. The newer one with the EOS mount is a larger diameter lens than the early one I bought. It's also a bit longer and generally more massively built -- probably mostly because it's bigger.

This newest to me Sigma 600 is even earlier than the one I bought new back in 1983. That one had the plastic insert that held the clear rear filter -- as do all subsequent ones. This one's insert is all metal, easily identified by its bright chrome tab that sticks out a ways. While the plastic inserts have to be squeezed to get them out, with this metal one, after it's inserted, a rear ring is rotated to lock it into place. Kind of a cool complication, methinks.


It has been a few years since I have seen it. Next time I'm over there I'll ask
Tom


PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MTO 3M-6A 6.3/500

Rolling Eyes not a typical lens for me, but hey, curiosity got the best of me Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
Very nice! Does your son have any idea approximately when it was made? And have you seen it? Can you tell me its exterior finish?

I ask because I conducted an informal survey here among owners of Sigma 600s to see if I could get a feel for when or if there was any falloff in optical quality based on age. We collected serial numbers and comments about optical quality, as well as the type of finish, since most everyone had bought their lenses used and didn't know how old they were. As you may know, this lens was made in several different color schemes, but we were able to determine that the ones made in a simple gloss black color scheme were the oldest -- based on serial numbers and at least one recollection of age -- mine. I also found out after this latest lens of mine had arrived that it was made in different sizes, the later ones being larger.

What prompted me to start that survey was a Sigma 600 in EOS mount I had bough right before thent that just wasn't very good optically. Still isn't cuz I still have it. I even recently dismantled the rear area of the lens, hoping I could get to the rear optic to see if it were "flippable," wondering it if might have been flipped by mistake. As it turned out, with this iteration of the lens at least, flipping the rear most element is impossible. It's bonded to a flange that mounts into the rear standard, and because of the flange's offset design, it's impossible to flip the flange.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, my conclusion after we had collected descriptions of lens finish and serial numbers was that there didn't seem to be a clear indication of decreases in optical performance based on age, or lack thereof. Occasional poor optical performance just seemed to be a random occurrence because mine wasn't the only poor performer and not all poor ones were newer ones.

So after I unpacked my newest old Sigma 600, I tried to see if the later Sigma's lens hood would screw onto the earlier one. Turns out it won't. The newer one with the EOS mount is a larger diameter lens than the early one I bought. It's also a bit longer and generally more massively built -- probably mostly because it's bigger.

This newest to me Sigma 600 is even earlier than the one I bought new back in 1983. That one had the plastic insert that held the clear rear filter -- as do all subsequent ones. This one's insert is all metal, easily identified by its bright chrome tab that sticks out a ways. While the plastic inserts have to be squeezed to get them out, with this metal one, after it's inserted, a rear ring is rotated to lock it into place. Kind of a cool complication, methinks.


It has been a few years since I have seen it. Next time I'm over there I'll ask
Tom


Hey guys, my version of this Sigma is gloss black, is labelled Sigma Mirror-Telephoto Multicoated, the serial is 219553. It came with a hood and filters but the filter slide is broken with a bit missing. The large mirror in mine had lots of fungus which i cleaned, it also has reflector coating damage around the edge but still performs pretty well. I've no clue when it was made but it looks like an 80's lens.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Picked up a mint Pentax 67 135mm macro for peanuts, took a couple of shots on Gina's A7R iii, nothing worth posting but did find out it suffers horrendous chromatic aberration, I will have to play with it to get used to its idiosyncrasies


PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two more Apo Telezenitar 2.8/135mm to pick out the best... Twisted Evil

Another 70ies (the Best) Helios 40-2 1.5/85mm as a backup at a quite good price.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="BeardsAreBest"]
Oldhand wrote:

Hey guys, my version of this Sigma is gloss black, is labelled Sigma Mirror-Telephoto Multicoated, the serial is 219553. It came with a hood and filters but the filter slide is broken with a bit missing. The large mirror in mine had lots of fungus which i cleaned, it also has reflector coating damage around the edge but still performs pretty well. I've no clue when it was made but it looks like an 80's lens.


Yours sounds like one from the early to mid 80s. Does it have the metal or plastic filter tray?

Mine has the metal tray and gloss black finish, which are clues to its early vintage. S/N is 100959. I suspect mine was the 959th one made! Very early indeed. Mine has some fungus inside, but not bad. There is at least one element that has a fair amount of dust or haze on its surface that isn't visible when looking through it, but which becomes visible when I shine a bright light source through the lens. Optically, its performance is good -- not excellent -- just solid good. Images show a pronounced amount of haze, most of which can be removed in post. I suspect once I have cleaned the lens's interior, the haze will have disappeared and images will have improved as well.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:32 pm    Post subject: lenses not bought Reply with quote

There ought to be a regret corner.

Out travelling in foreign parts two days ago I saw a pristine Nikon 20\2,8 AIS for 220 Euro , used a few minutes the next day to look up its credentials on "naturfotograf" and the current prices on "collectiblend".

Too late.

p.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:37 pm    Post subject: Re: lenses not bought Reply with quote

paulhofseth wrote:
There ought to be a regret corner.


http://forum.mflenses.com/what-are-the-biggest-bargains-you-have-lost-t48776,start,125.html


PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:31 am    Post subject: regrets v\s slowness Reply with quote

Yes, the "too-slow-reaction-in-the-face-of-competition" thread does cover regrets.

In this case, however, standing in front of the tempting object, there was no competition, only a need to examine facts for potential use on a (to me) relatively unknown design plus a tight travelling schedule.

Maybe a "hesistation thread" is a better term, such as when not buying a spotless duplicate of a collection item.

p.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:56 am    Post subject: Re: regrets v\s slowness Reply with quote

paulhofseth wrote:
Yes, the "too-slow-reaction-in-the-face-of-competition" thread does cover regrets.

In this case, however, standing in front of the tempting object, there was no competition, only a need to examine facts for potential use on a (to me) relatively unknown design plus a tight travelling schedule.

Maybe a "hesistation thread" is a better term, such as when not buying a spotless duplicate of a collection item.

p.


Oh, I know that just to well, but now I tend to follow my first thought and not think too deeply until it's gone... Wink

Had that just yesterday night when a MINT UV-Nikkor 105mm showed up, a very early model with low serial number, which I can call mine now Wink Wink Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:05 am    Post subject: Re: regrets v\s slowness Reply with quote

paulhofseth wrote:
In this case, however, standing in front of the tempting object, there was no competition, only a need to examine facts for potential use on a (to me) relatively unknown design plus a tight travelling schedule.

Maybe a "hesistation thread" is a better term, such as when not buying a spotless duplicate of a collection item.

p.


If there was no competition, wouldn't it still be on offer? Seems like your mistake was, basically, that you didn't realise you had to fear competition and thus didn't hurry with your research (hence giving your competition a chance to strike).

Whether it's taking too long researching, mulling over a significant expense for too long (even though you know it's worth a lot more) or just politely waiting to call at a reasonable (or sending an E-mail instead of calling that might not read right away), it all comes down to the same thing: hesitating and thereby giving a more informed, decisive or rude competitor a chance to strike.

That thread is full of that sort of thing.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:


Yours sounds like one from the early to mid 80s. Does it have the metal or plastic filter tray?

Mine has the metal tray and gloss black finish, which are clues to its early vintage. S/N is 100959. I suspect mine was the 959th one made! Very early indeed. Mine has some fungus inside, but not bad. There is at least one element that has a fair amount of dust or haze on its surface that isn't visible when looking through it, but which becomes visible when I shine a bright light source through the lens. Optically, its performance is good -- not excellent -- just solid good. Images show a pronounced amount of haze, most of which can be removed in post. I suspect once I have cleaned the lens's interior, the haze will have disappeared and images will have improved as well.


It has the plastic filter tray, probably why it broke Smile.
Also it is in Fuji Mount.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Auto Takumar 55mm f2. Unfortunately it has a weak far right quarter. Clears up by f4, but that isnt much fun so I decided to order a focal reducer so I can use it at f4 and it will act more like an f2.8. Then I realised that doesnt really work for DOF because of the lower focal range. But now this opens up lenses around 85mm which were too long for me on APSC.