| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4066
Location: Charleston
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
woodrim wrote:
Yes, a good one is worth having. A 2.9/50 Trioplan even better.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 2832
Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| I have a Vemar 2.8/135 with missing diaphragm that is quite good wide open...will have to do some digging to find it & show proof... |
I may have an example with issues though it looks clear. May have been opened and messed with or just an example that missed quality control. I had a Super Aubel 28 2.8 that came in with horrible haze (advertised as good) negotiated with the seller then opened and cleaned it. Improvement in contrast was very dramatic. I know what haze can do to your image!
_________________
photos are moments frozen in time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10200
Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
I have this base of an old Coca-cola bottle...
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10200
Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| jamaeolus wrote: |
| visualopsins wrote: |
| I have a Vemar 2.8/135 with missing diaphragm that is quite good wide open...will have to do some digging to find it & show proof... |
I may have an example with issues though it looks clear. May have been opened and messed with or just an example that missed quality control. I had a Super Aubel 28 2.8 that came in with horrible haze (advertised as good) negotiated with the seller then opened and cleaned it. Improvement in contrast was very dramatic. I know what haze can do to your image! |
Many possibilities. Imho and others' a bad 135 is very difficult to make! I don't know about any...
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 4716
Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
I like it too
http://manuellfokus.no/meyer-optik-gorlitz-domiplan-50mm-f2-8/
_________________
Lars | Lens collection | Manuellfokus.no |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 5041
Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
| miran wrote: |
For some reason I feel really tempted to get me a Domiplan. Is it really that bad?  |
h'mm why bother when you can Olympus, Minolta, Canon etc etc 50mms cheap
_________________
Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Posts: 1367
Location: Slovenia
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
Wow, that looks quite good.
| Quote: |
| h'mm why bother when you can Olympus, Minolta, Canon etc etc 50mms cheap |
Well, all those are ordinary, but the Domiplan is the worst M42 lens ever according to some people. Who wouldn't want to own the absolute worst there is?  
_________________
my flickr stream |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4066
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
| miran wrote: |
Wow, that looks quite good.
| Quote: |
| h'mm why bother when you can Olympus, Minolta, Canon etc etc 50mms cheap |
Well, all those are ordinary, but the Domiplan is the worst M42 lens ever according to some people. Who wouldn't want to own the absolute worst there is? |
I can send you a bad Domiplan if you're really that intrigued. Personally, I like my good Domiplan better and my Trioplan better yet.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4066
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
What is the longer range with that extension? I don't want to have to get too close.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Posts: 1367
Location: Slovenia
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
Well, I'm not in a hurry to try it and I was half joking anyway. Thanks for the offer though. 
_________________
my flickr stream |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
planet.groove
Joined: 20 Apr 2016
Posts: 70
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
planet.groove wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
What is the longer range with that extension? I don't want to have to get too close. |
the max. range with this 8mm extension is around 50cm. ok for flower portraits...
my main reason for playing with a domiplan is this unique bokeh, i know that there are sharper lenses with better ergonomics and built quality, but you can paint with this lens and produce soap bubble bokeh. (oh, now I have revealed a long kept secret...)
not bad for a 5 euro lens.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/planetgroove/29193250111
https://www.flickr.com/photos/planetgroove/27455559541
_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/planetgroove |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4066
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Was not a secret, nor the price, although each of mine were around $12.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil Purling
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 8:21 am Post subject: Re Worst M42 lens |
|
|
Neil Purling wrote:
The Domiplan had issues with the auto diaphragm linkage. Screws coming out of the alloy. It took me two attempts to find one with a working diaphragm. I have an example.
But it is not the very worst 50mm M42 lens from East Germany.
That dubious 'honour' go's to the 50mm f2.9 Ernst Ludwig Meritar. They are sharp-ish in the centre but it is at the edges and in the corners where the real horror lurks.
Insanely the Meritar was still listed as a 50mm for the Praktica MTL5 in the mid 1980s. It must have been only for camera's sold in the GDR.
Both forms of the Meritar are silver/black zebras & are pre-set.
_________________
Leica IIIa c/w 50/3.5 Elmar and several Soviet lenses: J12, J8, Ind 22 & Ind 61LD
Nikon FE with 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, 50/1.8 Nikkor AIS 'pancake' and 50mm f2 Arsat-H (nikon AI)
Praktica MTL5 with 30mm f3.5 Lydith, 50/2.9 Meritar, 50mm f2.8 Domiplan, 50mm f3.5 Industar, 58mm Helios & 55mm f1.8 Takumar
Yashica Mat TLR
4x5 Crown Graphic with 6" Beck Biplanat rapid-rectilinear in a Copal #1 & 127mm f4.7 Ektar in Supermatic shutter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 891
Location: Essex UK
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
| luisalegria wrote: |
Ditto Miran.
Possibly the worst old lenses are most third party retrofocus wides, from the 1960s.
Doesnt matter what mount, many of course were M42, even more were t-mount presets, but they came in all sorts of mounts. They almost all have dreadful corners.
Even some quite good makers products suffered from that.
Technology has improved a lot.
That said, they are usually sharp in the center at reasonable apertures and you can of course take excellent pictures with them. |
My Hanimex 7mm/5.5 fixed focus fisheye is far & away the worst of my m42 lenses. It's hard to get it sharp at the centre & impossible at the edges - there are no corners as it gives a circular image. It's image circle is actually smaller than my APSC fisheye, which is a much nicer lens in every respect (surprisingly the price difference was less than a factor of 3).
One of my CZJ Tessars is pretty bad too, due to stuck aperture & very stiff focus, but it's far more usable than the fisheye and it can probably also be fixed with a few hours tinkering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kypfer
Joined: 27 Sep 2017
Posts: 499
Location: Jersey C.I.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
kypfer wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
Yes, a good one is worth having. A 2.9/50 Trioplan even better. |
Haha
I have three Domiplans, one in M42 and two (slightly different) in Exakta mount.
The M42 seems "well-used", the Exakta mount lenses, much less so ... all give perfectly good results for what they were intended for, but do bear in mind they were the "kit" lens of the day and the "standard" print size was the 6x4" enprint!
What minimal comparison testing I've done with my 50mm Trioplan (also in Exakta mount) shows very little difference between the two designs and the 50mm f/2.9 Meritar comes a very close third!
I do suspect a lot of these older lenses have now been "tampered with" in one way or another and may not have been exactly re-aligned when reassembled.
Many older Russian lenses appear to be suffering the same fate!
I prefer to find my old lenses like these still attached to their original camera, often still in the ever-ready case, which can imply they are "one owner from new" and have been simply put away in a cupboard for many years
Back to the original thread ... if we're including T2 mount lenses in this search for "the worst ever", try the Itorex 50mm f/40 (yes, forty) "Pan Focus" lens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex_d
Joined: 19 Jan 2019
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex_d wrote:
The worst lens is not determined by its technical flaws,
but rather by the photographer's inability to utilize it creatively. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2447
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Like always shooting the same house on a mountain in the upper left side of the frame?
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3492
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| alex_d wrote: |
The worst lens is not determined by its technical flaws,
but rather by the photographer's inability to utilize it creatively. |
As long as you take images just for fun this is true.
There are, however, lots of applications of photography where creativity is not desirable.
Often those are the ones which are well paid.
Of course driving a VW Beetle, a Ford T or a Chrysler Turbine may be fun - but most taxi drivers would go bankrupt using them on a daily basis
| D1N0 wrote: |
| Like always shooting the same house on a mountain in the upper left side of the frame? |
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zamo
Joined: 08 Feb 2019
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2023 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Zamo wrote:
| D1N0 wrote: |
| Like always shooting the same house on a mountain in the upper left side of the frame? |
I saw some official statistics about the most photographied buildings in the world and in the top 10 there was a farm/house in Switzerland that noone seem to know why.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex_d
Joined: 19 Jan 2019
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2023 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex_d wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
As long as you take images just for fun this is true.
There are, however, lots of applications of photography where creativity is not desirable.
Often those are the ones which are well paid.
|
i quess (posting) mf public is 99,* % shooting for fun tho |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
