View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: Dissapointment lens list |
|
|
Attila wrote:
It was Balu's suggestion I guess same important than good ones.
Nikon D50 kit lens (AF)
Olympus E-300,E1 kit lens (AF)
Auto Revuenon xxx zoom , super crap
Takumar 200mm f3.5 pre-set soft at every aperture
Takumar 28mm f3.5
Nikkor 28mm f3.5
Pentacon 29mm
Mir 1B 35mm
Olympus OM 100mm f2.8
Nikkor 18mm f3.5 _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
bob955i
Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 2495
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bob955i wrote:
Distagon 2.8/21....
It's a disappointment that I can't get one.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
_________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Flekt 35/2,4 - I though that IT WAS MORE SHARP. My summicron 35/2 was more, more, more; much more sharp and contrastier; well, better.
PENTACON 29/2,8
Super dinarex 135/4 (carl Zeiss lens)
Zoomar 36/83
All the 50 mm. with 3 elements (domiplans, Ysarex, lanthar, vaskar,etc) _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 Posts: 2495 Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
- Kiron Vivitar 28/2.5 (mediocre from any POV, I think it's overrated)
- SMC Takumar 28/3.5 (not bad, maybe good when compared to other 28mm lenses, but my expectation was higher)
- Cosina 35/2.8 (huge peripheral CA and lack of sharpness, crap)
- Schneider-Krezunach Edixa-Tele-Xenar (not sure what's the reason of quite high price of this lens; I think it's average)
- Tomioka 55/1.2 (very nice mechanically, very nice look, but if you want take a night shot, choose Tomioka 55/1.4 instead and set identical exposure time, then push exposure value in RAW converter and remove additional noise by gaussian blur -> the resulting picture will be still sharper compared to original version taken by 55/1.2 ) - but I still like this lens
- CZJ eMC Flektogon - not sure... very good wide-opened, nice close-focusing, good bokeh, but I expected a bit lower CA and a bit higher resolution when stopped down (at f/7-9 even 50 years old 35/2.3 Auto Tak performs better).
- SMC Tak 35/2 - good lens, but I expected much lower CA... a bit similar situation to Flektogon
_________________ (almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
trifox
Joined: 14 May 2008 Posts: 3614 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-05-29
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
trifox wrote:
bob955i wrote: |
Distagon 2.8/21....
don't get it!!!
you'll be disappointed much more !!! -
might be stuck on your camera for ages ! >!
what about other lenses you've got then ?
tf
It's a disappointment that I can't get one.... |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE
Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 5486 Location: Left Coast
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
This is an interesting list. I think it could give the wrong idea due to copy variation and poor servicing of older lenses. But here goes anyway.
Big surprise disappointment:
Yashica ML 1.2/55
It was a very good performer from f4-f8 however. Not at all interesting or sharp wide open or even stopped down to f2 becomes sharp by f2.8. Better to miss the one 1/3rd stop (aprx.) and go with a Planar 1.4/50 for half the cost (or less).
Yashica ML 4/200
I have the 4.5/70-210 and it is brilliant. The 4/200 is (was) a huge disapointment. Easily it was outperformed by all others of this focal including some pretty easily had zooms (read cheap).
Vivitar series one vari-focus 2.8/35-85 constant aperture
This lens performs but is a tank (maybe 2 kilos) for it's range and difficult to use quickly. I would rather carry three primes and save my back. Everyone raves about it so It was a surprise loser for me.
Zuiko 16mm fisheye
I don't understand the hype on this one. 2 copies tested both disappointing. My 4/17 super tak is twice as good at 1/3 the price
Not so surprising disapointments
Super tak 3.5/28
Mixxed reviews and mine was crap
Sigma mini wide 24mm
I could not throw it far enough away to escape the stink off of this turd
J9 2/80
Nice lens performance optically but not easy to use. I got a beautiful mint like new copy from Michael. It never loosened up with use. Every time I twist focus it comes loose from the camera. The aperture blades are clean as can be but the ring moves the focus when turned. Very frustrating. It is as many others experienced however.
Special Disapointment (but not really)
Zuiko 2/90
Because I let it go before testing it properly. Just kidding here. I never let my self get to attached to this one. I have too many lenses in this Focal length. It is in a much better home now _________________ Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
2/90 zuiko
Yashica ML 4/200 was huge disappointment for me too. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
NikonD
Joined: 29 Jul 2008 Posts: 1922 Location: Slovenija
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NikonD wrote:
hmmm...
tokina 135/2.8 very soft at f2.8 and huge amounts of CA |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
I did not have any real disappointments, since no lens that I have spent some serious money has disappointed me.
And the lenses that were bad performers, did only cost me some quid.
These are (or rather were) my "not-so-good-lenses":
- Revuenon-Special 2.8/35 (tried two copies, neither one was good)
- Petri Auto C.C. 1.7/50 (decent performer but crappy built)
- Auto Reflecta 1.7/55 (either that is a bad lens or my copy was faulty)
- Greens London 3.5/135 (decent performer but crappy built)
- Panagor Auto Tele 2.8/135 (not too bad, but I had expected more when I bought it)
- Tamron Twin-Tele 5.5/225 (really good as a 2.8/135, but terrible as the 5.5/225, the TC really deteriorates it)
The worst lens I have ever owned is a Tokina 28-80 AF zoom. I am a Tokina Fan, but this lens did not know what "sharpness" and "contrast" means. _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
maddog10
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 Posts: 1072 Location: Maryland, USA
Expire: 2015-02-12
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
maddog10 wrote:
Nikon Series E Zoom 3.5/36-72mm
My initial outing with this lens provided soft focus and poor color rendition (even worse than I expected). I still have it and will try to give it another test sometime in the future. _________________ Michael Hill |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bob955i
Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 2495
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bob955i wrote:
I think others have had the same experience Mike, if what I've read elsewhere is anything to go by. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
koji
Joined: 21 Jul 2008 Posts: 2106 Location: Hiroshima, Japan
Expire: 2012-12-27
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
koji wrote:
Yashica ML Tele and Zooms are all made by Tokina except 28-50/4 zoom.
So it is not surprising, sorry TOKINA. _________________ Our Home Page has 18,200 photos in 575 directories today.
Lenses: https://www.pbase.com/kkawakami/top_level_my_lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Yashica ML tele lenses significantly not same league with shorter one, now I know why.. Thanks! _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Wormhandler
Joined: 19 May 2008 Posts: 106 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wormhandler wrote:
Not dissapointing lenses but a reflection on some of the above posts.
I have not understood where the hype of the super tak 28mm 3,5 comes from. I read about it everywhere on the internet.
I have the super tak 28mm 3,5 and it is a good but "nothing special" performer. And I didn't expect any more from it either when I got it.
I am not sure but I think people has it confused with the 28mm 3,5 SMC K. (K-mount) Not the "M" version.
http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/wide-angle/K28f3.5.html
I do not have this lens but it is said to be a real gem and one of pentax greatest lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Takumar 28mm: Perhaps quality control issue, my copy wasn't good at all. worst 28mm what I ever had. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
A G Photography
Joined: 11 May 2008 Posts: 1480 Location: Bologna - Italy
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A G Photography wrote:
Attila wrote: |
Takumar 28mm: Perhaps quality control issue, my copy wasn't good at all. worst 28mm what I ever had. |
My Tak 28/3.5 is pretty weak too. Instead I just used the Nikkor 28/3.5 and I was pleasently surprised. Very sharp and great colours.
I'll post some shots made with it soon. _________________ Alessandro
My Photography Website
My Blog about Photography and Italian Cuisine
My Photostream on Flickr
--------------------------------------------------------
DSLR: Nikon d80, Olympus e410
SLR: Chinon CX, Fujica ST605n, Nikon f601, Pentacon FM, Pentax Spotmatic SPII, Praktica FX, Praktica FX2, Voigtlander VST1, Yashica FX-3, Zeiss Contaflex
RF: Altissa Altix, Zorki Ie, Kiev 4b
Medium Format: Pentacon Six TL, Zeiss Ikonta 520/2, Mockba 4, Voigtlander Bessa I, Agfa Isolette II, Agfa Isola
Large Format: Cambo SC 4x5, Rodenstock Sinaron 150/5.6, Rodenstock Rodagon 150/5.6, Schneider Kreuznach Symmar 180/5.6
Lenses
Nikkors: 28/3.5 AIS, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/2 H, Micro 55/3.5, Micro 60/2.8, 85/1.8, 135/3.5 AI, 200/4 NAI, 18-55/3.5-5.6, 28-80/3.5-5.6, 55-200/4-5.6
CY: Distagon 28/2.8, Planar 50/1.4, Yashika 50/1.7, Sonnar 135/2.8
CZJ m42-Exakta: Flektogon 20/4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Tessar 40/4.5, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Pancolar 50/2, Biotar 58/2, Biotar 75/1.5, Tessar 80/2.8, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 135/4, Triotar 135/4
CZJ P6: Flektogon 50/4, Flektogon 65/2.8, Biometar 80/2.8, Biometar 120/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer-Pentacon: Orestegon 29/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Lydith 30/3.5, Primagon 35/4.5, Helioplan 40/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Primotar 50/3.5, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Orestor 100/2.8, Trioplan 100/2.8, Helioplan 135/4.5, Orestor 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, Primotar 135/3.5, Primotar 180/3.5, Telemegor 180/5.5, Orestegor 200/4, Pentacon 200/4, Orestegor 300/4, Telemegor 300/4.5, Telemegor 400/5.5
Schneider-Kreuznach: Curtagon 28/4, Curtagon 35/2.8, Xenon 50/1.9, Xenar 50/2.8, Tele Xenar 135/3.5, Tele Xenar 200/4
Russians: Arsat Zodiak 30/3.5, Mir-I 37/2.8, Volna-9 50/2.8, Industar-50 50/3.5, Industar-61 50/2.8, Helios 44 58/2, Helios 44-2 58/2, Helios 44-M-4 58/2, Volna-3 80/2.8, Helios 40 85/1.5, Jupiter 9 85/2, Jupiter 11 135/4
Others: Chinon-Tomioka 55/1.4, Helios 28/2.8, Isco Iscotar 50/2.8, Konica Hexanon 40/1.8, Ludwig Meritar 50/2.9, Schacht Travegon 35/3.5, Schacht Travenon 135/4.5, Sekor 55/1.8, Sigma MF 28/2.8, S-Takumar, 28/3.5, S-Takumar 50/1.4, S-Takumar 55/1.8, S-Takumar 55/2, Steinheil Quinar 135/2.8, Steinheil Culminar 135/4.5, Vivitar 135/2.8, Voigtlander Ultron 50/1.8, Yashica Yashinon DX 50/1.4, Zuiko MC Auto-W 28/2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Wormhandler
Joined: 19 May 2008 Posts: 106 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wormhandler wrote:
My most disapointing lens was the Tamron SP 70-210mm 3,5-4.
Since so many others praised it I was hoping for performance, but I guess I got a bad copy. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I think yes, I had also this tammy and performed pretty well. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
Soligor 450/8 - a particularly poor "wundertute" that is pretty darn bad. I haven't documented it here, its so awful. I don't have many unusable lenses (having very low standards), but this one is. There is certainly some other version of this that may be good though, as Soligor had at least four manufacturers of these.
Tamron 80-250/3.8 Adapt-a-matic - Not terrible, just disappointingly low-quality results for a Tamron, especially such a monumentally huge lens. Worse than cheaper makes of the time.
Komura 300/5 - Much worse than its brothers, the 200 and 400. Though this is one I had to rescue from fungus, maybe that explains it.
Sigma 200/3.5 Scale-focusing - I was disappointed when I bought this thirty years ago and I still am. Flares like crazy and unsharp until closed way down. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
I agree with Andy, copy variation can influence the judgement on a lens especially for the cheaper lenses
Also I think disappointing lenses are not the same thing as bad lenses.
A good lens can be disappointing to us if we can not get from it the results we expect or even simply if that lens does not meet our liking
Also a bad lens can be not disappointing, if we never expected much out of it from the start...
For instance in the disappointing lenses I would place the Jupiter-9, which is undisputably a good lens, and there are many photos out there that prove it, but it just turned out not to be for me what I hoped it could be (while it is perfect for someone else).
But in any case I would never place the J9 in a list of bad lenses. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE
Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 5486 Location: Left Coast
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
Thanks Orio for articulating my point. This is a good exercise to help folks not get the expectations too high on a lens that may sound great. I certainly hope that none of the readers make decisions based on my experience alone. It is simply a case of my disappointment. Again the case of the J9. It is an optically good lens capable of lifetime captures. But Certainly a disappointment on other levels at least for me. This is and will always be a subjective art. Sometimes we photogs have different objectives. _________________ Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
Me too for the Yashica 200 - I thought it was because I have not given it enough time. I don't often use the J9 for the same reason mentioned above, although it is the mechanics that frustrate me, the optics are pretty good.
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ballu
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 912 Location: Columbus, OH. USofA
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ballu wrote:
Thanks Attila for the thread...
F16SUNSHINE wrote: |
This is an interesting list. I think it could give the wrong idea due to copy variation and poor servicing of older lenses. |
This is the reason we should have this list... variation happens in good copy too.... _________________ -Ballu
http://balyanpage.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
zuiko 28:3.5, non centered lens
zuiko 135:3.5, weak border and CA and I don't like rendering
takumar 50:4 macro, I waited better performance wide open _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|