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

What's the latest lens you added to your collection?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
vivaldibow wrote:
......I don't own either Mamiya versions (the non SX and SX). I guess the two Mamiya's are different, are they?


No. They are the same. All the 55/1,4 Mamiya lenses are optically the same lens. 7/5 scheme.

supposedly made by Cosina (not by Tomioka like the Rikenon)

I had the chorme 55/1,4 TL v.1 and the SX version v.2 (the last is with me now, and are the same lenses, only coated differences)


Thanks. I am waiting to find an SX version for my collection. The Rikenon/Sears seems to be made by both Tomioka/Cosina (from the internet). I own two versions of the lollipop infinity mark; don't have the one with diamond mark yet.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Steinheil Auto MC 35/2.8.
No idea what to expect from it.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mamiya Sekor ES 2.8/135mm and Sekor ES 4.5/90-230mm, which nicely complements my small existing collection of Sekor ES lenses (2.8/28, 1.4/55, 1.8/55, 3.5/300). Not yet arived, though, and I don't have an adapter anyway Wink

S


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bought a Xenon 4.5cm, on a folder camera, on eBay yesterday.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
All the 55/1,4 Mamiya lenses are optically the same lens. 7/5 scheme.

supposedly made by Cosina (not by Tomioka like the Rikenon)

I don't think this is correct.

It's hard to make a definitive statement on optics without direct comparison, but identical scheme formula does not necessarily equate to identical glass.
This is further substantiated by 55/1.4 DTL being radioactive, while the later ones are not known to be emitting radiation.

What I'm sure about is: early M42 Mamiya 55/1.4 for DTL and later SX series were made by different manufacturers.
Those are mechanically completely different lenses.

My speculation is: 55/1.4 DTL was made by Cosina, since the insides look like other Cosina lenses.
And later 55/1.4 were made by someone else, my guess is by Mamiya itself.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Micro Nikkor Ai 4/200mm (arrived) and Minolta MC-II 2.8/16mm Fisheye (not yet arrived).
The Nikkor is surprisingly small, sharp and CA free, considering some lukewarm reviews to be found online. At infinity certainly not worse than the Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED.

S


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Micro Nikkor Ai 4/200mm (arrived) and Minolta MC-II 2.8/16mm Fisheye (not yet arrived).
The Nikkor is surprisingly small, sharp and CA free, considering some lukewarm reviews to be found online. At infinity certainly not worse than the Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED.

S


Yeah, I have the Nikkor ai 200/4 as well and I like it!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikon E 100/2.8. Nothing beautiful about this lens, except the results 😊


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Micro Nikkor Ai 4/200mm (arrived) and Minolta MC-II 2.8/16mm Fisheye (not yet arrived).
The Nikkor is surprisingly small, sharp and CA free, considering some lukewarm reviews to be found online. At infinity certainly not worse than the Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED.

S


Yeah, I have the Nikkor ai 200/4 as well and I like it!


I wonder how it works for real macro work. The Canon nFD 4/200mm Macro (which is much larger, but goes to 1:1) has lots and lots of lateral CAs (in the close up range, maybe around 1:2 or 1:3) - which means I only took it once to the mountains, for flower work ... It simply couldn't compete with my trusty MinAF 2.8/100mm. And it is much heavier, of course.

S


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another GOI prototype, the OF-255 250mm/4.5. I will try it on Kiev-60 after the lock down (in december).

#1


#2


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Micro Nikkor Ai 4/200mm (arrived) and Minolta MC-II 2.8/16mm Fisheye (not yet arrived).
The Nikkor is surprisingly small, sharp and CA free, considering some lukewarm reviews to be found online. At infinity certainly not worse than the Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED.

S
I'm glad you like the MicroNikkor. I've had two, consider them the worst of the AI/AIS MicroNikkors. Not as sharp, lower contrast, still useful. Years ago I shot the second one (first was stolen) @ 1:2, 10 feet and 30 feet @f/9, f/11, f/16 and f/22 against a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II process lens. The GR II was much better at all distances and apertures.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
Phalbert wrote:
I got this Tokina 70 - 150 F 3,8 one touch zoom. Aperture is 6 blades, min focus is about 1,4 m. The condition of the lens is like new and this is why I bought it. I already have the Zuiko 75 - 150 F 4 and the Vivitar 70 - 150 F 3,8.
In short, this lens is useless. Nothing is sharp until F 8 and then only the center. Corners and edges are annugly blur even on APS-C. Just bad. I suspect the previous owner must have made the same experience and didn't use it until the sale. I picked it very cheap in a pawn shop and didn't test it. I've seen similar lenses branded Vivitar with generally good reviews. So I'm wondering if my copy has a specific problem or if someone else had the same experience.
By the way, the Zuiko is the one to have. Sharp all over, and much better WO than the Vivitar 2 touch. Only min focus is obviously much better with the Viv. Thanks for reading.
[img]


Interesting. I didn't know this version. Thought there was only the 75-150mm which is more compact and focusses closer. http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_2647.html#prettyPhoto

This model is really nice with submerged front glass. I guess faulty lens there or strong haze found many times in zooms.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
Phalbert wrote:
I got this Tokina 70 - 150 F 3,8 one touch zoom. Aperture is 6 blades, min focus is about 1,4 m. The condition of the lens is like new and this is why I bought it. I already have the Zuiko 75 - 150 F 4 and the Vivitar 70 - 150 F 3,8.
In short, this lens is useless. Nothing is sharp until F 8 and then only the center. Corners and edges are annugly blur even on APS-C. Just bad. I suspect the previous owner must have made the same experience and didn't use it until the sale. I picked it very cheap in a pawn shop and didn't test it. I've seen similar lenses branded Vivitar with generally good reviews. So I'm wondering if my copy has a specific problem or if someone else had the same experience.
By the way, the Zuiko is the one to have. Sharp all over, and much better WO than the Vivitar 2 touch. Only min focus is obviously much better with the Viv. Thanks for reading.
[img]


Interesting. I didn't know this version. Thought there was only the 75-150mm which is more compact and focusses closer. http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_2647.html#prettyPhoto

This model is really nice with submerged front glass. I guess faulty lens there or strong haze found many times in zooms.


I had the f/4 version of the RMC. Not for long time. Think that mine f/4 is newer than the F/3,8.
Good lens.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aidaho wrote:
papasito wrote:
All the 55/1,4 Mamiya lenses are optically the same lens. 7/5 scheme.

supposedly made by Cosina (not by Tomioka like the Rikenon)

I don't think this is correct.

It's hard to make a definitive statement on optics without direct comparison, but identical scheme formula does not necessarily equate to identical glass.
This is further substantiated by 55/1.4 DTL being radioactive, while the later ones are not known to be emitting radiation.

What I'm sure about is: early M42 Mamiya 55/1.4 for DTL and later SX series were made by different manufacturers.
Those are mechanically completely different lenses.

My speculation is: 55/1.4 DTL was made by Cosina, since the insides look like other Cosina lenses.
And later 55/1.4 were made by someone else, my guess is by Mamiya itself.


IT's possible, Mamiya making his own 55/1,4 SX lens.
The TL version was not radioactive, at least the v.2.
Inside this forum was a largo debate about the mamiya 55/1,4 and it's 6 tl, dtl and SX lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
picked up a sima 100mm f2 soft focus, haven't had a chance to try it out yet but curious to see how it compares to the portragon


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BurstMox wrote:
Another GOI prototype, the OF-255 250mm/4.5. I will try it on Kiev-60 after the lock down (in december).

#1


#2


Looks interesting and promising! Like 1 small Like 1 small

Lookking forward to seeing your results Pierre!


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Pancolart. The tokina is minty with absolute clean glass. No haze or anything, and also no sign of having been opened or even a knock. This is one reason why I bought it. I like the cosmetic and handling too, plus it was really cheap (don't remember) This is quite surprising. I thought I'll compare it to my Zuiko and Vivitar. I did... I suspect now a misplaced element somewhere and bad enough quality control.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
aidaho wrote:
papasito wrote:
All the 55/1,4 Mamiya lenses are optically the same lens. 7/5 scheme.

supposedly made by Cosina (not by Tomioka like the Rikenon)

I don't think this is correct.

It's hard to make a definitive statement on optics without direct comparison, but identical scheme formula does not necessarily equate to identical glass.
This is further substantiated by 55/1.4 DTL being radioactive, while the later ones are not known to be emitting radiation.

What I'm sure about is: early M42 Mamiya 55/1.4 for DTL and later SX series were made by different manufacturers.
Those are mechanically completely different lenses.

My speculation is: 55/1.4 DTL was made by Cosina, since the insides look like other Cosina lenses.
And later 55/1.4 were made by someone else, my guess is by Mamiya itself.


IT's possible, Mamiya making his own 55/1,4 SX lens.
The TL version was not radioactive, at least the v.2.
Inside this forum was a largo debate about the mamiya 55/1,4 and it's 6 tl, dtl and SX lenses.


I kind of quite finding out who made what Mamiya lenses. What I care now is if it is radioactive (which I am not sure if will hurt the sensor).


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Finally, a Zeiss Jena 135/3.5.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Micro Nikkor Ai 4/200mm (arrived) and Minolta MC-II 2.8/16mm Fisheye (not yet arrived).
The Nikkor is surprisingly small, sharp and CA free, considering some lukewarm reviews to be found online. At infinity certainly not worse than the Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED.

S
I'm glad you like the MicroNikkor. I've had two, consider them the worst of the AI/AIS MicroNikkors. Not as sharp, lower contrast, still useful. Years ago I shot the second one (first was stolen) @ 1:2, 10 feet and 30 feet @f/9, f/11, f/16 and f/22 against a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II process lens. The GR II was much better at all distances and apertures.


That was just my very first impression - shooting a few tests wide open, and at infinity. Precise focusing is quite tricky (as the focusing is very "steep"), and a slightly misfocused lens will immediately reduce the contrast while the detail resolution remains very good (left: corect focusing, right: slightly misfocused. Both images taken at f4; 100% crops from two 24 MP FF images):



Of course, this is pixel peeping at its best - but I'm quite pleased with results like this one, taken at full aperture, without tripod and in pretty dull weather (typical Lucerne November weather, BTW):

CLICK TWICE FOR FULL RES 24MP IMAGE !



No CA correction applied, by the way!

S


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Finally, a Zeiss Jena 135/3.5.


Now i'm curious ... Wink especially about centering, since that was (is) the issue at my two samples.

S


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Finally, a Zeiss Jena 135/3.5.


Now i'm curious ... Wink especially about centering, since that was (is) the issue at my two samples.

S


You mean your lenses were decentered?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Finally, a Zeiss Jena 135/3.5.


Now i'm curious ... Wink especially about centering, since that was (is) the issue at my two samples.

S


You mean your lenses were decentered?


Yes, quite a bit. At least I assume so, since in theory also my two m42 adapters could be decentered. However, I don't see decentering problems when using them with other lenses, e. g. a Japanese 1.4/55mm M42 lens.

S


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Nikon E 100/2.8. Nothing beautiful about this lens, except the results 😊


It's one of the best bargain lenses out there.

Like 1 small


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


US$36 buy now. Worth it at that price even if it isn't as good as the 24-50.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 150, 151, 152 ... 297, 298, 299  Next
Page 151 of 299