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

A value of 50
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kenetik wrote:
Gerald wrote:
Oh, My Gosh! It's amazing how some people keep talking about other people and not about lenses. Shocked

Perhaps this explains why such people purchase so many crappy lenses. Razz


Some of us need to learn more about optics (like me). For others, Gerald, who know a ton about optics as you obviously do, I think time may be better spent learning about people, and how to express your opinion in an online forum without bombastic language that makes you sound like a troll.


+1

Others here could be a little less abrasive too and a little less arrogant.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kenetik wrote:
Some of us need to learn more about optics (like me). For others, Gerald, who know a ton about optics as you obviously do, I think time may be better spent learning about people, and how to express your opinion in an online forum without bombastic language that makes you sound like a troll.


Like many other people I prefer to discuss lenses. If you have something relevant to say about the questions raised by OP, we'd all like to hear your opinion.

Regards


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
We are discussing lenses. You made a load of blatantly false statements about lenses, if you chose to take it personally, then that is upto you, but that is not what the intention was.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
We are discussing lenses. You made a load of blatantly false statements about lenses, if you chose to take it personally, then that is upto you, but that is not what the intention was.


As a non-interested observer I have to say that it were you who made it personal. Nonsense, rubbish, stupid. All these words came from your keyboard first. Just sayin'


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gardener wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
We are discussing lenses. You made a load of blatantly false statements about lenses, if you chose to take it personally, then that is upto you, but that is not what the intention was.


As a non-interested observer I have to say that it were you who made it personal. Nonsense, rubbish, stupid. All these words came from your keyboard first. Just sayin'


Thanks for the pointer, I didn't intend to be personal, now I can see how it could be interpreted that way, I was just saying what I thought, guess I should try to be more circumspect.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The price list below was published in 1984 Almanacco Fotografare. Prices are in lire. To roughly exchange lira for USD, remove three zeros to the right, and then divide the result by 2.

One can see that the prices of many Contax lenses were lower than the corresponding Nikon. But there were cases in which Nikon lenses are cheaper.

The prices reflected the situation of the professional photographic market of the time: 90% of the professionals and serious amateurs bought Nikon and Canon. Of course, there was also a minority who bought Contax.

There is a page in the Zeiss site with what Zeiss calls "historical lenses". There are shown the discontinued old lenses for Hasselblad, Rollei and Sinar cameras. Interestingly, Contax-Yashica lenses are not there! It gives the impression that even Zeiss itself doesn't believe that the lenses used on Yashica-Contax cameras were true Zeiss lenses.




PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Contarex is not listed in the 'historical lenses' and they cannot be found on the 'Lens data sheets, Brochures'. Does this means those Contarex lenses are not true Zeiss?


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:

There is a page in the Zeiss site with what Zeiss calls "historical lenses". There are shown the discontinued old lenses for Hasselblad, Rollei and Sinar cameras. Interestingly, Contax-Yashica lenses are not there! It gives the impression that even Zeiss itself doesn't believe that the lenses used on Yashica-Contax cameras were true Zeiss lenses.


Here are all of the data sheets for the Contax-Yashica lenses Zeiss doesn't consider real Zeiss lenses from the Zeiss site.

http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/service/download_center/contax_yashica.html



PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
The Contarex is not listed in the 'historical lenses' and they cannot be found on the 'Lens data sheets, Brochures'. Does this means those Contarex lenses are not true Zeiss?


I think we can now conclude that Gerald has an unrealistic bias. Rolling Eyes

Apart from some Cosina, Sigma and Samyang made stuff from the early 90s that had the 'Carl Zeiss Jena' branding on due to the UK distributor owning that name in the UK and the Jena company going out of existence post German reunification, Zeiss has never put it's name to anything substandard, the Icarex lenses were Voigtlander designed and built, but carried the Zeiss branding, however they were superb lenses that matched the Zeiss standards.

The Contax Zeiss lenses were designed by Zeiss, by the same designers that produced all the other legendary Zeiss designs, meisters such as Erhard Glatzel:

http://www.zeisshistorica.org/Glatzel.html

Herr Glatzel designed the legendary Makro-Planar 2.8/60 T* for the Contax SLR:



As good as the Micro-Nikkors 2.8/55 and 3.5/55 are (I own both of them) the Makro-Planar is markedly superior.

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:08 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's interesting to see which lenses have held value -- the ultra-fast ones. The Pentax 1.2, for instance, was $175 which is about $450-ish in today's money. Those sell now for upwards of $550. Compared to the Pentax f2, which was then about $125 in today's dollars and sells now for around $12-15.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald don't blame yourself, majority of people here know well Contax lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kenetik wrote:

Here are all of the data sheets for the Contax-Yashica lenses Zeiss doesn't consider real Zeiss lenses from the Zeiss site.
http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/service/download_center/contax_yashica.html


I didn't say the information did not exist. What I said was that the Contax lenses are not in the "Historical Lenses" page! Can't you read?
Hasselblad lenses are there, and both lens systems are from the same time.

What you showed is that information about Contax lenses are deeply buried somewhere in Zeiss site, whereas Hasselblad, Sinar and Rollei lenses are proudly displayed.

Last edited by Gerald on Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:17 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
kenetik wrote:

Here are all of the data sheets for the Contax-Yashica lenses Zeiss doesn't consider real Zeiss lenses from the Zeiss site.
http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/service/download_center/contax_yashica.html


I didn't say the information did not exist. What I said was that the Contax lenses are not in the "Historical Lenses" page! Can't you read?
Hasselblad lenses are there, and both lens systems are from the same time.

What you showed is that information about Contax lenses are deeply buried somewhere in Zeiss site, whereas Hasselblad, Sinar and Rollei lenses are proudly displayed.


I think you need to learn to admit when you are wrong.

There are no grounds whatsoever for the claim that the Zeiss lenses for the Contax SLR are not among the very finest ever produced and truly belong among the pantheon of legendary Zeiss optics.

BTW,. have you ever actually used a Zeiss Contax lens?


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
The Contarex is not listed in the 'historical lenses' and they cannot be found on the 'Lens data sheets, Brochures'. Does this means those Contarex lenses are not true Zeiss?


Well, you could also have mentioned the Zeiss "Historical Lenses" before WWII, or even the nineteenth century, couldn't you?

The Contarex is from a time when PDF files didn't even exist. That was the era of main-frame computers. It is understandable that the Zeiss does not have any information about the Contarex lens in electronic form. On the other hand, PDF documents of Contax lenses do really exist (I downloaded many of them when the Contax sytem was alive), but they are not present on current Zeiss "Historical Lenses" page. Why? Would have been only an inadvertent omission? I don't know, honestly. Draw the conclusions you want.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, the Contax system was launched in the mid 1970s, long before PDFs, so again, your point is wrong.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
David wrote:
It's interesting to see which lenses have held value -- the ultra-fast ones. The Pentax 1.2, for instance, was $175 which is about $450-ish in today's money. Those sell now for upwards of $550. Compared to the Pentax f2, which was then about $125 in today's dollars and sells now for around $12-15.


I suspect that this situation is temporary. When the shallow-depth-of-field fashion is over, people will find out that most of F1.2 lenses from the film era are technically deficient.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
kenetik wrote:

Here are all of the data sheets for the Contax-Yashica lenses Zeiss doesn't consider real Zeiss lenses from the Zeiss site.
http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/service/download_center/contax_yashica.html


I didn't say the information did not exist. What I said was that the Contax lenses are not in the "Historical Lenses" page! Can't you read?
Hasselblad lenses are there, and both lens systems are from the same time.

What you showed is that information about Contax lenses are deeply buried somewhere in Zeiss site, whereas Hasselblad, Sinar and Rollei lenses are proudly displayed.


I can read, thank you for asking (You only want to talk about lenses eh?)

I did draw my own conclusion as you asked, and my conclusion is that you are misinterpreting the term "historical" to mean Zeiss only considers the lenses it designed for use on Hasselblad, Sinar and Rollei important.

Many of their ZE lenses are almost identical optically to the designs used for Contax. You seem to be implying Zeiss doesn't consider those lenses worthy of highlighting, but as you said previously, "On the quality of Zeiss lenses for Contax, only those who live in a dream believe they were better than the Nikons". I find it sad Zeiss is ashamed of such a large part of its catalog.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kenetik wrote:
Many of their ZE lenses are almost identical optically to the designs used for Contax. You seem to be implying Zeiss doesn't consider those lenses worthy of highlighting, but as you said previously, "On the quality of Zeiss lenses for Contax, only those who live in a dream believe they were better than the Nikons". I find it sad Zeiss is ashamed of such a large part of its catalog.


Those are your words, not mine. I never said Zeiss is "ashamed" to have made certain lenses. Please do not put those words in my mouth. What I said was just the lenses for Contax are not on the "Historical Lenses" page. And that is a little strange. By the way, the ZE lenses may have some similarities with the Contax, but they are different lenses.

Did you know that Zeiss also "makes" "Zeiss" lenses for Logitech webcams? Certainly, in 2045 many Zeiss fanatics will be buying old Logitech webcams on eBay because they have "Zeiss" lenses. Laughing

For those who think I'm biased against Zeiss, I inform that I have 14 Zeiss lenses. Mr. Green
And that I like them very much. Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why do you have 14 Zeiss lenses if, as you stated before, Nikons are better?


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
When I started photography the Nikon F was THE 35mm SLR professional camera. Canon could not compete till they launched years later their F1.
Nevertheless the Nikon F was not considered as the most resistant body to be used in a tough environement .

About lenses , the reputation of Nikkors at that time was not really better than Rokkors, Takumars, Canon ,etc .
It is true that Nikon bodies and lenses were generally more expensive than their japanese competitors and not only in Italy ( the new benchmark market? ).
So what? It does not say much.

I cannot say anything about the next generation as I had lost interest for 35mm cameras. I am little bit surprised that suddenly Nikkors would have been playing in another league like Germans say.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
Nevertheless the Nikon F was not considered as the most resistant body to be used in a tough environement .


"The Nikon F revolutionized the photographic market, stealing the thunder of German manufacturers Leica and Zeiss. The F also had a reputation for being extremely resilient to damage or mechanical failure. It became known as "the hockey puck". Many professional photographers, especially photojournalists, began using the F camera system."

"The Nikon F was enormously successful and showed the superiority of the SLR and of the Japanese camera manufacturers. It was the first SLR system to be adopted and used seriously by the general population of professional photographers, especially by those photographers covering the Vietnam War, and those news photographers using motor-driven Nikon Fs with 250-exposure backs to record the various launches of the space capsules in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space programs, all in the 1960s. After the introduction of the Nikon F the more expensive rangefinder cameras (those with focal plane shutters) became less attractive."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F


I am now a little confused Confused World and I thought that Nikon F ruggedness was legendary. Maybe it was all a lie and Americans have never been to the Moon. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
Nevertheless the Nikon F was not considered as the most resistant body to be used in a tough environement


Didn't Nikon have a famous advertisement boasting of their ruggedness. I remember an ad that showed a burned out F, they replaced the shutter curtains and it worked perfectly again.

I'd consider that rugged.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Maybe it was all a lie and Americans have never been to the Moon. Rolling Eyes


You may well roll your eyes. Some people do indeed believe that the moon landings were a hoax. One view is that the hoax was fabricated by Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick subsquently gave clues to his involvement in his film "The Shining". For example, see, or rather listen to, this interview on youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9WLBq9n1X0 Fast forward to ~ minute 50 if you want to avoid the 9/11 stuff.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To be completely honest, I think the first generation of the Nikon SLR lenses were mostly inferior to what many, if not most other companies were making at the time. Nikon chose to use a large mirror and large register distance which meant even designing a standard 50 was harder for them than it was for others.

For example, the original 2/50 for the F, the Nikkor-S 1:2 / 5cm was discontinued as soon as 1964, it was at best mediocre compared to equivalent lenses from other optical companies. It is really only sought after as a collectible rather than a lens for using, in contrast to lenses from the same era produced by Pentax, and virtually any German producer of the era.

The original 1.4/58 was even shorter lived (replaced in 1962) and also not particularly good. Nikon seemingly knew that in order to get their great camera on the market fast enough, they ended up with lenses that weren't good enough, and replaced them as soon as they could get revised designs into production.

The stories about Nikon's lenses being "discovered" and being head and shoulders above the rest should be taken with a grain of salt. Often the history of photographic equipment has been written by the companies with the best ad men. Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
Gerald wrote:
Maybe it was all a lie and Americans have never been to the Moon. Rolling Eyes


You may well roll your eyes. Some people do indeed believe that the moon landings were a hoax. One view is that the hoax was fabricated by Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick subsquently gave clues to his involvement in his film "The Shining". For example, see, or rather listen to, this interview on youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9WLBq9n1X0 Fast forward to ~ minute 50 if you want to avoid the 9/11 stuff.



This was actually in the news very recently, Nvidia used their new gpu to study the light in the photographs and determined in their view the photos and films were indeed taken on the moon:

http://www.cnet.com/news/nvidias-new-gpu-sinks-moon-landing-hoax-using-virtual-light/
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7