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

Copy variation of lenses thread
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:52 pm    Post subject: Copy variation of lenses thread Reply with quote
Hi!
Especially sovjet lenses are known to have a massive quality spreading between the copies.

But how strict was and is the quality control big brands like Carl Zeiss West, Car Zeiss Jena, Nikon, Minolta, Canon, Pentacon, Meyer, Konica, Rollei, Cosina Voigtländer,... and so on?

Here a comparision between two
Minolta MD 50/1.4 - both in nice condition


Both are perfectly focused, photo made with tripod, in M-mode and with self timer.
If you look closely you can find visible differences (look at the "REMY" of the left bottle for example!).

If you have a lens of any brand twice or more often please post a comparision!


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Copy variation of lenses thread Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
Hi!
Especially sovjet lenses are known to have a massive quality spreading between the copies.


I would disagree with that, out of nearly 40 exemplars, I have yet to have a bad Soviet lens, every copy has been very good. The only example of a lesser one I have owned is the 1967 J-8M Kiev/Contax is not as sharp as my 1957 J-8 Kiev/Contax, but many have reported the same - that the J-8M is less sharp than the J-8. I have 5 J8s, all excellent, 4 J11s, all excellent, 5 I-50s, all excellent. Certainly the 1950s Russians are all excellent, hard to find a red p lens that isn't. They say the later lenses are the variable ones, but none of the 70s and 80s lenses or the two 90s ones I've had was less than excellent.

I honestly think that copy variation is much less than many say and it's the vagaries of condition after 30-40-50 years of life, in the West, Soviet equipment was cheaper than others and often not as well looked after, if in top condition, they all seem to perform great, in my experience, but I've never owned any that were abused.

If you really want to see massive copy variation, look at Japanese third party lenses. I had a Vivitar CF 2.8/28 that was good and one that was excreable. I've had three Hoya/Tokina 2.8/28s, one was not as good as the other two by a noticeable amount.

Pentacon Bayonet mounts are quite variable too, I had a bad copy of the 2.8/135 and two great copies. Same with the 2.8/28, had three of those and one was a dog.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've looked at them both full size on Flickr and there is a slight difference all across the images. The candle flame is bigger in the second image, could it be brighter, casting a haze, or somehow affecting the final image?
I've a few lenses that I've got more than one copy, 3 Helios 44-M, 2 Pentax 50 / 1.7, 2 Canon 50 / 1.8 and 2 Zuiko 50 / 1.8. I'll have to try and have a shoot out. Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I saw little copy variant issues on lenses include Russians. I didn't see ever copy variant issue on well known brands.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
I've looked at them both full size on Flickr and there is a slight difference all across the images. The candle flame is bigger in the second image, could it be brighter, casting a haze, or somehow affecting the final image?
I've a few lenses that I've got more than one copy, 3 Helios 44-M, 2 Pentax 50 / 1.7, 2 Canon 50 / 1.8 and 2 Zuiko 50 / 1.8. I'll have to try and have a shoot out. Laughing


Well, I have a bunch of copies: 2x Helios, 2x Tair-3, 2x FD 50/1.4, 2x FD 24 f2, 2x FD 28 f2, 2x MD 50/1.4 (although these are different iterations), 2x Pentacon 135 f2.8, 2x Jena Tessar 50/2.8, 2x Konica 40/1.8, 2x Konica 135 f3.5, 3x Soligor 100mm f3.5 macro, 2x Sigma 90 f2.8 macro, perhaps some others that I've forgotten. I doubt though that I would get the itch to setup test shots...


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only lens of which i owned enough copies is helios 44.
Many had very little differences that could be due to copy variation, but these were extremely subtle.
The two ones that performed objectively worse than the others were one in awful condition and the other probably wrongly reassembled by a previous owner.
Too many variables to make any claim, one should have many new ones to be sure.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I saw copy variation between two samples of Olympus OM Zuiko 28/2.0. Here are my findings:

- center sharpness wide open: same;
- corner sharpness wide open: sample 1 slightly better than sample 2;
- stopped down sharpness (2.8 and smaller): equal performance;
- vignetting: sample 2 has stronger vignetting (!);
- color balance: when manual color balance was employed in the same lighting conditions, sample 2 showed neutral colors, while sample 1 had slight but visible greenish tint.

Interestingly, sample 1 was the earlier version marked as "MC", while sample 2 was a later plain "Zuiko". Sample 1 was well used (and I kept it), sample 2 looked brand new and came in a box (now sold).

While I can understand sharpness issues, particularly in the corners of images produced with fast wide-angle lenses, I am totally puzzled of different vignetting and color balance characteristics of the two samples. No centering or spacing issues could possibly cause this.

Also, huge copy variation between today's Pentax lenses: my first copy of SMC Pentax DA* 16-50/2.8 was soft on one side (decentering). Returned for another copy, which was (and still is) perfect. Photozone.de quotes decentering issues of varying degree for many, if not most lenses they see in their lab. Now with this kind of QC I can totally agree that older lenses DID have much better build quality and QC.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Light is different in each photo.

Russian lens variation I don't know. GDR variation is documented, such as Pentaocn 2.8/135...


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I forgot.....I've got two Soligor 400's. ( anyone want to buy one ? Laughing )

I might try the 3 Helios together, I don't think the bad reputation of the Russian glass is wholly deserved, I do know that the quality standards of the Russian manufacturing industries was a lottery, I had a Lada Niva for many years! Although a lens is a precision item ( compared to a 4x4 Lada ) it is also a fairly simple construction, it just makes it a bit more difficult to get completely wrong.
The three lenses I have are all in similar good condition, I just pick one up and use it and see no glaring difference. I can try them on the NEX when I get a chance.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Russian gears made millions of copies on affordable price their quality, price ratio still unbeatable, I think copy variant issue is easy if you like it no matter may a better exists , if not like it also no matter, just buy another one. I bought and try 20+ Flektogon 20mm f2.8 lens all did perform very similar I remember for one copy what was above others.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Yashica DSB 55mm f2, in excellent condition on the outside, that came with the camera was crap, another given to me by a member was quite good.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
The Yashica DSB 55mm f2, in excellent condition on the outside, that came with the camera was crap, another given to me by a member was quite good.


Quite good?
I had nothing to compare it with, at the time.

I'm actually quite interested.

Ken


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kendo1 wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
The Yashica DSB 55mm f2, in excellent condition on the outside, that came with the camera was crap, another given to me by a member was quite good.


Quite good?
I had nothing to compare it with, at the time.

I'm actually quite interested.

Ken


Well I have the two now and one is a door stop Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yashica lenses have their uses...


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
The Yashica DSB 55mm f2, in excellent condition on the outside, that came with the camera was crap, another given to me by a member was quite good.


I had one of those and it was so bad I never bothered to post the test shots. It wasn't in the greatest condition though, which was probably a large part of it.

Even at f8 it was soft with dull colours and lower contrast, might have had a misaligned element as the top left is smeary:



[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20132/big_4077_f8_CROP_1.jpg]
[/url]

Someone mentioned the Pentacon 2.8/135, I had a mint M42 Electric one that was sharp as a razor even wide open, wish I'd kept it because none of the 3 I've had since are as good. One example of massive variance has to be the Domiplan, many people have had awful ones, me included before mine fell apart, but Attila had a stunning one.

It's the cheapest end of the market where you see the real dogs. It's well known that Aldis and Wray in England had spotty QC, improperly polished surfaces was apparently quite common. Meanwhile, TTH, Ross and Dallmeyer had reputations for excellence. I suppose the same would be the case in Germany and Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstock, Voigtlander, Meyer and Leitz were all pursuing excellence but there were the likes of Steiner, Ludwig and Staeble who were mass producing cheaper items and probably did have some spotty QC too.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not sure in this instance. ForenSeil, the first image looks front focused and the second back focused. Check both sides of the image at 100%, particularly the writing.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1