Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
calvin83 wrote: |
I tested my copy on A7 today on a distance about 50 meters. A F2.8, it is sharp up to the middle of the frame. At F4, most part of the frame is sharp enough but not the corners. At F8, the corners looks OK to me but it is never sharp. In comparison, my Vivitar 135/2.8 CF has OK corner start from F2.8. So, this may not be the choice for those who care about corner sharpness but those who likes its bokeh, color and the build quality. |
I don't have the Steinheil Quinar 2.8/135mm, but the 4.5/200mm. It has similar properties.
And yes, your images are really nice!
anscochrome wrote: |
The Steinheil Quinars (and Macro Quinars) were about the finest SLR lenses around in the late 1960's. The problem was the Exakta range of SLR cameras was falling out of favor with the western buying public at that time (Nikon, Pentax, Minolta dominance), and these lenses are mostly available only in Exakta mount. As fine a camera a VX IIa or VX IIb was, people wanted "modern" cameras with instant return mirrors, and the VX1000 and RTL 1000 Exaktas were a step down in reliability, which added to the obscurity of these fine lenses. |
I acutally got two of my three Steinheil lenses when I bought my Minolta SR-2 (the rather rare first Minolta SLR from 1958).
Said Minolta had belonged to a Swiss professional photographer. According to the documents included, he had bought the Minolta SR-2 in 1960, in New York (no Minolta representatives in Europe, let alone in Switzerland back then). Interestingly, he had bought it not with additional Minolta glass, but with Steinheil lenses plus Exakta=>Minolta SR adapter.
It would take another few years until people in Europe would recognize how good the Minolta lenses actually were (compared to contemporary German glass).
S
EDIT: Some interesting (albeit in German) here: https://photobutmore.de/exakta/steinheil/ _________________ www.artaphot.ch |