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

Overpriced apo lathar 125mm f2.5
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kryss wrote:
James, please read my original post.


Not clear from the original post.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This thread stinks, all it has tought me (so far) is that kryss has a huge ego and claims to have a lot of money, it's boastful and distasteful.

I have an idea - why doesn't kryss show us pictures with lenses he owns to support his viewpoints, otherwise it just sounds like hot air generated by an excess of ego, quite frankly.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rolling Eyes this is stupid, let's go out and TAKE SOME PHOTOS instead!!


PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with kryss -

he's got money but he doesn't want to keep CV 125 because he's disappointed by the performance.

He sold it, money spent for something else and what?

What's wrong with this?

I am also not a person who can afford expensive equipment

but what's matter?

What's going on here? Money? Lanthar? Sharing opinion? Discussion?
Being professional?


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For macro work you usually stop down your lens to f5.6 and even more due to DOF. At this aperture all good macros are free of CA. At f8 I can hardly tell differences between my APO-Macro-Elmarit 2.8/100 and Tamron Macro 2.8/90 (except some nuances in color rendering and contrast). Sure, WIDE-OPEN AME beats all my lenses hands down, BUT who shots macros @f2.8?
I think that same applies to CV125. It's surely great lens (based on my experiences with CV90 and CV180), BUT for macro work at small apertures the difference between 2000USD CV125 and 200USD Sigma 105 or Tamron 90 would be neglible. So, I fully agree with kryss, that for his needs, the CV125 is overpriced.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
For macro work you usually stop down your lens to f5.6 and even more due to DOF. At this aperture all good macros are free of CA. At f8 I can hardly tell differences between my APO-Macro-Elmarit 2.8/100 and Tamron Macro 2.8/90 (except some nuances in color rendering and contrast). Sure, WIDE-OPEN AME beats all my lenses hands down, BUT who shots macros @f2.8?
I think that same applies to CV125. It's surely great lens (based on my experiences with CV90 and CV180), BUT for macro work at small apertures the difference between 2000USD CV125 and 200USD Sigma 105 or Tamron 90 would be neglible. So, I fully agree with kryss, that for his needs, the CV125 is overpriced.


does this mean i have to sell my Bentley?

I suppose you have a nice handling hundai I should like just as well.

the 125 is one of the sexiest lenses ever made....if you have the taste for that sort of thing.

Biologically speaking any old fishwife can reproduce just the same or better than your average freak of nature gorgeous goddess, but I know which I'd prefer to stare at Wink


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ahhh, another good ol' "CV Macro Apo-Lanthar 125mm f2.5 totally not worth the price they're going for" Thread!!

We get one of these every few months, it seems :LOL:

What I don't understand is, why do people care? If you didn't think it's worth the money, fine, go shoot with whatever you please. Why do people feel they need to preach it to everybody else, though?


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:

does this mean i have to sell my Bentley?
I suppose you have a nice handling hundai I should like just as well.

Of course not. With CV125 you pay for the added value of IQ at wider apertures, full metal build and exclusivity. With Tamron/Sigma you get plastic finish, lot of CAs wide-open and every amateur world-wide owns one of them. BUT if your business is macro shooting and CV gives you practically identical results as 10 times cheaper lenses, why you will spend your money in CV? Not to mention, that in case of stolen/broken lens, is much easier and cheaper to replace Tammy or Sigma.

uhoh7 wrote:
the 125 is one of the sexiest lenses ever made....if you have the taste for that sort of thing.
Biologically speaking any old fishwife can reproduce just the same or better than your average freak of nature gorgeous goddess, but I know which I'd prefer to stare at Wink

We should accept weird fact, that for someone lenses are just tools and not source of wet dreams Wink
Anyway, I'm finding APO-Macro-Elmarit sexier Mr. Green


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wide open with a 99p lens.



Now back to the 'my wallet is bigger than yours' debate...

Seriously, is there any point at all to this thread?


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
kryss wrote:
I suggest you stop being lazy and read the many articles on the subject of macro,which in itself is very difficult to master

suggesting to Frogfish to stop being lazy and read articles is a personal attack
check his smugmug, you will see that he is not a beginner
please keep the discussion friendly

Frogfish wrote:
Sorry Kryss but that is a total cop-out. You made a statement but now can not back it up. Words are cheap, I seriously doubt it is true if you can't name names

I give links for 3 lens free of CA, what other back up do you need ?


Thank you for the support Poilu ... but truth be told I probably deserved that (I have a thick skin) Wink

Great series of threads you linked to, highlighting the macro potential of the most widely found / or cheap lenses. I particularly liked the Meyer Trioplan shots.

Kryss : This is what I take issue with :
kryss wrote:
I have a number of lenses that produce equal or better results than this cult lens


You had the CV 125 so if your statement above is true then should be able to come clean and name the lenses you think are better. I'm sure there are a lot of people here waiting with bated breath to know what other lenses they can get cheaper that outperform the CV125 ( I know I am) Wink


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Can we all respect the right of others to have an opinion?
I have an Apo Lanthar 125 and take seriously crappy pics with it, but them I'm an amatuer, not overly cashed up but managed to grab one at a good price, wet dream realised. I also own both the Kiron and Lester Dine macros(near enough to the same lens). Can I say which are the better lenses, from one perspective, no, but that Apo is a breeze to use with that extra gradation in focussing. Obviously the Apo Lanthar demands a higher price which may or may not be justified but then, it is bloody good glass and perhaps due to the prices folk pay some of the other macros may be the more under valued items.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For those that lust after overpriced cult lenses to improve their photography,you may be interested in this site Photographer.Google galactinus.xanga.com/ and also links to other comparisons.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So you're not going to name any lenses that you say are better or show us any example shots?

If not, what was the point in this thread in the first place?


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
So you're not going to name any lenses that you say are better or show us any example shots?

If not, what was the point in this thread in the first place?


+10 Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wow, this 99p lens seems to have no CA at all wide open, look as good as the apo lanthar !
are you going to name this lens for the waiting peoples ?

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Wide open with a 99p lens.



PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:

does this mean i have to sell my Bentley?
I suppose you have a nice handling hundai I should like just as well.

Of course not. With CV125 you pay for the added value of IQ at wider apertures, full metal build and exclusivity. With Tamron/Sigma you get plastic finish, lot of CAs wide-open and every amateur world-wide owns one of them. BUT if your business is macro shooting and CV gives you practically identical results as 10 times cheaper lenses, why you will spend your money in CV? Not to mention, that in case of stolen/broken lens, is much easier and cheaper to replace Tammy or Sigma.

uhoh7 wrote:
the 125 is one of the sexiest lenses ever made....if you have the taste for that sort of thing.
Biologically speaking any old fishwife can reproduce just the same or better than your average freak of nature gorgeous goddess, but I know which I'd prefer to stare at Wink

We should accept weird fact, that for someone lenses are just tools and not source of wet dreams Wink
Anyway, I'm finding APO-Macro-Elmarit sexier Mr. Green


well....life is not fair, so in truth I don't have a bentley, 125, or even your super sweet elmarit.

My surrogate is the 90/2.5 tokina, which has to do double duty as my go to infinity 90



there is no denying 2400 can buy a bunch of very interesting lenses.....

on the other hand it's money in the bank---unless you drop the lens!


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
wow, this 99p lens seems to have no CA at all wide open, look as good as the apo lanthar !
are you going to name this lens for the waiting peoples ?


It's a monster Docter Optics zoom out of an old Gretag Imaging minilab machine.

Thread about it here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/docter-optics-3-3-13-9x-wide-angle-zoom-t42004.html


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tokina 90/2.5 surrogate...



felt guilty I had not really tried it enough close, so snapped this today Smile


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Damn that's a nice shot and a cracking lens - look at the detail on that bee!


PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Damn that's a nice shot and a cracking lens - look at the detail on that bee!


OK OK twist my arm.....

this is the "lower middle class" lanthar Smile


tokina 90/2.5 @2.5


PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kryss wrote:
For those that lust after overpriced cult lenses to improve their photography,you may be interested in this site Photographer.Google galactinus.xanga.com/ and also links to other comparisons.


That blog of mine has been dead for a long time. For my more recent take on old and somewhat newer lenses look at my web site at http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/.

I have some pretty good reasonably modern lenses, but I prefer to use old lenses because the results they produce match better my present frame of mind, even the results produced by some optically crappy lenses - either originally or after my adjustments.

Speaking of the price of some "cult" lenses, for some photographers really using a lens, even the cult price of a lens like the 125 mm Apo-Lanthar may be reasonable, not because the lens is really worth the price at some single application but because the lens is good overall, good as a single, all-purpose lens from macro to infinity, at full aperture or stopped down to diffraction limit. It is very easy to spend a fortune buying a lot of cheap or medium price lenses, each very good at a strictly limited area, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Anyway, most "photographers" just waste their money buying optically superior lenses as they only take photos for web use, often at image sizes significantly smaller than 1 Mpixel. Personally, I make a reasonable number of large prints, but these days even most of those are of photos taken with my crappy lenses - I need the good lenses just to show that I have the option, to show that I know what I'm doing.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Vilva,thanks,you proved my point which many obviously missed.I was not saying that the apo- lanthar was a poor lens,rather paying $2000 was a ridiculous price to pay expecting to become a better photographer when equal or better results can be had using other optics by an experienced photographer.Glad to see you here as I have always admired your work.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kryss wrote:
Vilva,thanks,you proved my point which many obviously missed.I was not saying that the apo- lanthar was a poor lens,rather paying $2000 was a ridiculous price to pay expecting to become a better photographer when equal or better results can be had using other optics by an experienced photographer.Glad to see you here as I have always admired your work.



Is there a particular reason why you would single out the Apo-Lanthar when what you just said can be applied to pretty much any single piece of photographic equipment that costs north of $1000?


PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kryss wrote:
Vilva,thanks,you proved my point which many obviously missed.I was not saying that the apo- lanthar was a poor lens,rather paying $2000 was a ridiculous price to pay expecting to become a better photographer when equal or better results can be had using other optics by an experienced photographer.


No lens can automatically make you a better photographer, that's for sure. However, for a serious photographer $2000 is not necessarily a ridiculous price to pay for a good lens or a lens with no alternatives. We must also remember that the list prices of many high quality lenses are even much higher.

Also, when considering the low price alternative lenses, we must remember that they may be very good to a limit or in one aspect like raw resolution but will most probably fall short in some other aspect like micro contrast, which may make or break the final absolute IQ. All lenses are compromises, even Leica and Zeiss lenses, and a serious photographer with a limited purse always has to make a choice between the various compromises available. Very serious photographers will even choose between several copies of the same high quality lens after testing them individually as the differences between the copies may be minute, but they are always there due to manufacturing tolerances. Of course we may ask what kind of differences are really relevant as far as the final audience is concerned. For my (present) kind of photography the usual IQ parameters hardly matter, lucky me Smile

Quote:
Glad to see you here as I have always admired your work.


Thanks, I've been mostly lurking here now that I've tried to leave my lens testing behind in order to do some (hopefully) "real" photography - outside the mainstream and its tributaries. You can also find me on G+, where I'm trying to reach new people, like-minded or not.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Your new site is wonderful, vilva

I have stumbled into a few Kilfitt lenses, and have struggled to get information on the various iterations.

I had no idea about the "robot" with it's burst mode and rock-solid construction.

To those who decry fools like myself who look to good glass to inspire, motivate and resolve-----in spite of limited talent: isn't that the basis of the enitre industry?

Without us, production runs would be much more limted Smile

I'm not going to pay 2K for a lanthar for the same reason I won't pay 6k for an M9---I'm not quite rich enough Smile

I'd love to have one of each, though.

2K might be a deal if it inspires a shooter, and considering build quality, the constant value of the lens, we all throw money away on things which don't approach that "worth".

In todays internet boosted sea of gear and images, getting burnt out, jaded, cynical, and resentful of the unwashed is simply de rigour.

eat the rich, I say Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3