View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
newst
Joined: 21 Oct 2014 Posts: 617 Location: Troy, MI USA
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:26 am Post subject: Two Meike E-Mount lenses on the A6500 |
|
|
newst wrote:
Meike 2.0/50.
A6500 & Meike 2.8/28
My Zeiss Contax and Rokkor MC/MD lenses outperform these Meike lenses but the Meike lenses are small, light, well made, have modern coatings, and are reasonably priced. I bought them to use as a travel/walk-around kit with an NEX-3N but today I decided to mount them on an A6500. _________________ Steve
Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10463 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Given these results, outperform by not so much imho! _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
newst
Joined: 21 Oct 2014 Posts: 617 Location: Troy, MI USA
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newst wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
Given these results, outperform by not so much imho! |
In good light yes, the Meike lenses are fine. In harsh or low light situations I would rather have the better quality lenses to work with. _________________ Steve
Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Living at 56.4N in wet and dull northern England I learned that in good light, most lenses produce the goods, it is in bad light that the great ones really stand out and the less good ones struggle.
What I am interested in is when makers like Meike and Yongnuo start incorporating more modern technology such as injection moulded plastic aspherical elements, as at the moment they are just remaking old designs. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Teemō
Joined: 07 Apr 2016 Posts: 586 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Teemō wrote:
The Contax/Rokkors are better? I wouldn't have expected that at all! Our old lenses must be incredible with modern multicoating and glassmaking materials! Hopefully even better, compact lenses of old style will be made in China at low cost eventually... but personally, I also think the current crop lack any soul or character, and the colour transmission always seems off. They don't seem as well made as eg. modern Voigtlander (Cosina) but it's expected for the price. Unfortunately it will be quite long before they compete with Japanese brands, simply due to the market they are in, not because they're technologically or creatively limited. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Doesn't surprise me the Contax/Rokkor are better, the old glass types are not allowed to be made anymore due to environmental regulations, so no glass containing lead, lanthanum or thorium.
Also, these Meike are very much budget items built to a low price point, which the Contax and Rokkor lenses weren't, the budget cheap items from back then were made by companies like Ozone and Cosina and a lot of them are not very good at all. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Teemō
Joined: 07 Apr 2016 Posts: 586 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Teemō wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Doesn't surprise me the Contax/Rokkor are better, the old glass types are not allowed to be made anymore due to environmental regulations, so no glass containing lead, lanthanum or thorium.
Also, these Meike are very much budget items built to a low price point, which the Contax and Rokkor lenses weren't, the budget cheap items from back then were made by companies like Ozone and Cosina and a lot of them are not very good at all. |
Those are fair points, but I'd have thought that technological/manufacturing advances would have closed the gap completely. It is kind of an unfair comparison too, since the older lenses cover 135 while the Meike is designed for APS-C.
Inflation has not been fair to us with regards to price at all. At least people are (?) hopefully earning more to make these lenses these days, though I suppose it's actually mostly automated now. Realistically, it's management and investors and shareholders and board members earning good dividends at our expense. Then again, if we all had deep pockets, this type of forum might not exist in the first place. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
As far as manufacturing, there's not much improvement that can be made in the grinding and polishing of lens elements as that was perfected a long time ago and to very fine tolerances, same with the construction of the mechanical elements, what improvements have been made are in the area of automation and cost reduction rather than quality.
Coatings have improved too, but with the excellence of the 1970s multicoatings like Zeiss T*, Pentax SMC, Fuji EBC etc. then the improvements are small, especially when we are talking about their application to relatively simple prime lens designs.
Where we can expect improvements is in new glass types, new optical resins and the use of aspherical elements which have been made much easier and cheaper to manufacture by injection moulding technology. Lens designs will also become more complex - look at the optical scheme of the Zeiss Otus 1.4/55 and compare it to the 1960's Planar 1.4/55 for Contarex, both were designed as the ultimate fast 'normal' lens of their day and the Otus is vastly more complex. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Teemō
Joined: 07 Apr 2016 Posts: 586 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Teemō wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Where we can expect improvements is in new glass types, new optical resins and the use of aspherical elements which have been made much easier and cheaper to manufacture by injection moulding technology. Lens designs will also become more complex - look at the optical scheme of the Zeiss Otus 1.4/55 and compare it to the 1960's Planar 1.4/55 for Contarex, both were designed as the ultimate fast 'normal' lens of their day and the Otus is vastly more complex. |
The rest of what you said makes total sense - I wasn't sure about total technical capability but I don't use the most expensive glass of the period either. Adjusted for inflation, a lot of old lenses were cheap compared to what we pay today. Surely it must be even cheaper now, as you said, but I'm not sure this is applicable beyond the most basic starter prime and zoom lenses. Modern pro SLR lenses are too large for me on size and it seems like there isn't much of a middle ground in terms of quality. Voigtlaender makes really nice lenses, but not always reasonably priced, as they sell quite affordably second-hand. But again, I'm not really keen on their rendering.
To read that this new Chinese glass is not even competing with 50 year old designs is quite disappointing, but then I feel even better about my own investment in Minolta glass. It would be great to try modern Voigtlaender but it seems the only lenses in stock in most stores here are the MFT series and they're not really consistent when it comes to production/styling changes and mount availability either - obviously stores are quite hesitant to purchase stock.
I guess they haven't come far at all compared to historical Japanese glass, but compared to historical Chinese glass, it's an extremely interesting development! Hopefully this will spur Western businesses to become interested in manufacturing again, too. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Antoine
Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Antoine wrote:
I remember purchasing a rokkor 28mm f2.8 in the 70s (>40 years ago) costing well over 100€ at the time (between 7 and 800 FF) which was a very very high price for an almost standard lens (the Vivitar f3.8 75-205mm I think cost me double this). This 28mm f2.8 costed probably much more than the say Sony 28mm f 2.0 costs today....not to mention the 1 stop advantage and the "new" technologies used now. So lenses may have got cheaper. They have got bigger for many.
It is clear vintage lenses have got much cheaper (they are 2nd hand)....except for the 250mm f5.6 which was very cheap when I bought it in the 80s... _________________ Antoine
Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii
Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l
100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4)
Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii
Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye
Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8 |
|
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
|