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

Purchase doubt for 80-90mm focal length
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dickb wrote:
The Tokina 90/2.5 is heavier than the Vivitar 90/2.8, 530g vs 480g. If weight is a primary concern, the Schneider Robot 90/3.8 weighs only 141g vs 246g for the Leica C 90/4. I can't find the weight for the Tele Arton though. At 308g the Pancolar is quite lightweight for an f/1.8 lens.


My 85mm f/4 Tele Arton in DKL mount weighs 135gm, though you'll need to add on the weight of any adaptors necessary Smile


PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kypfer wrote:
dickb wrote:
The Tokina 90/2.5 is heavier than the Vivitar 90/2.8, 530g vs 480g. If weight is a primary concern, the Schneider Robot 90/3.8 weighs only 141g vs 246g for the Leica C 90/4. I can't find the weight for the Tele Arton though. At 308g the Pancolar is quite lightweight for an f/1.8 lens.


My 85mm f/4 Tele Arton in DKL mount weighs 135gm, though you'll need to add on the weight of any adaptors necessary Smile


Thanks, that is lightweight indeed. And yes, the added adapter weight is a valid point. My RafCamera Robot Royal-M39 weighs only 7g, but the helicoid Leica M-Sony E adapter I like to use with it is relatively heavy.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Found an awkward CZJ Tessar...better not take the chance I guess

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.de%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F183856226216


PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If size and weight is an issue, the Nikkor 85/2 is absolutely tiny for an 85. It's smaller than some of my 55s.

Some people like it, some people hate it and say it's worse than the old 85/1.8. I haven't made up my mind yet.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saw some samples taken by the Schneider 75 2.8 Tele-Xenar Robot and it seems to be a very nice lens as well, I love the colors and the contrast


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

carrots99 wrote:
Saw some samples taken by the Schneider 75 2.8 Tele-Xenar Robot and it seems to be a very nice lens as well, I love the colors and the contrast


There is a 75/2.8 Tele-Xenar in C mount and a 75/3.8 in Robot Royal mount. The f/3.8 lens doesn't open its aperture fully at f/3.8 and may well be the same lens as the f/2.8. I have been told it can easily be made to open its aperture completely, but I haven't tried it so far. The f/3.8 lens weighs 141g, without any adapters. I don't own a C mount 75mm f/2.8 IIRC. As with any C mount lens, you should check carefully whether it vignettes on APS-C. The narrow diameter of the actual C mount often causes vignetting.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dickb wrote:
carrots99 wrote:
Saw some samples taken by the Schneider 75 2.8 Tele-Xenar Robot and it seems to be a very nice lens as well, I love the colors and the contrast


There is a 75/2.8 Tele-Xenar in C mount and a 75/3.8 in Robot Royal mount. The f/3.8 lens doesn't open its aperture fully at f/3.8 and may well be the same lens as the f/2.8. I have been told it can easily be made to open its aperture completely, but I haven't tried it so far. The f/3.8 lens weighs 141g, without any adapters. I don't own a C mount 75mm f/2.8 IIRC. As with any C mount lens, you should check carefully whether it vignettes on APS-C. The narrow diameter of the actual C mount often causes vignetting.


The vignetting is one of the things I'm afraid of using this lenses adapted to a Micro 4/3 system. Also the characteristic bookeh of some lenses (the swirly ones for instance) that sometimes is barely visible on crop systems and you only take full advantage of it on full-frame systems...

So lets sumarize, since there is already a lot of possible choices, I'll narrow it down to a shorter list, and as such, from the following list (taking into account the price tag of up to 200€), what are the best lenses:
- For the sake of sharpness and contrast.
- Regarding character and bookeh.
- The lightest and smallest lenses to carry, especially when travelling, but that still deliver good quality photos.
?

* Jupiter-9 RF 2/85
* CZJ Biometar P6 2.8/80
* CZJ Tessar P6 2.8/80
* Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Tele-Arton 4/85
* Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 3.8/90
* Ernst Leitz 4/90

I think that the one with the best character should be the Jupiter-9 (probably any of the CZJ too - I think these are the sharper ones - altough the Jupiter, having eventually more CA or "flaws", could produce pictures less sharper but with more "character"). The smallest and lightest I think would be the Schneider-Kreuznach ones.

Thoughts?

Thanks.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The best review I could find about the Leica 4/90 is this one: http://lensbeam.com/lens-reviews/ernst-leitz-gmbh-wetzlar-elmar-f9cm (I think the lens is really beautiful, and the samples shown in this review look really nice but they lack sharpness and contrast, but at least it gives that vintage look). I don't really like it that I may need to use an "external" helicoid to be able to use the lens and reach infinity, but it could be useful and make the lens smaller.

Last edited by carrots99 on Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

carrots99 wrote:
dickb wrote:
carrots99 wrote:
Saw some samples taken by the Schneider 75 2.8 Tele-Xenar Robot and it seems to be a very nice lens as well, I love the colors and the contrast


There is a 75/2.8 Tele-Xenar in C mount and a 75/3.8 in Robot Royal mount. The f/3.8 lens doesn't open its aperture fully at f/3.8 and may well be the same lens as the f/2.8. I have been told it can easily be made to open its aperture completely, but I haven't tried it so far. The f/3.8 lens weighs 141g, without any adapters. I don't own a C mount 75mm f/2.8 IIRC. As with any C mount lens, you should check carefully whether it vignettes on APS-C. The narrow diameter of the actual C mount often causes vignetting.


The vignetting is one of the things I'm afraid of using this lenses adapted to a Micro 4/3 system. Also the characteristic bookeh of some lenses (the swirly ones for instance) that sometimes is barely visible on crop systems and you only take full advantage of it on full-frame systems...

So lets sumarize, since there is already a lot of possible choices, I'll narrow it down to a shorter list, and as such, from the following list (taking into account the price tag of up to 200€), what are the best lenses:
- For the sake of sharpness and contrast.
- Regarding character and bookeh.
- The lightest and smallest lenses to carry, especially when travelling, but that still deliver good quality photos.
?

* Jupiter-9 RF 2/85
* CZJ Biometar P6 2.8/80
* CZJ Tessar P6 2.8/80
* Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Tele-Arton 4/85
* Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 3.8/90
* Ernst Leitz 4/90

I think that the one with the best character should be the Jupiter-9 (probably any of the CZJ too - I think these are the sharper ones - altough the Jupiter, having eventually more CA or "flaws", could produce pictures less sharper but with more "character"). The smallest and lightest I think would be the Schneider-Kreuznach ones.

Thoughts?

Thanks.


Of these, I have only used the last two. The first three are quite a bit larger than the last three. If you plan to use the larger apertures then the 85/2 would be my choice (I like shallow DoF). The Leitz is a bit more neutral in character than the Tele Xenar IMO, the Tele Xenar is more contrasty and sharper, but when stopped down the square aperture can create funky backgrounds. If you like the rendering of the Tele Xenar I would choose that one.

I must disclose that I am selling quite a few of my lenses, among which Tele Xenars. I bought a couple of them when the analog traffic cameras they were used on were decommisioned. If you like, you can get both the 75/3.8 and the 90/3.8 together for under 200 euro.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dickb wrote:
carrots99 wrote:
dickb wrote:
carrots99 wrote:
Saw some samples taken by the Schneider 75 2.8 Tele-Xenar Robot and it seems to be a very nice lens as well, I love the colors and the contrast


There is a 75/2.8 Tele-Xenar in C mount and a 75/3.8 in Robot Royal mount. The f/3.8 lens doesn't open its aperture fully at f/3.8 and may well be the same lens as the f/2.8. I have been told it can easily be made to open its aperture completely, but I haven't tried it so far. The f/3.8 lens weighs 141g, without any adapters. I don't own a C mount 75mm f/2.8 IIRC. As with any C mount lens, you should check carefully whether it vignettes on APS-C. The narrow diameter of the actual C mount often causes vignetting.


The vignetting is one of the things I'm afraid of using this lenses adapted to a Micro 4/3 system. Also the characteristic bookeh of some lenses (the swirly ones for instance) that sometimes is barely visible on crop systems and you only take full advantage of it on full-frame systems...

So lets sumarize, since there is already a lot of possible choices, I'll narrow it down to a shorter list, and as such, from the following list (taking into account the price tag of up to 200€), what are the best lenses:
- For the sake of sharpness and contrast.
- Regarding character and bookeh.
- The lightest and smallest lenses to carry, especially when travelling, but that still deliver good quality photos.
?

* Jupiter-9 RF 2/85
* CZJ Biometar P6 2.8/80
* CZJ Tessar P6 2.8/80
* Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Tele-Arton 4/85
* Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 3.8/90
* Ernst Leitz 4/90

I think that the one with the best character should be the Jupiter-9 (probably any of the CZJ too - I think these are the sharper ones - altough the Jupiter, having eventually more CA or "flaws", could produce pictures less sharper but with more "character"). The smallest and lightest I think would be the Schneider-Kreuznach ones.

Thoughts?

Thanks.


Of these, I have only used the last two. The first three are quite a bit larger than the last three. If you plan to use the larger apertures then the 85/2 would be my choice (I like shallow DoF). The Leitz is a bit more neutral in character than the Tele Xenar IMO, the Tele Xenar is more contrasty and sharper, but when stopped down the square aperture can create funky backgrounds. If you like the rendering of the Tele Xenar I would choose that one.

I must disclose that I am selling quite a few of my lenses, among which Tele Xenars. I bought a couple of them when the analog traffic cameras they were used on were decommisioned. If you like, you can get both the 75/3.8 and the 90/3.8 together for under 200 euro.


About the Tele-Xenars are you able to use the lenses "as-is" or do you really need to use an external helicoid on them? Or is it just a "good thing to have"?


PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

carrots99 wrote:
About the Tele-Xenars are you able to use the lenses "as-is" or do you really need to use an external helicoid on them? Or is it just a "good thing to have"?


The 75/3.8 focusses from infinity up to 1m, the 90/3.8 up to 1.5m. So for those I would say it is nice to have more close focus range, but not essential. In the same range of lenses there is a 100/2.8 with a minimum focus distance of 5m. For that one I would say it is close to essential, having a helicoid adapter. For completeness sake, my other lenses from that series focus up to 0.6m (45/2.8 ) and 3.5m (150/4).


Last edited by dickb on Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the lenses mentioned here I only own (and know) only the Schneider-Kreuznach Retina Tele-Arton 85/4. But I don't use it often, because I like the Rodenstock Rotelar 85/4 better. The Rodenstock has the nicer Bokeh and it is sharper when fully opened (at least my specimen). The last holidays I used the Rodenstock very often.

Both Tele-Arton and Rodenstock Rotelar only focus down to 1.8m. I use the Rodenstock often for photos of flowers etc. with the close focus lenses N I - III 32 and T I 32. The results are very nice. I never tried it with the Tele Arton. I think I should do that.

Advantages Tele Arton:
- even smaller than the Rotelar (5mm shorter)
- cheaper and easier to find
- the mirror of a dslr doesn't hit the back of the lens (different to the Rotelar on full frame)
Advantages Rotelar
- better image quality, see above

The rest is pretty much the same.

When used on an Olympus both are not so small because there a thick adapter must be used.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
The CZJ 80/2.8 Tessar is a nice, not that expensive option under $200 which is cheaper than the Biometar.
http://forum.mflenses.com/carl-zeiss-jena-tessar-80-2-8-exa-mount-t19529.html
Funny, I assumed the Biometar was an affordable lens, because I got my copy for 80 euro.... but a quick look online showed me that I've been very lucky! As a coincidence, today I received a 2.8/80 Tessar in P6-mount, which I will test soon.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Jupiter-9 may be larger than the DKL lenses, but it has it's own aperture and being a 39mm rangefinder lens the adapter is thinner than the DKL adapter. A lot thinner, actually.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KEO wrote:
The Jupiter-9 may be larger than the DKL lenses, but it has it's own aperture and being a 39mm rangefinder lens the adapter is thinner than the DKL adapter. A lot thinner, actually.


I'll agree with the thickness of the adaptor, but DKL-mount lenses most certainly do have their own aperture. The lenses for the Retina IIIS and the later Retina Reflex cameras (not the original model) also feature dynamic depth-of-field indicators, probably of more use on a film rangefinder camera than a digital camera, but a nice feature none-the-less Smile It may be of interest to note that the lenses that were produced after the introduction of the Instamatic Reflex no longer had these indicators, I'll admit to not remembering if any of the Kodak reflex cameras had a depth-of-field preview feature!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kypfer wrote:
I'll agree with the thickness of the adaptor, but DKL-mount lenses most certainly do have their own aperture.


You're right, of course. I misspoke. I meant to say the aperture ring is on the camera or adapter, not the lens. DKL lenses do have apertures.

I like those little DOF indicators too. Like 1 small


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is your opinion regarding bubbles on the lenses? I've found some Jupiter-9 on ebay with a couple of bubbles but I'm not sure how (or if) it will affect the photos...


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

carrots99 wrote:
What is your opinion regarding bubbles on the lenses? I've found some Jupiter-9 on ebay with a couple of bubbles but I'm not sure how (or if) it will affect the photos...


Bubbles in the lens glass is sometimes found in Russian lenses.
It is AFAIK a sign that high quality glass was used in the lens construction.
It rarely - if ever - has any effect on the taken image.
Personally, if the lens has bubbles, then I am interested in it as it is a sign to me of high quality glass
Tom


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
carrots99 wrote:
What is your opinion regarding bubbles on the lenses? I've found some Jupiter-9 on ebay with a couple of bubbles but I'm not sure how (or if) it will affect the photos...


Bubbles in the lens glass is sometimes found in Russian lenses.
It is AFAIK a sign that high quality glass was used in the lens construction.
It rarely - if ever - has any effect on the taken image.
Personally, if the lens has bubbles, then I am interested in it as it is a sign to me of high quality glass
Tom


That's what I thought...I've read that those bubbles used to happen due to the fact that it was hard back then to produce high quality glass and avoid those "air formations" on the surface of the glass.

What about smudges like this (this looks like a drop or two of water or spit got on the rear lens)...this is what I'm most afraid of (and even more afraid if I acquire a lens with this kind of smudges, try to clean it, and then it goes wrong)...



PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

carrots99 wrote:
What is your opinion regarding bubbles on the lenses? I've found some Jupiter-9 on ebay with a couple of bubbles but I'm not sure how (or if) it will affect the photos...


I have a few lenses with tiny bubbles in the elements. It's always better not to have bubbles, but my bubble lenses are all really, really good. They're old Russian, Zeiss, and Meyer-Optik. If it's a single tiny bubble, or two, I wouldn't worry about it, especially in an 85mm.

Those "smudges" in your picture look like spots of coating loss, but it's always hard to tell for sure from photos alone. Coating loss is not cleanable, but it's also not the end of the world as long as the glass itself is not damaged. I have a few old lenses that are completely uncoated, and they shoot just fine, though they usually flare a lot in direct light. Haze, scratches, and/or etching from fungus are a lot more worrisome than small spots of coating loss. Marks on the rear element are worse than marks on the front element, at least on longer focal lengths.

I would avoid lenses with haze or foggy glass especially. Sometimes you get lucky and it's possible to remove it, but often it's impossible.

Should the flaws in the picture you posted stop you from buying the lens? It depends on the circumstances: what you're paying and what you want. I doubt they'll impact image quality though.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I would avoid lenses with haze or foggy glass especially. Sometimes you get lucky and it's possible to remove it, but often it's impossible.

Should the flaws in the picture you posted stop you from buying the lens? It depends on the circumstances: what you're paying and what you want. I doubt they'll impact image quality though.


Thank you for your opinion.

Between buying one with those smudges or paying 18€ more for a "cleaner" lens, I think I'd rather pay more and play on the safer side.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

carrots99 wrote:
Between buying one with those smudges or paying 18€ more for a "cleaner" lens, I think I'd rather pay more and play on the safer side.


That's usually the better way to go IMO. I've managed to clean and fix quite a few old lenses with problems, but I try to avoid having to do that unless absolutely necessary, or unless I get a deal too good to refuse. Have patience and keep an eye out for the condition - eventually you'll find something nice that isn't too expensive.

On the other hand, you can never be sure just how these old lenses are going to shoot. There can be a lot of sample variation. Some of my best shooters were grubby old fungus-filled abominations with scratches all over the glass. I have one or two that look really nice, but they aren't great shooters.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
carrots99 wrote:
What is your opinion regarding bubbles on the lenses? I've found some Jupiter-9 on ebay with a couple of bubbles but I'm not sure how (or if) it will affect the photos...


Bubbles in the lens glass is sometimes found in Russian lenses.
It is AFAIK a sign that high quality glass was used in the lens construction.
It rarely - if ever - has any effect on the taken image.
Personally, if the lens has bubbles, then I am interested in it as it is a sign to me of high quality glass
Tom


Crucibles in the past would deteriorate if the glass was left in them too long, which you need to do to remove the bubbles, Schott glass used in Zeiss lenses used to have bubbles for this reason.
The bubble will not show in a picture because the image is not in focus as the rays passes through/by it.
You can only see it in bokeh balls and perhaps lens flare.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
You can only see it in bokeh balls and perhaps lens flare.


I don't even see them in bokeh balls or lens flare, FWIW.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about Telefogar 90/3,5

IT 's inexpensive!!! Any good?