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: Tue Jul 25, 2023 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
Two Takumars for the collection The m37 100mm 1:3.5 (A triplet) and the Takumar 35mm 1:4 (Asahi Optical Company's first wide angle lens)


Interesting lenses indeed! Theses early Takumars never show up here in Switzerland, but I have the corresponding early Minolta W.Rokkor-QE 4/35mm which was a [5/4] construction - maybe a Tessar type master lens with an single-len wide angle converter in front, or (more probably) a triplet type master lens with a color corected doublet wide angle converter in front.

I don't own the corresponding early Minolta 4/100mm lens (a triplet as well), but its 135mm cousin 4/135mm (also a triplet) is surprisingly well corrected. Of course there is fiueld curvature (as with any triplet), but stopped down it is very sharp, and color correction is much better than with the later Minolta 2.8/135mm lenses.

S


The 35 is a triplet master +w/a converter. quite a lot of field curvature, later 35/3.5 had tessar groups. I guess Pentax didn't really have a foot on the ground in Europe in the late fifties. I got these from Japan (Yahoo, not Ebay). The 100mm seems to be more ubiquitous over there than the 35/4.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2023 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:
stevemark wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
Two Takumars for the collection The m37 100mm 1:3.5 (A triplet) and the Takumar 35mm 1:4 (Asahi Optical Company's first wide angle lens)


Interesting lenses indeed! Theses early Takumars never show up here in Switzerland, but I have the corresponding early Minolta W.Rokkor-QE 4/35mm which was a [5/4] construction - maybe a Tessar type master lens with an single-len wide angle converter in front, or (more probably) a triplet type master lens with a color corected doublet wide angle converter in front.

I don't own the corresponding early Minolta 4/100mm lens (a triplet as well), but its 135mm cousin 4/135mm (also a triplet) is surprisingly well corrected. Of course there is fiueld curvature (as with any triplet), but stopped down it is very sharp, and color correction is much better than with the later Minolta 2.8/135mm lenses.

S


That early Minolta 4/100mm triplet (a preset lens) is a great lens despite being only f/4; I prefer it to the 4/135mm myself. I would suggest patience and you keep an eye out for one but I'm sure you already do. They do turn up on e.g. eBay every now and then (mostly in Japan). For a lens that is relatively rare there are a surprising number of minor cosmetic variants of it.


Here a picture of both models of Minolta 100mm F 4 triplets. The one on the left has 43mm filters, the one on the right is the newer model sporting 46mm filters


PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2023 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
michelb wrote:
Here a picture of both models of Minolta 100mm F 4 triplets. The one on the left has 43mm filters, the one on the right is the newer model sporting 46mm filters


There are more (at least to the collector); the one on the right was also produced with a chromium-plated (silver) camera mount like the one on the left, and I have come across a later model with anti-reflection treatment on the aperture blades, so at least 4 "collector" variants Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2023 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:

That early Minolta 4/100mm triplet (a preset lens) is a great lens despite being only f/4; I prefer it to the 4/135mm myself.

I'm sure it is! Especially since it is so small ...

RokkorDoctor wrote:
I would suggest patience and you keep an eye out for one but I'm sure you already do. They do turn up on e.g. eBay every now and then (mostly in Japan). For a lens that is relatively rare there are a surprising number of minor cosmetic variants of it.

As you may have noticed from my postings - I usually take what's available locally. There's more than enough interesting stuff around here, and I'm not really the person to "chase" for a certain lens. But of course if there should one appear, magically, I would certainly take it. Example for such "miracles" were a MC 3.5/80-160mm (yeah, "MC"!), and the obscure Minolta 9.5/18mm Fisheye. MC 3.5/80-160 was a custom made conversion for one ofmost prestigious hospitals in Switzerland, the Inselspital in Bern. In the 1960s it was used there for the documentation of operations, and I got it from the son of a professor who had been working there. So, hopefully, a Minolta 4/100mm will appeare here soon Wink


michelb wrote:

Here a picture of both models of Minolta 100mm F 4 triplets. The one on the left has 43mm filters, the one on the right is the newer model sporting 46mm filters


Thanks a lot for these images! I wasn't aware of all these versions, to be honest!

S


PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2023 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For those wondering what the yellow numbers next to the f/stops are on the left hand copy:

The shutter speed selector on the cameras of the same era (SR-1/ SR-2 etc) also had that extra scale; they were arranged such that the number on the aperture setting plus the number on the shutter speed selector would add up to the measured EV value. If you knew the EV value (at ISO 100 I think), you could simply pick any combination of aperture & shutter speed setting that added up to that value. This was before auto-exposure systems were available.

At least I think I got that right, if not please let me know Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2023 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote:

That early Minolta 4/100mm triplet (a preset lens) is a great lens despite being only f/4; I prefer it to the 4/135mm myself.

I'm sure it is! Especially since it is so small ...

RokkorDoctor wrote:
I would suggest patience and you keep an eye out for one but I'm sure you already do. They do turn up on e.g. eBay every now and then (mostly in Japan). For a lens that is relatively rare there are a surprising number of minor cosmetic variants of it.

As you may have noticed from my postings - I usually take what's available locally. There's more than enough interesting stuff around here, and I'm not really the person to "chase" for a certain lens. But of course if there should one appear, magically, I would certainly take it. Example for such "miracles" were a MC 3.5/80-160mm (yeah, "MC"!), and the obscure Minolta 9.5/18mm Fisheye. MC 3.5/80-160 was a custom made conversion for one ofmost prestigious hospitals in Switzerland, the Inselspital in Bern. In the 1960s it was used there for the documentation of operations, and I got it from the son of a professor who had been working there. So, hopefully, a Minolta 4/100mm will appeare here soon Wink


Some test pics of the 80-160mm MC would be great, but -

I don't think RokkorDoctor was recommending a lot of extra work. Although you can still make a point about the nature of it.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2023 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
2x KMZ Helios-44 Silver (13 blades) (m39)
KMZ Helios 44-2 n0* version (m42)
KMZ Helios-44M early prototype (m42)
Ihagee 5.4cm f3.5 anast exaktar (Exa)
CZJ tessar 5.0cm f2.8 (same look as above ihagee) (exa)
MOG Helioplan 40 f4.5 (exa)
MOG Orestegon 29 f2.8 (m42)

Last edited by DrBB on Thu Jul 27, 2023 10:27 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2023 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Formula 5 135mm/1.8. At the same time, I was hesitating on an offer of Javlin 135mm/1.8, and it was gone.
Luckily, I remembered I got a copy of Porst 135mm/1.8, which is essentially the same lens as Javlin, based
on internet optical scheme of several 135m/1.8's.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2023 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yashinon dx 35 f 2.8. Did search a long time to get one at an reasonable price..


PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2023 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
#1


I purchased this two piece Coligon (Taisei, model 340, 1960 introduction) 400mm F/5.6 lens a few weeks ago, it should be there when I arrive home next week. I usually don't post until the lens is in my hands these days (for good reason), but I also noticed this thread slipped off the front page of the forum, an entirely unacceptable state of affairs Smile


PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2023 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alun Thomas wrote:
#1
I also noticed this thread slipped off the front page of the forum, an entirely unacceptable state of affairs Smile


Like 1

+1!

-D.S.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2023 4:46 pm    Post subject: ... some Minolta AF cheapos ... Reply with quote
Alun Thomas wrote:
#1
I also noticed this thread slipped off the front page of the forum, an entirely unacceptable state of affairs Smile



Indeed!



Yesterday I picked up a Minolta AF 2.8/135mm which I had purchased a few weeks ago, and got - for free - a few more MinAF lenses that were not yet in my inventory (sorry, this time no MF lenses ...!):

* Minolta AF Zoom 35-80mm 1:4-5.6 (1988)
* Minolta AF Zoom 80-200mm 1:4.5-5.6 (1988)
* Minolta AF Power Zoom 35-80mm 1:4-5.6 (1991)
* Minolta AF Zoom 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 (2001)

All these lenses are "plastic fantastic" cheapos, but it's always interesting to see and test "new" lenses.

The "Power Zoom" 4-5-6/35-80mm has an integrated motor for zooming (same as the "xi" series of Minolta AF lenses - remember the Minolta 7xi which not only had automatic exposure and automatic focus, but also automatic zooming!!). It is the smallest and worst of the bunch, and one of those lenses that are really bad. Completely unsharp over a large parts of the image at 4/35mm, completely unsharp conrners at 35mm/f11, but acceptable at f11 and longer focal lengths.

Quite different the equally cheap Minolta AF 3.5-5.6/28-80mm from 2001: surprisingly good at 28mm (comparable to or even better than the Minolta AF 2.8/28mm which has the same formula as the MD-III 2.8/28mm [5/5]). At f=50mm the corners are only slightly inferior to the MinAF 1.4/50mm, and 80% of the image are as good as the prime.Rather remarkable. At f=80mm the contrast is a bit reduced (compared to the excellent MinAF 1.4/85mm), but detail resolution again is surprisingly good. No lateral CAs! This lens confirms that there was fierce competition between the large manufacturers (such as Nikon and Minolta). Around the year 2000 their "cheapos" had reached a surprisingly high quality, as test of the corresponding Nikon 28-100mm lenses confirms.

The two other zooms from 1988 are not as bad as the Power Zoom, but not as good as the 28-80mm from 2001. The small and lightweight Minolta AF 4.5-5.6/80-200mm nevertheless is pretty OK and useable on 24 MP FF: At f=200mm, f5.6 and f11 its image quality is comparable to 3rd party 3.5/200mm lenses from the 1970s.

Some information about the MinAF 2.8/135mm vs Minolta MC-X 2.8/135mm [4/4] vs Zeiss Sonnar CY 2.8/135mm and Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200mm will follow in a separate thread.

S


PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2023 6:39 pm    Post subject: Re: ... some Minolta AF cheapos ... Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Alun Thomas wrote:
#1
I also noticed this thread slipped off the front page of the forum, an entirely unacceptable state of affairs Smile



Indeed!
...

S


You guys should maybe know about http://forum.mflenses.com/search,search_id,newposts.html

Never miss another new post in any of the sub-forae.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2023 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I got this one just because the price was so good. Is it worth keeping? I need to get an adapter in that case.

#1


PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2023 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:
I got this one just because the price was so good. Is it worth keeping? I need to get an adapter in that case.

#1


Yes, this is a very good lens.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2023 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:
I got this one just because the price was so good. Is it worth keeping? I need to get an adapter in that case.


Certainly. Not only a fast "normal macro", but one of the best I'm aware of (Nikkor AiS 2.8/55 as well as AF Nikkor 2.8/60mm are weaker).
Sophisticated double floating system (three [!] groups moving independently while focusing).

S

PS as you may remember I have tested about 15 "normal macro" lenses side-by side, both at about 1.% and at infinity.

EDIT: Most "1st gen" Minolta AF lenses are as good or better than the best corresponding vintage MF lenses.

"As good as best MF (pre 1985)": 2.8/16 Fish, 2.8/20, 2.8/24, 2/28, 1.4/35, 2/35, 1.4/50, 2.8/50 Macro, 2.8/135, 2.8/300 APO, 3.5-4.5/28-85, 3.5-4.5/35-105, 4/70-210

"Better than best MF (pre 1985)": 1.4/85, 2/100, 2.8/100 Macro, 2.8/200 APO, 4/600 APO, 4-4.5/28-135, 4.5-5.6/75-300 "big beercan"


PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2023 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
blotafton wrote:
I got this one just because the price was so good. Is it worth keeping? I need to get an adapter in that case.


Certainly. Not only a fast "normal macro", but one of the best I'm aware of (Nikkor AiS 2.8/55 as well as AF Nikkor 2.8/60mm are weaker).
Sophisticated double floating system (three [!] groups moving independently while focusing).

S

PS as you may remember I have tested about 15 "normal macro" lenses side-by side, both at about 1.% and at infinity.

EDIT: Most "1st gen" Minolta AF lenses are as good or better than the best corresponding vintage MF lenses.

"As good as best MF (pre 1985)": 2.8/16 Fish, 2.8/20, 2.8/24, 2/28, 1.4/35, 2/35, 1.4/50, 2.8/50 Macro, 2.8/135, 2.8/300 APO, 3.5-4.5/28-85, 3.5-4.5/35-105, 4/70-210

"Better than best MF (pre 1985)": 1.4/85, 2/100, 2.8/100 Macro, 2.8/200 APO, 4/600 APO, 4-4.5/28-135, 4.5-5.6/75-300 "big beercan"


Speaking of best , what do you think about micro Nikkor 70mm f5? Have you ever test it? Beside that it covers a larger image circle, for FF would it be worth to get it? Thanks


PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2023 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:

Speaking of best , what do you think about micro Nikkor 70mm f5? Have you ever test it? Beside that it covers a larger image circle, for FF would it be worth to get it? Thanks


I have no idea how this lens is performing - but I'm sure we have experts here who know Wink

S


PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2023 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 70 mm f 5 ultra-micro is not a very common lens, and in the quick research available to me, manufactured numbers were quite low.

It's without a focusing helicoid, so a bellows system of some sort will have to be worked out, along with the m-39 mounting system.
From the few images I've seen, there is not a lot of gain over the more conventional micros~ unless you are reproducing printed circuits or microfilm.

Personally, the flat field leaning pre-p.c. 55mm micro nikkor f 3.5 is the easier solution for me.
They are a lot easier to find.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2023 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
The 70 mm f 5 ultra-micro is not a very common lens, and in the quick research available to me, manufactured numbers were quite low.

It's without a focusing helicoid, so a bellows system of some sort will have to be worked out, along with the m-39 mounting system.
From the few images I've seen, there is not a lot of gain over the more conventional micros~ unless you are reproducing printed circuits or microfilm.

Personally, the flat field leaning pre-p.c. 55mm micro nikkor f 3.5 is the easier solution for me.
They are a lot easier to find.

-D.S.


Thank you, I've already had the basic info about it, just wanted to know what does it make it so special , besides the fact that only 5000pieces have been made ,covers large image circle etc.and of course, how much better would it be on FF


PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2023 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
blotafton wrote:
I got this one just because the price was so good. Is it worth keeping? I need to get an adapter in that case.


Certainly. Not only a fast "normal macro", but one of the best I'm aware of (Nikkor AiS 2.8/55 as well as AF Nikkor 2.8/60mm are weaker).
Sophisticated double floating system (three [!] groups moving independently while focusing).

S

PS as you may remember I have tested about 15 "normal macro" lenses side-by side, both at about 1.% and at infinity.

EDIT: Most "1st gen" Minolta AF lenses are as good or better than the best corresponding vintage MF lenses.

"As good as best MF (pre 1985)": 2.8/16 Fish, 2.8/20, 2.8/24, 2/28, 1.4/35, 2/35, 1.4/50, 2.8/50 Macro, 2.8/135, 2.8/300 APO, 3.5-4.5/28-85, 3.5-4.5/35-105, 4/70-210

"Better than best MF (pre 1985)": 1.4/85, 2/100, 2.8/100 Macro, 2.8/200 APO, 4/600 APO, 4-4.5/28-135, 4.5-5.6/75-300 "big beercan"


Sounds too good not to try it!

I looked at your and others test on this thread http://forum.mflenses.com/4-short-macro-lenses-compared-surprising-results-t84178,start,25.html

The MD-III looked a little bit better at wide open but very similar at f/8


PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2023 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blotafton wrote:

Sounds too good not to try it!

I looked at your and others test on this thread http://forum.mflenses.com/4-short-macro-lenses-compared-surprising-results-t84178,start,25.html

The MD-III looked a little bit better at wide open but very similar at f/8


As I said before the big advantage of the MinAF 2.8/50mm Macro is its versatility, based on the double floating focusing system. Not only is the lens relatively fast, but it keeps its perfomance at infinity (always an issue with 50mm legacy macro lenses) AND can be focused down to 1:1.

Guess which one is the MD-III and which one the AF-I (both wide open; 100% crops from the corners of 43 MP A7RII JPGs):





S


PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
blotafton wrote:

Sounds too good not to try it!

I looked at your and others test on this thread http://forum.mflenses.com/4-short-macro-lenses-compared-surprising-results-t84178,start,25.html

The MD-III looked a little bit better at wide open but very similar at f/8


As I said before the big advantage of the MinAF 2.8/50mm Macro is its versatility, based on the double floating focusing system. Not only is the lens relatively fast, but it keeps its perfomance at infinity (always an issue with 50mm legacy macro lenses) AND can be focused down to 1:1.

Guess which one is the MD-III and which one the AF-I (both wide open; 100% crops from the corners of 43 MP A7RII JPGs):

S


From my own testing the blurry one must be the MD-III. I have one of the MC versions and noticed quite quickly that it didn't work very well at longer ranges.

The versatility is of the AF-I is indeed a very good characteristic.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2023 3:25 pm    Post subject: Vivitar 35mm f3.5 with Schneider Optic serial no. Reply with quote
I recently bought this Vivtar 35mm f3.5 M42 lens on Ebay which was advertised as having a rare serial number ---- associated with Schneider Kreuznach. I have several SK lenses, but don't recall ever seeing a 35mm f3.5 by them. Does anyone recognize this lens?





I shot a photo of the brick wall right outside my front door to examine distortion, and increased softness in corners.




Any information you can share about the Schneider Kreuznach lenses made for Vivitar would be appreciated.

Mike


PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2023 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No. It is a Japanese lens for sure. We don't solely use serial numbers to identify the producer of a lens.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 271, 272, 273 ... 293, 294, 295  Next
Page 272 of 295